The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Fred Reed ArchiveBlogview
The Inevitability of Eugenics
A Race of Self-Designing Tinker Toys
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Mention of eugenics inevitably results in whoops of horror, gnashing of hair, rending of teeth, and discussion of Hitler. Occasionally, however, matters of importance merit discussion even if they lead to Hitler. If by “eugenics” is meant both the selective breeding of humans and genetic manipulation of ourselves, we will shortly have to discuss it, Fuehrer or no Fuehrer. Google on “Designer babies.”

To the gnashers and renders, eugenics always involves the killing of genetically inferior children, preferably by uniformed Nazis. A better term for this might be “first-degree murder.” Usually it would be.

On the other hand, medical ambiguities exist. What does one do in the case of genetically-related anencephaly? These babies, literally having no brain, can perhaps be kept alive forever at enormous expense, but nobody is there. What is the correct policy?

Eugenics can mean many things other than the killing of defective babies. Many of us already practice an informal, jackleg, shade-tree eugenics. If kids at CalTech, who are very highly selected for intelligence, marry each other partly in hopes of having intelligent children, this is eugenics. How terrible is it? (Oh god, I shouldn’t have said that. We’ll end up with federally mandated genetic affirmative action.)

In a sense, the concentration of high intelligence in good universities and elsewhere, where marriage almost certainly will occur, amounts to inadvertent eugenics. In general, the bright seek each other out. Eugenics.

Other examples can be found. If a couple discover that they are genetically likely to have hemophiliac children,, and to adopt or use a sperm bank, they engage in eugenics. Should they be prevented from doing this?

A woman who goes to a sperm bank and asks for an intelligent donor is practicing eugenics. Is this not completely her business?

All of the foregoing are informal and pretty much under the radar. However, anyone who even casually follows the technical literature knows that we are rapidly approaching the point of being able to manipulate human genetics at the level of DNA. The thing to watch is what is being done with animals, such as the production of super-strong dogs in China by excising the gene for myostatin.

Genetically engineered Beagles. Credit: CNN
Genetically engineered Beagles. Credit: CNN

(CNN)”In a medical breakthrough that is as terrifying as it is extraordinary, scientists in China say they have created dogs that are twice as strong as they would be naturally, through genetic engineering.”

The pooches above are proof of principle. What can be done sometimes, sort of, and riskily in animals today will one day be possible with humans, safely. It is a classic case of not whether but when, and “when” is “real soon.” When “when” arrives, what then? (If you like technoglop, this on CRISPR research at CalBerkeley.)

The progression can be guessed. The advocates (who will not call it “eugenics”) will first argue for the elimination of genetic diseases. It will be hard to argue against the idea. Such things as sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and hemophilia have limited charm.

Next (I think) will come calls for the elimination of genes correlated with cancer, macular degeneration, atherosclerosis, and so on at great length. These too could go away without generating torrents of nostalgia.

Eliminating genetic errors will quickly be accompanied by calls for re-engineering the genome for desirable traits: athleticism, superb vision, and….

Intelligence. Uh-oh.

Here is where things will get sticky. Or begin to. There will be worse.

Intelligence beyond question is largely genetic. Yes, I know: The politically correct argue that intelligence doesn’t exist, and they are themselves compelling evidence for the thesis. Most people who actually have brains think that intelligence is a good thing.

Here uneasiness at Playing God enters the picture. Preventing disease seems pretty much like a vaccination. Nothing wrong with that. Editng ourselves for better hearing or athleticism? Maybe a bit creepy but, well, what’s wrong with having a better jump shot? Intelligence, though….

If increased intelligence meant ten or fifteen points of additional IQ, maybe not too much would happen. But if we designed people with IQs of 300, or mean IQs of 300, they would presumably regard the rest of us as little more than pets. I do not know where the upper bound of genetically engineered intelligence might lie. I don’t think anyone else knows either. It is certain that IQs extreme by our standards would instantly dominate the race. Given humanity’s instinctive immersion in corruption, egotism, psychopathy, war, slaughter, totalitarianism, torture, murder and thievery, caution might be advisable in producing people better than we are at these things. It could be a case of finding out what you asked for after getting it.

Here we encounter other thorny problems. A great deal of evidence suggests that behavior is substantially genetic in origin: twin studies, the ease of breeding dogs to be aggressive or pacific, similarities of neural responses in conservatives and other responses in liberals. This would explain why blacks, whites, Jews and the Chinese have exhibited their characteristic personalities over milennia and most of the planet.

Would we then design people to have desirable behavior? Who would decide what was desirable? The virtuous at NPR would want nice, sensitive people with an appreciation of diversity, safe spaces, and opposition to guns, along with an inability to recognize reality. Conservatives would want stern, wary people yearning to fight to the death against nonexistent threats.

Predictably, militaries already are salivating at the thought of phenomenally strong soldiers with Terminator characteristics: (Daily Mail) supertroops who could run over large distances while carrying extremely heavy loads, go for days without sleep, and so on.

ORDER IT NOW

Militaries attract men who seem to be genetically disposed to war and to subclinical paranoia, much in the manner of dogs who are alarmed by every passing stranger. The said genetically-modified soldiers would of course need the pugnacity of pit-bulls, and the Pentagon, which sees existential threats in pretty much everything, will warn that we have to develop such myrmidons as otherwise the Chinese will do it first. A psychopathy gap will loom.

For the thoughtful, the question of playing God is…unnerving. Are we to be modeling clay, shaped by whatever shapers to be whatever they want us to be? Will the State control the design? To what ends? Idealists may dream of brilliant, pacific philosophers living as one with nature and thinking deep thoughts. Is that what (See? We are back to Hitler) the Fuehrer would create? Do we have any foggy idea of what we apparently are about to get into?

No.

Does this sound ridiculous? Alarmist? Wait ten years.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Eugenics, Genetic Engineering 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. I won’t live to see it, and for once I’m glad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Odysseus
    Eventually, the Singularity will bring you back and you will see it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-inevitability-of-eugenics/#comment-1295467
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. If we can’t maintain a pharmaceutical industry whose products have a litany of side-effects that can be more succinctly called: sudden death; then it’s a bit too soon to tell God to step aside.

    On a different note:

    I don’t see Mensa members writing like Goethe till that happens I’m not polishing the IQ pedestal. Nothing wrong with the article. I’m just tired of people believing that the capacity to match shapes quickly signifies insight and competence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Someone like Goethe is a far outlier but the idea that gemetic engineering needs to produce Goethe's to have an impact is silly. A rise in the average IQ of a population by 5 points would have a huge impact.
    , @expeedee
    IQ is not everything, but because it is correlated so closely with many positive behaviors, it cannot be ignored. Eugenics will probably result in a modest increase in IQ and a very positive shift in beneficial behaviors that will be conducive to a better living standards for societies.

    Also,to the best of my knowledge, no one on the left side of the Bell Curve has ever won a Nobel in science.
  3. On the other hand, medical ambiguities exist. What does one do in the case of genetically-related anencephaly?

    Well, first let’s not let the anencephalic marry and breed. Got to stop those cynical foreigners who wed them only to obtain a green card and permanent residence.

    Read More
  4. The best argument for eugenics is that it is needed to counter dysgenic societal trends and policies that may be the permanent and inevitable result of modern developed nations. For example, smart people, especially women, having fewer children at longer generation intervals, or irresponsible welfare policies.

    Read More
  5. Yay! Can’t wait.

    Going to give it free to Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    it could be interesting how the cathedral reacts to the possibility of enhancing IQ by genetic engineering, in maybe 2050. They might say: as everybody knows we have lied to the public about behavioral differences between the races for around years, and as everybody knows different races have different IQ´s, so now the Gates foundation pays for genetic engineering in Congo and Nigeria (Nigeria then being the second most populous countries in the world, and on the run to surpass India a little later, Congo maybe being the third most populous country). Also they might outlaw genetic engineering outside of subsaharan Africa to make things fair.
  6. Ten years seems to me a bit pessimistic. Being able to edit the genome is necessary, but not sufficient, to implementing any kind of eugenic program; it’s also necessary to understand what genes actually exist and how they are expressed, and that is a much more complex and difficult problem. Having spent a year working for (though not among) bioinformaticians at the vanguard of the field, and thus had opportunity to observe closely at first hand the extent to which knowledge of the human genome has been developed, I would be surprised to see effective eugenics by direct genome editing become possible within my lifetime, and I am yet a fairly young man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pudding
    I agree with you A. In fact, it may even turn out to be impossible to have much effect on IQ, personality traits, talents and most of the general characteristics that people would consider when making "designer babies". It seems that it is rare to find "a gene for" most of these characteristics, as they seem to involve many different segments of the genome interacting. Even something you would think should have a simple identifiable 'gene', such as hair or eye colour, seems to involve several different segments. Personality now looks to be several orders of magnitude more complicated to identify in the gene, let alone manipulate.

    However, simple things could be done to improve the direction, such as finishing the welfare state that allows and encourages the not very able in society to reproduce prolifically.
    , @Fred Reed
    I didn't write clearly. I don't mean that in ten years design will be in flower, certainly not, but that advances are going to bring the issue much more to the attention of the public and that the increasingly obvious implications will cause increasing controversy. Other countries will be less controlled in experimentation I suspect, notably China, and their work will make the news. In short, genetic design is no longer fantasy but a practical technology whose workings are rapidly being figured out. Or so think I.
    , @Sure Thing
    Great.

    Someone who is actually scientifically literate enough to point out current realities.

    Unfortunately, there are also science-trained personnel in the bio-tech field without any intelligent grasp of the limits of paradigm,much less epistemology (genetic investigating into the 'origins
    ' of language for example.)

    Such folk will merely execute the task assigned them, while marketing flogs the snake oil to ignorant investors.
  7. I think before we get to positive eugenics, there will be negative genetics. In exchange for your GMIFA (Guaranteed Minimum Income For Adults) you will be sterilized after two kids, or one, or maybe none.

    Welfare enables the breeding of dead-eyed, 70 IQ savages unable to function in advanced societies. Liberalism will not survive once this becomes common knowledge among the bourgeois and up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @wolfy
    your theory doesn't make any sense.I really doubt 70 IQ people are breeding heavily.
  8. Sounds like ‘Brave New World’…with its distinct class of human beings designed for specific functions of society.

    ‘Gattaca’ was another brilliant take on this issue.

    On the issue of a class of super soldier – historically, that always starts out seeming useful…until they turn on the societies that created them because they have been fed constantly the idea that they are the elite. See janissaries and praetors…among others.

    Read More
  9. @A.
    Ten years seems to me a bit pessimistic. Being able to edit the genome is necessary, but not sufficient, to implementing any kind of eugenic program; it's also necessary to understand what genes actually exist and how they are expressed, and that is a much more complex and difficult problem. Having spent a year working for (though not among) bioinformaticians at the vanguard of the field, and thus had opportunity to observe closely at first hand the extent to which knowledge of the human genome has been developed, I would be surprised to see effective eugenics by direct genome editing become possible within my lifetime, and I am yet a fairly young man.

    I agree with you A. In fact, it may even turn out to be impossible to have much effect on IQ, personality traits, talents and most of the general characteristics that people would consider when making “designer babies”. It seems that it is rare to find “a gene for” most of these characteristics, as they seem to involve many different segments of the genome interacting. Even something you would think should have a simple identifiable ‘gene’, such as hair or eye colour, seems to involve several different segments. Personality now looks to be several orders of magnitude more complicated to identify in the gene, let alone manipulate.

    However, simple things could be done to improve the direction, such as finishing the welfare state that allows and encourages the not very able in society to reproduce prolifically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    I agree with you and A. I would estimate that DNA selection in vitro is ten years away, with the first applications being to eliminate the more debilitating genetically-linked diseases. Rich families will be first adopters, of course.

    Eugenics for trait selection and/or elimination is a bit of a tricky proposition. Even moderate success, when and if achieved, must by its very nature be at least one generation away (plus a half to allow for cohort maturation, observation and testing).

    Consider another possibility: that human intelligence (as sapiens sapiens) has a very finite, physically-bound limit. Outliers tend to be specialized forms -- the most "noticed" examples being math prodigies. Further, intelligence as "IQ" interacts with memory, or it just doesn't work at all.

    As analogy, as yourself "How smart can selective breeding make a dog?" Border collie valedictorian? By the same token, how smart can genetic tinkering make a human? As I see it, a legitimate and stable (and not punitively recessive in the pure Mendelian sense) mutation must be achieved.

    My breath, I'm not holding.
  10. Right. Intelligence is power not goodness. As long as humans remain evil less intelligence would be better.

    Given our current goodness/intelligence ratio we will soon have things like cloned legless space travelers. Legs just get in the way in zero gravity. Such single purpose creatures will not be people. They will be objects owned by super intelligent creatures who will also not be people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    As long as humans remain evil less intelligence would be better.
     
    You may have a point.

    We also need to ask - just how many very very high IQ people do we need? We could end up with people with 160 IQs working in McDonalds or driving cabs or collecting our trash. Those 160 IQ people will end up being very unhappy and may cause more social problems than or IQ 85 people.

    And the very last thing we need is an increase in the number of intellectuals. We already have a surplus. Surplus intellectuals are a huge danger. From the French Revolution up to the present day most of the evils in the world have been caused by surplus intellectuals. I would argue that we need fewer intellectuals. I'd like to see the government doing more to stop intellectuals from breeding. University professors who have more than one child should lose tenure.

    And no, I'm not joking.
  11. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Welcome back Fred.
    I was afraid that we lost you because of your last few articles.
    This is the type of article that always made you stand out from the crowd.

    There is a movie in the same vein as this article:. “GATTACA”.
    It even has Gore Vidal, a genuine intellectual heavyweight.

    Brave new world my friend.
    We are already passengers on the ride and we cannot get-off.
    So we might as well fasten our seat-belts and enjoy the ride.

    Read More
  12. @A.
    Ten years seems to me a bit pessimistic. Being able to edit the genome is necessary, but not sufficient, to implementing any kind of eugenic program; it's also necessary to understand what genes actually exist and how they are expressed, and that is a much more complex and difficult problem. Having spent a year working for (though not among) bioinformaticians at the vanguard of the field, and thus had opportunity to observe closely at first hand the extent to which knowledge of the human genome has been developed, I would be surprised to see effective eugenics by direct genome editing become possible within my lifetime, and I am yet a fairly young man.

    I didn’t write clearly. I don’t mean that in ten years design will be in flower, certainly not, but that advances are going to bring the issue much more to the attention of the public and that the increasingly obvious implications will cause increasing controversy. Other countries will be less controlled in experimentation I suspect, notably China, and their work will make the news. In short, genetic design is no longer fantasy but a practical technology whose workings are rapidly being figured out. Or so think I.

    Read More
    • Replies: @A.
    "In short, genetic design is no longer fantasy but a practical technology whose workings are rapidly being figured out."

    Well, yes, if you're a prokaryote, that being the only sort of organism where bioinformatics has made serious inroads on anything like a comprehensive gene atlas -- but such organisms have genomes both orders of magnitude smaller, and orders of magnitude less complex, than even single-celled eukaryotes, to say nothing of any multicellular organism.

    When I worked for bioinformaticists, the organization that employed me was engaged in a couple of different large projects which involved collaboration with Chinese researchers in the same field. I suppose it's possible that those researchers weren't at the forefront of the field in China, or perhaps that their seeming rough parity with their US peers was merely an appearance produced by dissimulation rather than an accurate perception of reality. But I don't think it especially likely.

    Don't get me wrong! If your only source for information on bioinformatics is the popular science press, I can entirely understand how you'd come by the idea that bioinformatics is on the very verge of making effective eugenics possible. Having had the good fortune of an opportunity to observe the field closely and at length, I'm a little better equipped than many to recognize such exaggeration for what it is.
  13. @Pudding
    I agree with you A. In fact, it may even turn out to be impossible to have much effect on IQ, personality traits, talents and most of the general characteristics that people would consider when making "designer babies". It seems that it is rare to find "a gene for" most of these characteristics, as they seem to involve many different segments of the genome interacting. Even something you would think should have a simple identifiable 'gene', such as hair or eye colour, seems to involve several different segments. Personality now looks to be several orders of magnitude more complicated to identify in the gene, let alone manipulate.

    However, simple things could be done to improve the direction, such as finishing the welfare state that allows and encourages the not very able in society to reproduce prolifically.

    I agree with you and A. I would estimate that DNA selection in vitro is ten years away, with the first applications being to eliminate the more debilitating genetically-linked diseases. Rich families will be first adopters, of course.

    Eugenics for trait selection and/or elimination is a bit of a tricky proposition. Even moderate success, when and if achieved, must by its very nature be at least one generation away (plus a half to allow for cohort maturation, observation and testing).

    Consider another possibility: that human intelligence (as sapiens sapiens) has a very finite, physically-bound limit. Outliers tend to be specialized forms — the most “noticed” examples being math prodigies. Further, intelligence as “IQ” interacts with memory, or it just doesn’t work at all.

    As analogy, as yourself “How smart can selective breeding make a dog?” Border collie valedictorian? By the same token, how smart can genetic tinkering make a human? As I see it, a legitimate and stable (and not punitively recessive in the pure Mendelian sense) mutation must be achieved.

    My breath, I’m not holding.

    Read More
  14. If a population increased it’s average IQ by as much as 10-15 points (which I suspect is still a long way off) that would have a massive impact. That’s roughly the size of the average white gentile/Ashkenazi Jew difference. Even an increase in the average IQ of a population by 2-5 points would have a very substantial impact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    If a population increased it’s average IQ by as much as 10-15 points (which I suspect is still a long way off) that would have a massive impact.
     
    Oh, yes. A very negative impact as far as the society is concerned. Intelligent people are very difficult to control. Social stability would suffer. Civilization as we know it would likely destabilize (further than it has destabilized to this point).
  15. @Alex V Weir
    If we can't maintain a pharmaceutical industry whose products have a litany of side-effects that can be more succinctly called: sudden death; then it's a bit too soon to tell God to step aside.

    On a different note:

    I don't see Mensa members writing like Goethe till that happens I'm not polishing the IQ pedestal. Nothing wrong with the article. I'm just tired of people believing that the capacity to match shapes quickly signifies insight and competence.

    Someone like Goethe is a far outlier but the idea that gemetic engineering needs to produce Goethe’s to have an impact is silly. A rise in the average IQ of a population by 5 points would have a huge impact.

    Read More
  16. “Militaries attract men who seem to genectically disposed to war and sub-clinical paranoia, much in the manner of dogs who alarmed by every passing stranger.”

    Paranoia has been strongly selected for throughout evolutionary history. It’s not just dogs and men who are paranoid. Rabbits and mice are even more paranoid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Paranoia has been strongly selected for throughout evolutionary history.
     
    A misnomer. "Paranoia" has implications not supported by premises of Darwinian evolution. (A nasty side-effect of the early popularity of experimentally-unsupportable Freudian theory.)

    Alertness and vigilance have been selected, not "paranoia". When you see those traits displayed in all prey species, do you call it paranoia? When a male deer is alert to the protection of his harem, do you call it paranoia? Of course not.

    Now, I'll grant that you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion should be supported by both theory and observation. Should be. "Paranoia" has a meaning in Freudian and neo-Freudian theory that does not apply to genetics and animal behavior.
  17. Chinos are like children with INTP personality types, they on average and seems, simply don’t know the existence of a certain word called ETHICS. But it seems very common in western ”academia’s’ as well in communshit corner’s.

    If a down syndrome teenager look to the beautiful girl with same age she will feel correctly inferior by this comparative standards. Of course, people on their inner existencial self importance AND based on ultra-reality where every individual will be at the best useful FOR selection and therefore meaningless like life, will be valorous.

    Eugenics correlate very well with equality on quality.

    Maybe if most of people were phenotypical clones one each other but with certain positive personality-diversity, altruism would be MORE universal and i hope with less fat-MMoore’s left-types.

    Read More
  18. I would have thought modern society has received enough from the superiors now such as from developing nuclear weapons, cell phones and equal rights for women. But DNA designed children are probably not far off though they might want to store some original DNA just in case they make a mistake, you know like comic book heros with their superpowers could be a problem.

    Read More
  19. @Jim
    "Militaries attract men who seem to genectically disposed to war and sub-clinical paranoia, much in the manner of dogs who alarmed by every passing stranger."

    Paranoia has been strongly selected for throughout evolutionary history. It's not just dogs and men who are paranoid. Rabbits and mice are even more paranoid.

    Paranoia has been strongly selected for throughout evolutionary history.

    A misnomer. “Paranoia” has implications not supported by premises of Darwinian evolution. (A nasty side-effect of the early popularity of experimentally-unsupportable Freudian theory.)

    Alertness and vigilance have been selected, not “paranoia”. When you see those traits displayed in all prey species, do you call it paranoia? When a male deer is alert to the protection of his harem, do you call it paranoia? Of course not.

    Now, I’ll grant that you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion should be supported by both theory and observation. Should be. “Paranoia” has a meaning in Freudian and neo-Freudian theory that does not apply to genetics and animal behavior.

    Read More
  20. @Jim
    If a population increased it's average IQ by as much as 10-15 points (which I suspect is still a long way off) that would have a massive impact. That's roughly the size of the average white gentile/Ashkenazi Jew difference. Even an increase in the average IQ of a population by 2-5 points would have a very substantial impact.

    If a population increased it’s average IQ by as much as 10-15 points (which I suspect is still a long way off) that would have a massive impact.

    Oh, yes. A very negative impact as far as the society is concerned. Intelligent people are very difficult to control. Social stability would suffer. Civilization as we know it would likely destabilize (further than it has destabilized to this point).

    Read More
    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Difficult to control for what??
    , @Jim
    Well are we at optimum now or we should try to decrease the average intelligence of the US population?
  21. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Paranoia has been strongly selected for throughout evolutionary history.
     
    A misnomer. "Paranoia" has implications not supported by premises of Darwinian evolution. (A nasty side-effect of the early popularity of experimentally-unsupportable Freudian theory.)

    Alertness and vigilance have been selected, not "paranoia". When you see those traits displayed in all prey species, do you call it paranoia? When a male deer is alert to the protection of his harem, do you call it paranoia? Of course not.

    Now, I'll grant that you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion should be supported by both theory and observation. Should be. "Paranoia" has a meaning in Freudian and neo-Freudian theory that does not apply to genetics and animal behavior.

    Freud’s theories are crap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Freud’s theories are crap.
     
    They sure are. That's what I implied. While I am, of course, grateful and appreciative that your opinion resembles my own, the notion that "paranoia" has been, and is, a genetically-selected trait, is pure, undiluted, unblemished bullshit.
  22. @Jim
    Freud's theories are crap.

    Freud’s theories are crap.

    They sure are. That’s what I implied. While I am, of course, grateful and appreciative that your opinion resembles my own, the notion that “paranoia” has been, and is, a genetically-selected trait, is pure, undiluted, unblemished bullshit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Forget the word "paranoia". Certainly fear of other living things has been strongly selected for over many hundreds of millions of years.
  23. @John Jeremiah Smith

    If a population increased it’s average IQ by as much as 10-15 points (which I suspect is still a long way off) that would have a massive impact.
     
    Oh, yes. A very negative impact as far as the society is concerned. Intelligent people are very difficult to control. Social stability would suffer. Civilization as we know it would likely destabilize (further than it has destabilized to this point).

    Difficult to control for what??

    Read More
  24. Negative eugenics merely takes over the evolutionary function of natural selection. We’re already in uncharted water for natural selection because medical and social care have advanced to the point where carriers of undesirable genetic traits have a greater chance of reproductive success. The social cost is considerable. While we are loathe to consider restrictions on the right to reproduce, the bottom line is that for most of human history reproduction has been restricted by things such as food supply, social hierarchy, and economics. While we regard the right to reproduce as a fundamental human right, the fact is that those who circumstantially don’t reproduce are not regarded as individuals whose rights have been violated. There is in principle nothing wrong with restricting or discouraging reproduction for those manifestly not up to the responsibility of raising children. We require licenses to operate motor vehicles, which can be suspended or revoked if someone’s behavior shows that they’re not up to the responsibility. We need some equivalent enforcement mechanism for the privilege of reproduction. Irresponsible reproduction has a social cost at least as great as drunk driving. While restricting it would not be negative eugenics per se, it would eliminate from the gene pool many whose behavioral issues making them unsuitable reproducers are rooted in genetics. As it is, Cluster B types lack the inhibitions on reproducing that normal people might have. And that is at least in part a genetic problem.

    Positive eugenics is fraught with the possibility of unintended consequences. What kind of society would arise from a population with genetically-engineered super soldiers? What kind of unforeseen health issues would be side effects of genetic engineering for physical ability? What behavioral and personality traits could arise as a side effect from genetic engineering for intelligence? Dog breeding has shown a remarkable ability to achieve desired traits – along with undesirable ones that lead to some breeds being failures in the strictly biological sense. Embarking on such a venture with humans does not seem like such a good idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    "We need some equivalent enforcement mechanism for the privilege of reproduction. "

    which government bureaucrats would have the power to grant me a license to have children ?
    here in America this would make it more difficult for white christians to have children.

    A better solution, just force all those on welfare to be put on Norplant
    Those collecting food stamps should be implanted with Norplant...which works for 5 years.
    To qualify for section 8 housing, women must be sterilized or injected with Norplant.
  25. Since IQ is produced by thousands of genes, each with very small effects, it will be much more difficult to substantially increase intelligence than to deal with conditions produced by a handful of genes.
    According to a recent paper in Nature, simply not marrying your cousins is worth 4.5 IQ points (Pakistanis take notice)…

    Read More
  26. Nicely crafted piece, Fred. You manage to hit the nail square-on most of the time.

    Read More
  27. @Alex V Weir
    If we can't maintain a pharmaceutical industry whose products have a litany of side-effects that can be more succinctly called: sudden death; then it's a bit too soon to tell God to step aside.

    On a different note:

    I don't see Mensa members writing like Goethe till that happens I'm not polishing the IQ pedestal. Nothing wrong with the article. I'm just tired of people believing that the capacity to match shapes quickly signifies insight and competence.

    IQ is not everything, but because it is correlated so closely with many positive behaviors, it cannot be ignored. Eugenics will probably result in a modest increase in IQ and a very positive shift in beneficial behaviors that will be conducive to a better living standards for societies.

    Also,to the best of my knowledge, no one on the left side of the Bell Curve has ever won a Nobel in science.

    Read More
    • Replies: @grey enlightenment2
    *, no one on the left side of the Bell Curve has ever won a Nobel in science.*

    give it 50 years and progressive liberalism will make it happen
  28. Damn Fred, see what happens when you lay off the Presidente Mexican Brandy for a couple of days? You can write a masterpiece.

    Read More
  29. @RW
    The best argument for eugenics is that it is needed to counter dysgenic societal trends and policies that may be the permanent and inevitable result of modern developed nations. For example, smart people, especially women, having fewer children at longer generation intervals, or irresponsible welfare policies.

    dysgenics while occurring is not so severe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RW
    Wolfe, I see no reason to be so sanguine about it. Smarter women have fewer children at longer generational intervals. While welfare encourages the less fit to have lots of less fit children.
  30. @The Anti-Gnostic
    I think before we get to positive eugenics, there will be negative genetics. In exchange for your GMIFA (Guaranteed Minimum Income For Adults) you will be sterilized after two kids, or one, or maybe none.

    Welfare enables the breeding of dead-eyed, 70 IQ savages unable to function in advanced societies. Liberalism will not survive once this becomes common knowledge among the bourgeois and up.

    your theory doesn’t make any sense.I really doubt 70 IQ people are breeding heavily.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan D Mute

    your theory doesn’t make any sense.I really doubt 70 IQ people are breeding heavily.
     
    Clearly you haven't visited Detroit or East St Louis or Birmingham lately..
  31. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Yes Fred still believes his own lies about Mexico and Mexicans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Yes Fred still believes his own lies about Mexico and Mexicans.
     
    Everyone talks his book and invents his own mythology with himself as the hero. Women too, hbdgirl. And Fred's life is good with a child and being married to a younger Mexican who prolly has little indigenous in her but its all good.

    What is Talking My Book? definition and meaning
    www.investorwords.com/8436/talking_my_book.html
    Definition of talking my book: An investing expression which means arguing for a scenario that, if true, would end up making you money because it...
     

  32. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    If anything people should be bred for good looks. Who cares about being super-smart if one has to go through life looking like some dweeby nerd?

    Read More
  33. If we start genetically engineering humans there is absolutely no doubt what will happen.

    The rich will demand that the working class be bred to be docile, hard-working, loyal, and fertile. Like domestic animals. Which is what the rich have always wanted us to be.

    Of course the rich will breed themselves to be strong, smart, and long-lived.

    Do your really think that genetic engineering will be done by nerdy scientists looking to improve the human race in a general sense, and perhaps there will be unintended consequences? Such a naive vision. No, genetic engineering will be done with laser-focus on the consequences, and they will want non-elite humans to be good little proles. Count on that.

    Read More
  34. Assortative mating can produce eugenic or dysgenic outcomes. The problem has been that there are many more over-reproducing stupid bad people and smart good people tend to under-reproduce. The dummies definitely need directed evolution.

    And in my opinion, anencephalic clones coupled with brain transplants would be a good way to extend lifespans and probably cheaper than some of the horribly expensive end of life care.

    Read More
  35. @WorkingClass
    Right. Intelligence is power not goodness. As long as humans remain evil less intelligence would be better.

    Given our current goodness/intelligence ratio we will soon have things like cloned legless space travelers. Legs just get in the way in zero gravity. Such single purpose creatures will not be people. They will be objects owned by super intelligent creatures who will also not be people.

    As long as humans remain evil less intelligence would be better.

    You may have a point.

    We also need to ask – just how many very very high IQ people do we need? We could end up with people with 160 IQs working in McDonalds or driving cabs or collecting our trash. Those 160 IQ people will end up being very unhappy and may cause more social problems than or IQ 85 people.

    And the very last thing we need is an increase in the number of intellectuals. We already have a surplus. Surplus intellectuals are a huge danger. From the French Revolution up to the present day most of the evils in the world have been caused by surplus intellectuals. I would argue that we need fewer intellectuals. I’d like to see the government doing more to stop intellectuals from breeding. University professors who have more than one child should lose tenure.

    And no, I’m not joking.

    Read More
  36. @Hitler
    Yay! Can't wait.

    Going to give it free to Africa.

    it could be interesting how the cathedral reacts to the possibility of enhancing IQ by genetic engineering, in maybe 2050. They might say: as everybody knows we have lied to the public about behavioral differences between the races for around years, and as everybody knows different races have different IQ´s, so now the Gates foundation pays for genetic engineering in Congo and Nigeria (Nigeria then being the second most populous countries in the world, and on the run to surpass India a little later, Congo maybe being the third most populous country). Also they might outlaw genetic engineering outside of subsaharan Africa to make things fair.

    Read More
  37. “If increased intelligence meant ten or fifteen points of additional IQ, maybe not too much would happen. But if we designed people with IQs of 300, or mean IQs of 300, they would presumably regard the rest of us as little more than pets.”

    Wow – clearly the blogger is clueless. A 10-15 point in crease in IQ is very significant.

    The idea that we could design people with IQs of 300 – far beyond what any human has yet achieved – is just profoundly silly. That would require not merely selecting the best available genes that have been produced by natural selection, but designing new alleles that would produce the necessary revolutionary neural networks in a human brain.

    Much easier to produce a computer with an IQ of 300.

    Read More
  38. @Discard
    I won't live to see it, and for once I'm glad.

    Eventually, the Singularity will bring you back and you will see it.

    Read More
  39. @Anonymous
    Yes Fred still believes his own lies about Mexico and Mexicans.

    Yes Fred still believes his own lies about Mexico and Mexicans.

    Everyone talks his book and invents his own mythology with himself as the hero. Women too, hbdgirl. And Fred’s life is good with a child and being married to a younger Mexican who prolly has little indigenous in her but its all good.

    What is Talking My Book? definition and meaning
    http://www.investorwords.com/8436/talking_my_book.html
    Definition of talking my book: An investing expression which means arguing for a scenario that, if true, would end up making you money because it…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fred Reed
    Actually Fred's wife is well on the brown side and, being one of those female multi-taskers we read about, is currently reading Hobbes, Aristotle, Milan Kundera, Hunter Thompson (in Spanish), as well as Robert Graves' two-volume thing on mythology as well as a couple of other things on the bedside table that I'm not going to go look at. This is an actual data point, verified daily over coffee with three useless but agreeable cats in bed with us. The cats do probably have low IQs. Fred's stepdaughter, based on his admittedly inexactly and anecdotal observation, would have no trouble entering Mensa. But, as I have repeatedly observed, nobody knows more about Mexico than those who know nothing about it.
  40. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    A selecting for positive traits type of eugenics would require so many alterations to current norms, it seems to me, that it will take a few generations of negative selecting eugenics experience to incorporate it.
    Certainly, many people, as in Fred’s Cal-Tech example do it now, naturally, but if done in a lab, mistakes will surely occur and these mistakes will serve as constant examples of the possibility of more mistakes, ones that parents will have to live with and deal with in the public, etc. It’s similar to nuclear technology in that regard. One of the reasons that the whole world isn’t powered by nuclear power is that the mistakes are so awful. Ditto for the bombs.

    Read More
  41. There are plenty of empty-eyed subnormals about, and they breed like rabbits.

    Who do you think is contributing most to the explosion from 3 to (very soon) 8 thousand billion? The exponential paces of the population explosions from 3 to 6, 6 to 7, 7 to 8 thousand million, soon to arrive, are mainly from subnormals, encouraged by their mullahs or witch-doctors to make demographic war.

    In my time in an English-speaking country, I had enough trouble with some near-average people, my English is good enough, but I would often get ‘I don’t understand a word you are saying’. So they were too stupid to follow the conversation.

    Ehrlich is often derided for his book. Extreme use of phosphates and petrochemicals for fertiliser are the only reasons he was wrong.

    His basic thesis was correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    What the world does need a is a tasty birth control drink given to all the 3rd world peoples. Shrink the world's population to say 3 billion, then we can talk about enhancing the homo sapiens.
  42. Corollary: what if instead of engineering children with IQs of 300, you engineered children with IQs of 80, with personalities disposed to hard work and blind obedience? What if you engineered braindead people with especially healthy organs?

    There’s no reason to assume a genetically engineered elite will want to share their gifts with the masses. Quite the opposite. If we can improve our genes, we can also degrade them, and that’s a hell of a lot scarier in my opinion.

    Read More
  43. People laugh at transhumanism now. But wait until an enhanced woman goes into the mountains, creates an ice castle with her superpowers and plunges the world into endless winter . . .

    Read More
  44. All I really care about right now is the progress of regenerative medicine and the ability of doctors to reprogram my cells to where they were when I was 20 years old. That works for me and I don’t even have to get involved in philosophical discussions about “what Jesus would do”.

    Read More
  45. @Thirdeye
    Negative eugenics merely takes over the evolutionary function of natural selection. We're already in uncharted water for natural selection because medical and social care have advanced to the point where carriers of undesirable genetic traits have a greater chance of reproductive success. The social cost is considerable. While we are loathe to consider restrictions on the right to reproduce, the bottom line is that for most of human history reproduction has been restricted by things such as food supply, social hierarchy, and economics. While we regard the right to reproduce as a fundamental human right, the fact is that those who circumstantially don't reproduce are not regarded as individuals whose rights have been violated. There is in principle nothing wrong with restricting or discouraging reproduction for those manifestly not up to the responsibility of raising children. We require licenses to operate motor vehicles, which can be suspended or revoked if someone's behavior shows that they're not up to the responsibility. We need some equivalent enforcement mechanism for the privilege of reproduction. Irresponsible reproduction has a social cost at least as great as drunk driving. While restricting it would not be negative eugenics per se, it would eliminate from the gene pool many whose behavioral issues making them unsuitable reproducers are rooted in genetics. As it is, Cluster B types lack the inhibitions on reproducing that normal people might have. And that is at least in part a genetic problem.

    Positive eugenics is fraught with the possibility of unintended consequences. What kind of society would arise from a population with genetically-engineered super soldiers? What kind of unforeseen health issues would be side effects of genetic engineering for physical ability? What behavioral and personality traits could arise as a side effect from genetic engineering for intelligence? Dog breeding has shown a remarkable ability to achieve desired traits - along with undesirable ones that lead to some breeds being failures in the strictly biological sense. Embarking on such a venture with humans does not seem like such a good idea.

    “We need some equivalent enforcement mechanism for the privilege of reproduction. ”

    which government bureaucrats would have the power to grant me a license to have children ?
    here in America this would make it more difficult for white christians to have children.

    A better solution, just force all those on welfare to be put on Norplant
    Those collecting food stamps should be implanted with Norplant…which works for 5 years.
    To qualify for section 8 housing, women must be sterilized or injected with Norplant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    It's kind of difficult to tell which side of the fence you're arguing on. On the one hand, you object to "government bureaucrats" having the power to mete out the privilege of reproduction and raise the specter of white Christians being denied reproductive privileges. On the other hand, you endorse Norplant for welfare recipients and such as a means for enforcing the privilege. Contradictory as your arguments seem, I can see some merit to both of them.

    There is in fact a statistical correlation between lower intelligence and church attendance, so there may be a higher occurrence of the incurably incompetent among church attendees. There is nothing to suggest that white Christians deserve a waiver on standards for reproductive privileges. If the result is selection for more intelligent groups than white Christians in the gene pool, then so be it.

    Norplant for women receiving public assistance also has merit, even though it raises howls of indignation and the devil is in the details. Most recipients of public assistance are white, BTW.

    One qualification for reproductive privileges should be a high school diploma, coupled with mandatory reproductive health and child-rearing education in the curriculum. The child-rearing education should include everything from infant care to developmental psychology to reproductive economics. Those topics should be covered in any skills exam for graduation. If home-schoolers want it to count towards reproductive privileges, they can present the required curriculum. If they're opposed to it on ideological or religious grounds, too bad. They forfeit their child's reproductive privileges. Norplant could also be used as an enforcement mechanism for reproductive privileges among non-graduates. My guess is that we'd see a much greater effort among some populations towards finishing high school.
    , @Stan D Mute

    A better solution, just force all those on welfare to be put on Norplant
    Those collecting food stamps should be implanted with Norplant…which works for 5 years.
    To qualify for section 8 housing, women must be sterilized or injected with Norplant.
     
    I've been arguing this for over twenty years. It is simple common sense that if one lacks the ability to feed oneself, s/he should not be allowed to foist a new liability onto the public purse. But invariably the response to the suggestion is, "Hitler! Nazi!"
  46. @Che Guava
    There are plenty of empty-eyed subnormals about, and they breed like rabbits.

    Who do you think is contributing most to the explosion from 3 to (very soon) 8 thousand billion? The exponential paces of the population explosions from 3 to 6, 6 to 7, 7 to 8 thousand million, soon to arrive, are mainly from subnormals, encouraged by their mullahs or witch-doctors to make demographic war.

    In my time in an English-speaking country, I had enough trouble with some near-average people, my English is good enough, but I would often get 'I don't understand a word you are saying'. So they were too stupid to follow the conversation.

    Ehrlich is often derided for his book. Extreme use of phosphates and petrochemicals for fertiliser are the only reasons he was wrong.

    His basic thesis was correct.

    What the world does need a is a tasty birth control drink given to all the 3rd world peoples. Shrink the world’s population to say 3 billion, then we can talk about enhancing the homo sapiens.

    Read More
  47. @Clyde

    Yes Fred still believes his own lies about Mexico and Mexicans.
     
    Everyone talks his book and invents his own mythology with himself as the hero. Women too, hbdgirl. And Fred's life is good with a child and being married to a younger Mexican who prolly has little indigenous in her but its all good.

    What is Talking My Book? definition and meaning
    www.investorwords.com/8436/talking_my_book.html
    Definition of talking my book: An investing expression which means arguing for a scenario that, if true, would end up making you money because it...
     

    Actually Fred’s wife is well on the brown side and, being one of those female multi-taskers we read about, is currently reading Hobbes, Aristotle, Milan Kundera, Hunter Thompson (in Spanish), as well as Robert Graves’ two-volume thing on mythology as well as a couple of other things on the bedside table that I’m not going to go look at. This is an actual data point, verified daily over coffee with three useless but agreeable cats in bed with us. The cats do probably have low IQs. Fred’s stepdaughter, based on his admittedly inexactly and anecdotal observation, would have no trouble entering Mensa. But, as I have repeatedly observed, nobody knows more about Mexico than those who know nothing about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan D Mute

    This is an actual data point, verified daily over coffee with three useless but agreeable cats in bed with us.
     
    But Fred, I know you are not so innumerate to suggest that your wife and step-daughter having a higher than average IQ is proof that the average IQ of mestizos and/or Indios is equally high. You don't live in Lake Wobegone, but Lake Chapala. Why do you keep writing about this? You're beginning to sound like the NYT insisting the existence of one negro with an IQ of 140 proves all negroes are brilliant.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Fred - may I enlist your lively imagination as well as logic on the implications of people having very much higher IQs. It can take a big effort for a 3 sd person to conjour up a good dinner party conversation with a 1 sd person but the 6 sigmas regularly communicate with the 3s. One obvious explanation is that there otherwise wouldn't be enough people to talk to. Another is that most of the interesting stuff to talk about hasn't required 5 or more sds for its production (maybe down to barely 2). But my offering for your particular consideration is that there could be physical limits involved just as there presumably have been to prevent the breeding of horses twice the height of those existing. Higher IQ would mean faster processing which would be particularly evident in mental mathematics, finding the perfect rhyme, or seeing the implications of a complex argument but what about the interface? Bright people often talk quickly and do a lot of talking but they are approximately as limited in speed of utterance as anyone with an IQ of 80. So where, in the age of computers, would an IQ of 250 be notably, reliably and predictably advantageous.

    On the issue of practical everyday eugenics the outbreeding by the smart which seems to have been a large part of the reason for high Jewish IQs and that of the British upper middle classes till 100 years ago whose forebears gave us the Industrial Revolution seems to be impossible to replicate now that women pursue higher education and careers - and can't rely on the support by husbands they would once have had. So bribing the dim not to breed may be the only way of getting the average up by even a modest but useful 5 points. Mind you polygamy - even just the serial kind could be encouraged and supported amongst high IQ males: lots more fun than being a sperm donor. Come to think of it artificial insemination may be the way to go if only the Pope and a few Ayatollahs would get behind it. (Revive some good old papal traditions and you could think of the Vatican sperm bank as the premium model).

    Must go back to the tennis tournament for less than eugenically bred ball smighters...
    , @Wizard of Oz
    PS I have just understated the interface problem with higher than ever IQs (say 250+) being reliably advantageous. On the input side there is a limit to the number of words, numbers or other units of information that a bright person can physically take in in a given time which is not some large multiple of what is possible for the merely average. Nor can the smart type or write very much faster than the average person.
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    Hello Fred,

    Perhaps your Aristotle-reading wife would enjoy explaining to you his proofs that the intellect is immaterial, thus not the result of genetics. It may be an interesting conversation for both of you. And then you can stop worrying about the possibility of such genetic engineering, which I can assure you is never, ever going to happen.
    , @Rich
    Don't sweat it Fred, when my father married an Irish girl (my mother), his family was dismayed. When they found out she was Catholic, they almost skipped the wedding. But we ended up being a happy family and my grandfather even said a few nice things about the Pope before he died.
    , @5JimBob
    Fred.

    Those cats have IQ's in the 800+ range. Don't ever, ever, suggest in any way that you might suspect this.

  48. @Travis
    "We need some equivalent enforcement mechanism for the privilege of reproduction. "

    which government bureaucrats would have the power to grant me a license to have children ?
    here in America this would make it more difficult for white christians to have children.

    A better solution, just force all those on welfare to be put on Norplant
    Those collecting food stamps should be implanted with Norplant...which works for 5 years.
    To qualify for section 8 housing, women must be sterilized or injected with Norplant.

    It’s kind of difficult to tell which side of the fence you’re arguing on. On the one hand, you object to “government bureaucrats” having the power to mete out the privilege of reproduction and raise the specter of white Christians being denied reproductive privileges. On the other hand, you endorse Norplant for welfare recipients and such as a means for enforcing the privilege. Contradictory as your arguments seem, I can see some merit to both of them.

    There is in fact a statistical correlation between lower intelligence and church attendance, so there may be a higher occurrence of the incurably incompetent among church attendees. There is nothing to suggest that white Christians deserve a waiver on standards for reproductive privileges. If the result is selection for more intelligent groups than white Christians in the gene pool, then so be it.

    Norplant for women receiving public assistance also has merit, even though it raises howls of indignation and the devil is in the details. Most recipients of public assistance are white, BTW.

    One qualification for reproductive privileges should be a high school diploma, coupled with mandatory reproductive health and child-rearing education in the curriculum. The child-rearing education should include everything from infant care to developmental psychology to reproductive economics. Those topics should be covered in any skills exam for graduation. If home-schoolers want it to count towards reproductive privileges, they can present the required curriculum. If they’re opposed to it on ideological or religious grounds, too bad. They forfeit their child’s reproductive privileges. Norplant could also be used as an enforcement mechanism for reproductive privileges among non-graduates. My guess is that we’d see a much greater effort among some populations towards finishing high school.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    I oppose the government granting a license to have children. In my experience the government bureaucrats whom would be granting such licenses would be primarily leftists or black and puerto rican females making it easy for Blacks to gain a license and difficult for whites. Whites are also more likely to follow the rules and apply for a license , while blacks, Mexicans, puerto ricans and muslims would continue to reproduce without bothering to obtain a license.

    my experience with government bureaucrats is biased, since I grew up in Philadelphia and then lived in NYC and New Jersey.

    in reality the majority of those on welfare are not white. only 40% of food stamp recipients were white in 2013..... 48% of section 8 housing residents were Black, with 15% hispanic and less than 40% are white. regardless of the % of whites on welfare, Norplant should be a requirement to obtain welfare. Would rather prevent the lazy from having children than those an 85 IQ who work and can feed their families.

    High school is a waste of time for 25% of the population. Many kids would be better off not going and instead get a job. The Amish do fine, without attending high school. Your logic highlights why white christians would be a target if government bureaucrats were in charge of granting fertility rights...they would target the Amish and other white American groups which are fertile and refuse to go to high school. Blacks going to public schools in Philadelphia will continue to graduate without knowing how to read , yet will qualify for a reproductive license under your proposal...then they can go on welfare and have children while the Amish will be punished for failing to attend High School.
  49. @wolfy
    your theory doesn't make any sense.I really doubt 70 IQ people are breeding heavily.

    your theory doesn’t make any sense.I really doubt 70 IQ people are breeding heavily.

    Clearly you haven’t visited Detroit or East St Louis or Birmingham lately..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    I recall reading a long time ago of an IQ study of children in the black ghetto of Baltimore which found an average IQ of 75.
    , @pyrrhus
    The average IQ in subSaharan Africa is about 70, and they are breeding like crazy. The UN estimates they will be 4 billion strong by 2060, an increase of more than 20000% over the historic level of 15 million...
  50. If kids at CalTech, who are very highly selected for intelligence, marry each other partly in hopes of having intelligent children, this is eugenics. How terrible is it?

    Yes, this is exactly my opinion on this too:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    15 IQ points is what separates Brazil from the US, and Sub-Saharan Africa from Brazil......15 points would make an astounding difference.
     
    Again we see Karlin conveniently neglecting to include white nations in such a comparison when it makes them look bad. Hey buddy what do you make of the >15 IQ point difference between Ireland (92), Serbia (89), Greece (92), Bulgaria (93), Lithuania (91), Macedonia (91), Romania (91) etc........vs multi-racial Singapore (108)? Or of the 13 IQ points separating the slavs of Poland and Serbia from Singapore?

    15 IQ points is what separates Brazil from the US
     
    Actually the difference is 11 points, same as the difference between Russia and Singapore.

    The difference between white slavic Serbia & Montenegro and multi-racial, non-white Singapore is 19 IQ points or close to double the above. And the difference between (white caucasian) Syria and Singapore is 29 IQ points or close to triple.

    Explain how you reconcile the above with the HBD narrative you are attached to?
    , @grey enlightenment2
    There is the tendency among the left to support reverse-Darwinism, in that the life that is least fit for survival must have priority of resources over the gifted, and this is evident in the public school system in how special ed gets much more funding than gifted. The left opposes eugenics as policy because it means the government is choosing biological winners over losers, refuting the statemented sentence.
  51. @Travis
    "We need some equivalent enforcement mechanism for the privilege of reproduction. "

    which government bureaucrats would have the power to grant me a license to have children ?
    here in America this would make it more difficult for white christians to have children.

    A better solution, just force all those on welfare to be put on Norplant
    Those collecting food stamps should be implanted with Norplant...which works for 5 years.
    To qualify for section 8 housing, women must be sterilized or injected with Norplant.

    A better solution, just force all those on welfare to be put on Norplant
    Those collecting food stamps should be implanted with Norplant…which works for 5 years.
    To qualify for section 8 housing, women must be sterilized or injected with Norplant.

    I’ve been arguing this for over twenty years. It is simple common sense that if one lacks the ability to feed oneself, s/he should not be allowed to foist a new liability onto the public purse. But invariably the response to the suggestion is, “Hitler! Nazi!”

    Read More
  52. @Fred Reed
    Actually Fred's wife is well on the brown side and, being one of those female multi-taskers we read about, is currently reading Hobbes, Aristotle, Milan Kundera, Hunter Thompson (in Spanish), as well as Robert Graves' two-volume thing on mythology as well as a couple of other things on the bedside table that I'm not going to go look at. This is an actual data point, verified daily over coffee with three useless but agreeable cats in bed with us. The cats do probably have low IQs. Fred's stepdaughter, based on his admittedly inexactly and anecdotal observation, would have no trouble entering Mensa. But, as I have repeatedly observed, nobody knows more about Mexico than those who know nothing about it.

    This is an actual data point, verified daily over coffee with three useless but agreeable cats in bed with us.

    But Fred, I know you are not so innumerate to suggest that your wife and step-daughter having a higher than average IQ is proof that the average IQ of mestizos and/or Indios is equally high. You don’t live in Lake Wobegone, but Lake Chapala. Why do you keep writing about this? You’re beginning to sound like the NYT insisting the existence of one negro with an IQ of 140 proves all negroes are brilliant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @grey enlightenment2
    People should leave Fred's family out of this, but they keep raising the issue.
  53. @John Jeremiah Smith

    If a population increased it’s average IQ by as much as 10-15 points (which I suspect is still a long way off) that would have a massive impact.
     
    Oh, yes. A very negative impact as far as the society is concerned. Intelligent people are very difficult to control. Social stability would suffer. Civilization as we know it would likely destabilize (further than it has destabilized to this point).

    Well are we at optimum now or we should try to decrease the average intelligence of the US population?

    Read More
  54. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Freud’s theories are crap.
     
    They sure are. That's what I implied. While I am, of course, grateful and appreciative that your opinion resembles my own, the notion that "paranoia" has been, and is, a genetically-selected trait, is pure, undiluted, unblemished bullshit.

    Forget the word “paranoia”. Certainly fear of other living things has been strongly selected for over many hundreds of millions of years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Forget the word “paranoia”. Certainly fear of other living things has been strongly selected for over many hundreds of millions of years.
     
    You're not getting it. It isn't fear; it's wariness. It isn't paranoia; it's vigilance.

    Mostly, you dumbshits need to learn about genetics, about adaptation, about mutation, about heritability, about recessive vs. dominant genes.

    More mostly, you dumbshits need to learn how Darwinian evolution actually works. It does not work like your favorite columnists think it works.

    Bye now.
  55. @Stan D Mute

    your theory doesn’t make any sense.I really doubt 70 IQ people are breeding heavily.
     
    Clearly you haven't visited Detroit or East St Louis or Birmingham lately..

    I recall reading a long time ago of an IQ study of children in the black ghetto of Baltimore which found an average IQ of 75.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I recall reading a long time ago of an IQ study of children in the black ghetto of Baltimore which found an average IQ of 75.
     
    Beware, Jimbo. Woe be unto us, but IQ is a malleable thing.

    Here's where I should insert a link to Ron Unz's response to the "IQ Is Everything" cohort, but fuck it, don't care.
  56. @Jim
    I recall reading a long time ago of an IQ study of children in the black ghetto of Baltimore which found an average IQ of 75.

    I recall reading a long time ago of an IQ study of children in the black ghetto of Baltimore which found an average IQ of 75.

    Beware, Jimbo. Woe be unto us, but IQ is a malleable thing.

    Here’s where I should insert a link to Ron Unz’s response to the “IQ Is Everything” cohort, but fuck it, don’t care.

    Read More
  57. @Jim
    Forget the word "paranoia". Certainly fear of other living things has been strongly selected for over many hundreds of millions of years.

    Forget the word “paranoia”. Certainly fear of other living things has been strongly selected for over many hundreds of millions of years.

    You’re not getting it. It isn’t fear; it’s wariness. It isn’t paranoia; it’s vigilance.

    Mostly, you dumbshits need to learn about genetics, about adaptation, about mutation, about heritability, about recessive vs. dominant genes.

    More mostly, you dumbshits need to learn how Darwinian evolution actually works. It does not work like your favorite columnists think it works.

    Bye now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    "It isn't fear; it's wariness." So rabbits are never fearful, their just wary. Look, you're just playing with words.
  58. @Thirdeye
    It's kind of difficult to tell which side of the fence you're arguing on. On the one hand, you object to "government bureaucrats" having the power to mete out the privilege of reproduction and raise the specter of white Christians being denied reproductive privileges. On the other hand, you endorse Norplant for welfare recipients and such as a means for enforcing the privilege. Contradictory as your arguments seem, I can see some merit to both of them.

    There is in fact a statistical correlation between lower intelligence and church attendance, so there may be a higher occurrence of the incurably incompetent among church attendees. There is nothing to suggest that white Christians deserve a waiver on standards for reproductive privileges. If the result is selection for more intelligent groups than white Christians in the gene pool, then so be it.

    Norplant for women receiving public assistance also has merit, even though it raises howls of indignation and the devil is in the details. Most recipients of public assistance are white, BTW.

    One qualification for reproductive privileges should be a high school diploma, coupled with mandatory reproductive health and child-rearing education in the curriculum. The child-rearing education should include everything from infant care to developmental psychology to reproductive economics. Those topics should be covered in any skills exam for graduation. If home-schoolers want it to count towards reproductive privileges, they can present the required curriculum. If they're opposed to it on ideological or religious grounds, too bad. They forfeit their child's reproductive privileges. Norplant could also be used as an enforcement mechanism for reproductive privileges among non-graduates. My guess is that we'd see a much greater effort among some populations towards finishing high school.

    I oppose the government granting a license to have children. In my experience the government bureaucrats whom would be granting such licenses would be primarily leftists or black and puerto rican females making it easy for Blacks to gain a license and difficult for whites. Whites are also more likely to follow the rules and apply for a license , while blacks, Mexicans, puerto ricans and muslims would continue to reproduce without bothering to obtain a license.

    my experience with government bureaucrats is biased, since I grew up in Philadelphia and then lived in NYC and New Jersey.

    in reality the majority of those on welfare are not white. only 40% of food stamp recipients were white in 2013….. 48% of section 8 housing residents were Black, with 15% hispanic and less than 40% are white. regardless of the % of whites on welfare, Norplant should be a requirement to obtain welfare. Would rather prevent the lazy from having children than those an 85 IQ who work and can feed their families.

    High school is a waste of time for 25% of the population. Many kids would be better off not going and instead get a job. The Amish do fine, without attending high school. Your logic highlights why white christians would be a target if government bureaucrats were in charge of granting fertility rights…they would target the Amish and other white American groups which are fertile and refuse to go to high school. Blacks going to public schools in Philadelphia will continue to graduate without knowing how to read , yet will qualify for a reproductive license under your proposal…then they can go on welfare and have children while the Amish will be punished for failing to attend High School.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Does DMV discriminate against white Christians in issuing driver's licenses? No. You pass the tests, you get the license. You take driver's ed, you're better prepared. There's nothing behind your idea that white Christians would be discriminated against other than your self-delusion about how downtrodden and persecuted white Christians are. Or maybe you're assuming that those issuing the test would discriminate against racial and religious groups because that's what you would do. You wouldn't be projecting, would you?

    Lots of people on food stamps are working. Wal-Mart is a notorious food stamp employer.

    Compare the graduation rates of various groups if you think that a graduation requirement, backed up by a curriculum that fosters awareness of reproductive responsibility, for reproductive privileges somehow discriminates against whites.

    I get it. You'd rather have the stupid and the ignorant reproduce as long as they are white Christians. There's nothing that would prevent religious schools from fulfilling the requirements for reproductive education, provided the educators approached it responsibly.

    If there's any validated precursor to spending years on welfare, it's not finishing high school. 90% of high school dropouts are on welfare. So you'd just as soon take 25% of the population and put them on the welfare path, huh? I have a pretty strong hunch what the average complexion of the 25% you'd put on that path would be.

    Unlike you I see value in a workforce and reproducing population that has at least basic literacy, numerical skills, and social awareness.
  59. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The conjecturing about when/where the tinker-toying would begin reminds me of an old HSBC ad that, to illustrate the worldwide diversity of opinion, cited up the following stats:

    - 85% of Americans are totally against human cloning
    - 20% of Indians ditto
    - 20% of theTaiwanese think human cloning has already happened.

    My point is that it’s a safe bet that the technology will be pushed to its limits. However much debate there is (or isn’t), someone will always be willing and able to push the boundaries further.

    Read More
  60. designer babies will be available for the wealthy fairly soon. I assume the focus on the early adopters will be for height, eye color, hair, and athletic ability, muscle strength and health.

    the wealthy will be the first to use the technology, and they know the importance of looks and health to success and happiness. By the time they can genetically manipulate zygotes for intelligence, we will have AI and human intelligence will be worthless so the wealthy will use genetic engineering to produce the best looking and athletic offspring. Athletic ability and looks will be more beneficial than intelligence when computers with an IQ of 300 can be purchased for $250 which could occur in the next 100 years.

    when one looks at how the billionaire spend their money , one realizes they put a high value on athletics and must have dreamed of being athletes which is why they all want to own a sports franchise. I would rather have a son who is 6’4 with above average muscle strength, above average vision, full head of hair and coordination so he could be a baseball player. I would give up 15 IQ points for the ability to be an average MLB pitcher.

    Read More
  61. “Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘The potter has no hands’?

    Read More
  62. @Travis
    I oppose the government granting a license to have children. In my experience the government bureaucrats whom would be granting such licenses would be primarily leftists or black and puerto rican females making it easy for Blacks to gain a license and difficult for whites. Whites are also more likely to follow the rules and apply for a license , while blacks, Mexicans, puerto ricans and muslims would continue to reproduce without bothering to obtain a license.

    my experience with government bureaucrats is biased, since I grew up in Philadelphia and then lived in NYC and New Jersey.

    in reality the majority of those on welfare are not white. only 40% of food stamp recipients were white in 2013..... 48% of section 8 housing residents were Black, with 15% hispanic and less than 40% are white. regardless of the % of whites on welfare, Norplant should be a requirement to obtain welfare. Would rather prevent the lazy from having children than those an 85 IQ who work and can feed their families.

    High school is a waste of time for 25% of the population. Many kids would be better off not going and instead get a job. The Amish do fine, without attending high school. Your logic highlights why white christians would be a target if government bureaucrats were in charge of granting fertility rights...they would target the Amish and other white American groups which are fertile and refuse to go to high school. Blacks going to public schools in Philadelphia will continue to graduate without knowing how to read , yet will qualify for a reproductive license under your proposal...then they can go on welfare and have children while the Amish will be punished for failing to attend High School.

    Does DMV discriminate against white Christians in issuing driver’s licenses? No. You pass the tests, you get the license. You take driver’s ed, you’re better prepared. There’s nothing behind your idea that white Christians would be discriminated against other than your self-delusion about how downtrodden and persecuted white Christians are. Or maybe you’re assuming that those issuing the test would discriminate against racial and religious groups because that’s what you would do. You wouldn’t be projecting, would you?

    Lots of people on food stamps are working. Wal-Mart is a notorious food stamp employer.

    Compare the graduation rates of various groups if you think that a graduation requirement, backed up by a curriculum that fosters awareness of reproductive responsibility, for reproductive privileges somehow discriminates against whites.

    I get it. You’d rather have the stupid and the ignorant reproduce as long as they are white Christians. There’s nothing that would prevent religious schools from fulfilling the requirements for reproductive education, provided the educators approached it responsibly.

    If there’s any validated precursor to spending years on welfare, it’s not finishing high school. 90% of high school dropouts are on welfare. So you’d just as soon take 25% of the population and put them on the welfare path, huh? I have a pretty strong hunch what the average complexion of the 25% you’d put on that path would be.

    Unlike you I see value in a workforce and reproducing population that has at least basic literacy, numerical skills, and social awareness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    none of my grandparents or parents finished high school and they are all literate and none of them ever collected welfare. Going to school was a wet of time for them after the age of 15, so they wisely went to work which was a more productive use of their time and energy.

    most people are literate by the age of 15. if they still can't read the extra 2 years will still not teach them how to read. If one does not know numerical skills by the age of 15 , they will most likely never learn. My sister dropped out of High school at age 15 and is more intelligent and articulate than I am. Was a good decision for her.

    In New York and Philadelphia the government bureaucrats have been known to make life difficult for whites. Probably in other places the white government bureaucrats make life harder for blacks...depends on whom has the power in the community. The IRS certainly made life harder for white christians while approving leftists organizations for non-profit status. ll depends on who is in power.

    100% of the Amish never attend high school and 100% of the Amish never receive welfare. Under your plan they would be prohibited from having children, while those living in section 8 housing could pro-create yearly as long as they have a high school degree.
  63. @Anatoly Karlin

    If kids at CalTech, who are very highly selected for intelligence, marry each other partly in hopes of having intelligent children, this is eugenics. How terrible is it?
     
    Yes, this is exactly my opinion on this too:

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/399944770438451200

    Intelligence beyond question is largely genetic. Yes, I know: The politically correct argue that intelligence doesn’t exist, and they are themselves compelling evidence for the thesis.
     
    Unfortunately, this is not correct. It requires intelligence to engage in the sorts of sophistry and doublethink to non-ironically argue intelligence is a social construct. Simpler people just see what's in front of them, which is why political correctness is almonst non-existent in Fishtown.

    If increased intelligence meant ten or fifteen points of additional IQ, maybe not too much would happen.
     
    15 IQ points is what separates Brazil from the US, and Sub-Saharan Africa from Brazil. No major country or region is a whole 15 points above the US, but those that are approximately 5 points above it tend to be extremely civilized and wealthy places. 15 points would make an astounding difference.

    15 IQ points is what separates Brazil from the US, and Sub-Saharan Africa from Brazil……15 points would make an astounding difference.

    Again we see Karlin conveniently neglecting to include white nations in such a comparison when it makes them look bad. Hey buddy what do you make of the >15 IQ point difference between Ireland (92), Serbia (89), Greece (92), Bulgaria (93), Lithuania (91), Macedonia (91), Romania (91) etc……..vs multi-racial Singapore (108)? Or of the 13 IQ points separating the slavs of Poland and Serbia from Singapore?

    15 IQ points is what separates Brazil from the US

    Actually the difference is 11 points, same as the difference between Russia and Singapore.

    The difference between white slavic Serbia & Montenegro and multi-racial, non-white Singapore is 19 IQ points or close to double the above. And the difference between (white caucasian) Syria and Singapore is 29 IQ points or close to triple.

    Explain how you reconcile the above with the HBD narrative you are attached to?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss
    I forgot to include the source of the data:

    http://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/Lynn_Meisenberg_2010_National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations.pdf
  64. @Fred Reed
    I didn't write clearly. I don't mean that in ten years design will be in flower, certainly not, but that advances are going to bring the issue much more to the attention of the public and that the increasingly obvious implications will cause increasing controversy. Other countries will be less controlled in experimentation I suspect, notably China, and their work will make the news. In short, genetic design is no longer fantasy but a practical technology whose workings are rapidly being figured out. Or so think I.

    “In short, genetic design is no longer fantasy but a practical technology whose workings are rapidly being figured out.”

    Well, yes, if you’re a prokaryote, that being the only sort of organism where bioinformatics has made serious inroads on anything like a comprehensive gene atlas — but such organisms have genomes both orders of magnitude smaller, and orders of magnitude less complex, than even single-celled eukaryotes, to say nothing of any multicellular organism.

    When I worked for bioinformaticists, the organization that employed me was engaged in a couple of different large projects which involved collaboration with Chinese researchers in the same field. I suppose it’s possible that those researchers weren’t at the forefront of the field in China, or perhaps that their seeming rough parity with their US peers was merely an appearance produced by dissimulation rather than an accurate perception of reality. But I don’t think it especially likely.

    Don’t get me wrong! If your only source for information on bioinformatics is the popular science press, I can entirely understand how you’d come by the idea that bioinformatics is on the very verge of making effective eugenics possible. Having had the good fortune of an opportunity to observe the field closely and at length, I’m a little better equipped than many to recognize such exaggeration for what it is.

    Read More
  65. @Fred Reed
    Actually Fred's wife is well on the brown side and, being one of those female multi-taskers we read about, is currently reading Hobbes, Aristotle, Milan Kundera, Hunter Thompson (in Spanish), as well as Robert Graves' two-volume thing on mythology as well as a couple of other things on the bedside table that I'm not going to go look at. This is an actual data point, verified daily over coffee with three useless but agreeable cats in bed with us. The cats do probably have low IQs. Fred's stepdaughter, based on his admittedly inexactly and anecdotal observation, would have no trouble entering Mensa. But, as I have repeatedly observed, nobody knows more about Mexico than those who know nothing about it.

    Fred – may I enlist your lively imagination as well as logic on the implications of people having very much higher IQs. It can take a big effort for a 3 sd person to conjour up a good dinner party conversation with a 1 sd person but the 6 sigmas regularly communicate with the 3s. One obvious explanation is that there otherwise wouldn’t be enough people to talk to. Another is that most of the interesting stuff to talk about hasn’t required 5 or more sds for its production (maybe down to barely 2). But my offering for your particular consideration is that there could be physical limits involved just as there presumably have been to prevent the breeding of horses twice the height of those existing. Higher IQ would mean faster processing which would be particularly evident in mental mathematics, finding the perfect rhyme, or seeing the implications of a complex argument but what about the interface? Bright people often talk quickly and do a lot of talking but they are approximately as limited in speed of utterance as anyone with an IQ of 80. So where, in the age of computers, would an IQ of 250 be notably, reliably and predictably advantageous.

    On the issue of practical everyday eugenics the outbreeding by the smart which seems to have been a large part of the reason for high Jewish IQs and that of the British upper middle classes till 100 years ago whose forebears gave us the Industrial Revolution seems to be impossible to replicate now that women pursue higher education and careers – and can’t rely on the support by husbands they would once have had. So bribing the dim not to breed may be the only way of getting the average up by even a modest but useful 5 points. Mind you polygamy – even just the serial kind could be encouraged and supported amongst high IQ males: lots more fun than being a sperm donor. Come to think of it artificial insemination may be the way to go if only the Pope and a few Ayatollahs would get behind it. (Revive some good old papal traditions and you could think of the Vatican sperm bank as the premium model).

    Must go back to the tennis tournament for less than eugenically bred ball smighters…

    Read More
  66. @Bliss

    15 IQ points is what separates Brazil from the US, and Sub-Saharan Africa from Brazil......15 points would make an astounding difference.
     
    Again we see Karlin conveniently neglecting to include white nations in such a comparison when it makes them look bad. Hey buddy what do you make of the >15 IQ point difference between Ireland (92), Serbia (89), Greece (92), Bulgaria (93), Lithuania (91), Macedonia (91), Romania (91) etc........vs multi-racial Singapore (108)? Or of the 13 IQ points separating the slavs of Poland and Serbia from Singapore?

    15 IQ points is what separates Brazil from the US
     
    Actually the difference is 11 points, same as the difference between Russia and Singapore.

    The difference between white slavic Serbia & Montenegro and multi-racial, non-white Singapore is 19 IQ points or close to double the above. And the difference between (white caucasian) Syria and Singapore is 29 IQ points or close to triple.

    Explain how you reconcile the above with the HBD narrative you are attached to?
    Read More
  67. @Fred Reed
    Actually Fred's wife is well on the brown side and, being one of those female multi-taskers we read about, is currently reading Hobbes, Aristotle, Milan Kundera, Hunter Thompson (in Spanish), as well as Robert Graves' two-volume thing on mythology as well as a couple of other things on the bedside table that I'm not going to go look at. This is an actual data point, verified daily over coffee with three useless but agreeable cats in bed with us. The cats do probably have low IQs. Fred's stepdaughter, based on his admittedly inexactly and anecdotal observation, would have no trouble entering Mensa. But, as I have repeatedly observed, nobody knows more about Mexico than those who know nothing about it.

    PS I have just understated the interface problem with higher than ever IQs (say 250+) being reliably advantageous. On the input side there is a limit to the number of words, numbers or other units of information that a bright person can physically take in in a given time which is not some large multiple of what is possible for the merely average. Nor can the smart type or write very much faster than the average person.

    Read More
  68. @Fred Reed
    Actually Fred's wife is well on the brown side and, being one of those female multi-taskers we read about, is currently reading Hobbes, Aristotle, Milan Kundera, Hunter Thompson (in Spanish), as well as Robert Graves' two-volume thing on mythology as well as a couple of other things on the bedside table that I'm not going to go look at. This is an actual data point, verified daily over coffee with three useless but agreeable cats in bed with us. The cats do probably have low IQs. Fred's stepdaughter, based on his admittedly inexactly and anecdotal observation, would have no trouble entering Mensa. But, as I have repeatedly observed, nobody knows more about Mexico than those who know nothing about it.

    Hello Fred,

    Perhaps your Aristotle-reading wife would enjoy explaining to you his proofs that the intellect is immaterial, thus not the result of genetics. It may be an interesting conversation for both of you. And then you can stop worrying about the possibility of such genetic engineering, which I can assure you is never, ever going to happen.

    Read More
  69. @Thirdeye
    Does DMV discriminate against white Christians in issuing driver's licenses? No. You pass the tests, you get the license. You take driver's ed, you're better prepared. There's nothing behind your idea that white Christians would be discriminated against other than your self-delusion about how downtrodden and persecuted white Christians are. Or maybe you're assuming that those issuing the test would discriminate against racial and religious groups because that's what you would do. You wouldn't be projecting, would you?

    Lots of people on food stamps are working. Wal-Mart is a notorious food stamp employer.

    Compare the graduation rates of various groups if you think that a graduation requirement, backed up by a curriculum that fosters awareness of reproductive responsibility, for reproductive privileges somehow discriminates against whites.

    I get it. You'd rather have the stupid and the ignorant reproduce as long as they are white Christians. There's nothing that would prevent religious schools from fulfilling the requirements for reproductive education, provided the educators approached it responsibly.

    If there's any validated precursor to spending years on welfare, it's not finishing high school. 90% of high school dropouts are on welfare. So you'd just as soon take 25% of the population and put them on the welfare path, huh? I have a pretty strong hunch what the average complexion of the 25% you'd put on that path would be.

    Unlike you I see value in a workforce and reproducing population that has at least basic literacy, numerical skills, and social awareness.

    none of my grandparents or parents finished high school and they are all literate and none of them ever collected welfare. Going to school was a wet of time for them after the age of 15, so they wisely went to work which was a more productive use of their time and energy.

    most people are literate by the age of 15. if they still can’t read the extra 2 years will still not teach them how to read. If one does not know numerical skills by the age of 15 , they will most likely never learn. My sister dropped out of High school at age 15 and is more intelligent and articulate than I am. Was a good decision for her.

    In New York and Philadelphia the government bureaucrats have been known to make life difficult for whites. Probably in other places the white government bureaucrats make life harder for blacks…depends on whom has the power in the community. The IRS certainly made life harder for white christians while approving leftists organizations for non-profit status. ll depends on who is in power.

    100% of the Amish never attend high school and 100% of the Amish never receive welfare. Under your plan they would be prohibited from having children, while those living in section 8 housing could pro-create yearly as long as they have a high school degree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    Under your plan.......those living in section 8 housing could pro-create yearly as long as they have a high school degree.
     
    Nope. I never disagreed in principle with reproductive restriction for people receiving public assistance. There would probably be some messy details to work out, though.

    The IRS certainly made life harder for white christians while approving leftists organizations for non-profit status.
     
    Bullshit. Churches have maintained their tax-exempt status despite engaging in all sorts of activity that wouldn't be tax-exempt if they weren't churches. Political advocacy by churches is practiced all the time under the rules that presume churches are community, charitable, and service organizations. Be thankful that churches don't have to do the same accounting that secular 501c(3) organizations do.

    Whatever anecdotes you provide from your own family, it doesn't change the statistics on current-day high school dropouts overwhelmingly heading for the path of public dependency. It's bad enough that as of 2013 19% of high school graduates were illiterate. You can bet that a much higher number of high school dropouts were illiterate. Imperfect as it is, graduation from high school is the first milestone for verifying social and economic competence. And such competence is key for reproducing responsibly.
  70. eugenics is going to harvard, mit, u of chicago, stanford, etc.

    cave dwellers were noticeably more intelligent. less bullshit for brains and healthier (less garbage food from the best and brightest)

    depending on their eyes, ears, brain cells, not on books, recorders, iphones, computers, calculators, tvs, all the gadgets from the best and brightest has made the population dumber, less able to be critical thinkers.

    thus

    brains are smaller.

    Read More
  71. What we really need is less black people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    What we really need is less black people.

     

    Fewer.

    Jus' sayin', bro…
  72. @Travis
    none of my grandparents or parents finished high school and they are all literate and none of them ever collected welfare. Going to school was a wet of time for them after the age of 15, so they wisely went to work which was a more productive use of their time and energy.

    most people are literate by the age of 15. if they still can't read the extra 2 years will still not teach them how to read. If one does not know numerical skills by the age of 15 , they will most likely never learn. My sister dropped out of High school at age 15 and is more intelligent and articulate than I am. Was a good decision for her.

    In New York and Philadelphia the government bureaucrats have been known to make life difficult for whites. Probably in other places the white government bureaucrats make life harder for blacks...depends on whom has the power in the community. The IRS certainly made life harder for white christians while approving leftists organizations for non-profit status. ll depends on who is in power.

    100% of the Amish never attend high school and 100% of the Amish never receive welfare. Under your plan they would be prohibited from having children, while those living in section 8 housing could pro-create yearly as long as they have a high school degree.

    Under your plan…….those living in section 8 housing could pro-create yearly as long as they have a high school degree.

    Nope. I never disagreed in principle with reproductive restriction for people receiving public assistance. There would probably be some messy details to work out, though.

    The IRS certainly made life harder for white christians while approving leftists organizations for non-profit status.

    Bullshit. Churches have maintained their tax-exempt status despite engaging in all sorts of activity that wouldn’t be tax-exempt if they weren’t churches. Political advocacy by churches is practiced all the time under the rules that presume churches are community, charitable, and service organizations. Be thankful that churches don’t have to do the same accounting that secular 501c(3) organizations do.

    Whatever anecdotes you provide from your own family, it doesn’t change the statistics on current-day high school dropouts overwhelmingly heading for the path of public dependency. It’s bad enough that as of 2013 19% of high school graduates were illiterate. You can bet that a much higher number of high school dropouts were illiterate. Imperfect as it is, graduation from high school is the first milestone for verifying social and economic competence. And such competence is key for reproducing responsibly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag
    Bullshit. Churches have maintained their tax-exempt status despite engaging in all sorts of activity that wouldn’t be tax-exempt if they weren’t churches.

    There is a difference here between a grandfathered-in group and one applying for status.

    Churches have seen their political power wane while their tax exempt counter parts (Southern Poverty Law Center; ACLU; Ford foundation; etc) have seen their political power increase.

    Does DMV discriminate against white Christians in issuing driver’s licenses?

    Not a fair comparison. Everyone gets a license, eventually; and not having one is not that big of a deal. A license to breed, on the other hand, will invite all kinds of gamesmanship. Plus, imagine an unlicensed baby face down on the beach while the "mother" wails about her attempt to emigrate so she could raise it in a better country. The fallout from that will have the lower classes issued artificial wombs so they can generate even more organisms to fill the ecosystem completely.
  73. @Fred Reed
    Actually Fred's wife is well on the brown side and, being one of those female multi-taskers we read about, is currently reading Hobbes, Aristotle, Milan Kundera, Hunter Thompson (in Spanish), as well as Robert Graves' two-volume thing on mythology as well as a couple of other things on the bedside table that I'm not going to go look at. This is an actual data point, verified daily over coffee with three useless but agreeable cats in bed with us. The cats do probably have low IQs. Fred's stepdaughter, based on his admittedly inexactly and anecdotal observation, would have no trouble entering Mensa. But, as I have repeatedly observed, nobody knows more about Mexico than those who know nothing about it.

    Don’t sweat it Fred, when my father married an Irish girl (my mother), his family was dismayed. When they found out she was Catholic, they almost skipped the wedding. But we ended up being a happy family and my grandfather even said a few nice things about the Pope before he died.

    Read More
  74. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Yes, human genome genetic engineering is inevitable and maybe right around the corner. That’s why we need vigorous, organized, worldwide grassroots activity to discuss and determine how HGGE should be used, before it’s turned into a dangerous weapon. See my essay “Building the Network for Human Evolution” on Amazon.

    Read More
  75. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Forget the word “paranoia”. Certainly fear of other living things has been strongly selected for over many hundreds of millions of years.
     
    You're not getting it. It isn't fear; it's wariness. It isn't paranoia; it's vigilance.

    Mostly, you dumbshits need to learn about genetics, about adaptation, about mutation, about heritability, about recessive vs. dominant genes.

    More mostly, you dumbshits need to learn how Darwinian evolution actually works. It does not work like your favorite columnists think it works.

    Bye now.

    “It isn’t fear; it’s wariness.” So rabbits are never fearful, their just wary. Look, you’re just playing with words.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    So rabbits are never fearful, their just wary. Look, you’re just playing with words.
     
    Using words correctly is not "playing".

    Paranoia is an abnormal, unjustified, personal and individual fear that someone or something intends to harm you.
  76. @Jim
    "It isn't fear; it's wariness." So rabbits are never fearful, their just wary. Look, you're just playing with words.

    So rabbits are never fearful, their just wary. Look, you’re just playing with words.

    Using words correctly is not “playing”.

    Paranoia is an abnormal, unjustified, personal and individual fear that someone or something intends to harm you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred
    I think it was Mark Twain who said that a man who picks up a cat by the tail learns a lesson he can learn no other way.

    Likewise, until people have dealt with a paranoiac at close range and in some depth they really don't understand the term.

    /voice of experience

    , @Jim
    I don't think Fred was using the term "paranoia" in a technical sense but simply referring to fear. He seemed to be describing a dog being alarmed at every passing stranger as exhibiting pathological behavior. But a dog who is alarmed by every passing stranger has a much better chance of survival than a dog who is never alarmed.

    Fear is not pathological. Fear is your friend. Never ignore it.
  77. Eugenics and cloning are necessary and desirable and unavoidable. WE SHOULD HAVE THEM ALREADY.
    But what we really want is SPECIATION.
    We need adaptive radiation, self-selected affinity groups forming new daughter species.
    We need to get off the planet, we need to quit being human.
    Y’all should get with the program.

    Read More
  78. @Stan D Mute

    your theory doesn’t make any sense.I really doubt 70 IQ people are breeding heavily.
     
    Clearly you haven't visited Detroit or East St Louis or Birmingham lately..

    The average IQ in subSaharan Africa is about 70, and they are breeding like crazy. The UN estimates they will be 4 billion strong by 2060, an increase of more than 20000% over the historic level of 15 million…

    Read More
    • Replies: @bondo
    cuud be.
    you and einstein go survive in sub saharan africa.

    the sub saharan iq measured by how well these subjects did on jew developed tests measuring what the jew tester thinks the jew tester knows?

    everybody has to breed like crazy because the hi iq, judaized west is killing by the 100s of millions.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    The late Prof Rushton explained this. Westerners and Asians with IQs of 70 almost always have something serious wrong with them. Africans with the same are perfectly healthy, and can function in their own societies. Which includes breeding.
  79. @Thirdeye

    Under your plan.......those living in section 8 housing could pro-create yearly as long as they have a high school degree.
     
    Nope. I never disagreed in principle with reproductive restriction for people receiving public assistance. There would probably be some messy details to work out, though.

    The IRS certainly made life harder for white christians while approving leftists organizations for non-profit status.
     
    Bullshit. Churches have maintained their tax-exempt status despite engaging in all sorts of activity that wouldn't be tax-exempt if they weren't churches. Political advocacy by churches is practiced all the time under the rules that presume churches are community, charitable, and service organizations. Be thankful that churches don't have to do the same accounting that secular 501c(3) organizations do.

    Whatever anecdotes you provide from your own family, it doesn't change the statistics on current-day high school dropouts overwhelmingly heading for the path of public dependency. It's bad enough that as of 2013 19% of high school graduates were illiterate. You can bet that a much higher number of high school dropouts were illiterate. Imperfect as it is, graduation from high school is the first milestone for verifying social and economic competence. And such competence is key for reproducing responsibly.

    Bullshit. Churches have maintained their tax-exempt status despite engaging in all sorts of activity that wouldn’t be tax-exempt if they weren’t churches.

    There is a difference here between a grandfathered-in group and one applying for status.

    Churches have seen their political power wane while their tax exempt counter parts (Southern Poverty Law Center; ACLU; Ford foundation; etc) have seen their political power increase.

    Does DMV discriminate against white Christians in issuing driver’s licenses?

    Not a fair comparison. Everyone gets a license, eventually; and not having one is not that big of a deal. A license to breed, on the other hand, will invite all kinds of gamesmanship. Plus, imagine an unlicensed baby face down on the beach while the “mother” wails about her attempt to emigrate so she could raise it in a better country. The fallout from that will have the lower classes issued artificial wombs so they can generate even more organisms to fill the ecosystem completely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Churches don't maintain tax-exempt status because they are grandfathered, they main it because they are churches. They don't have to prove that they are charitable or service oriented because the blanket presumption is that they are, even when they push the envelope. I am not disagreeing that tax-exempt secular nonprofits can also practice political or group interest advocacy under the false pretense of providing service. It's just much harder for them to do it because of the rules of accountability that they operate under that churches are exempt from.

    The comparison with a driver's license is entirely fair. The key point is that the process for getting one is standardized and transparent. Show some basic knowledge of traffic laws and demonstrate some basic competence and you get one. Most, but not all, people are capable of that. The standards for suspension or revocation are pretty definite too under DUI laws and a lot of people lose driving privileges because of them. Then there's the additional enforcement mechanism of insurance laws that keep a lot of people from driving. If you get in an accident without insurance, you can be criminally charged. For most people losing a driver's license is a big deal.

    The rest of your paragraph is completely rambling and incoherent.
  80. @Anatoly Karlin

    If kids at CalTech, who are very highly selected for intelligence, marry each other partly in hopes of having intelligent children, this is eugenics. How terrible is it?
     
    Yes, this is exactly my opinion on this too:

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/399944770438451200

    Intelligence beyond question is largely genetic. Yes, I know: The politically correct argue that intelligence doesn’t exist, and they are themselves compelling evidence for the thesis.
     
    Unfortunately, this is not correct. It requires intelligence to engage in the sorts of sophistry and doublethink to non-ironically argue intelligence is a social construct. Simpler people just see what's in front of them, which is why political correctness is almonst non-existent in Fishtown.

    If increased intelligence meant ten or fifteen points of additional IQ, maybe not too much would happen.
     
    15 IQ points is what separates Brazil from the US, and Sub-Saharan Africa from Brazil. No major country or region is a whole 15 points above the US, but those that are approximately 5 points above it tend to be extremely civilized and wealthy places. 15 points would make an astounding difference.

    There is the tendency among the left to support reverse-Darwinism, in that the life that is least fit for survival must have priority of resources over the gifted, and this is evident in the public school system in how special ed gets much more funding than gifted. The left opposes eugenics as policy because it means the government is choosing biological winners over losers, refuting the statemented sentence.

    Read More
  81. @Stan D Mute

    This is an actual data point, verified daily over coffee with three useless but agreeable cats in bed with us.
     
    But Fred, I know you are not so innumerate to suggest that your wife and step-daughter having a higher than average IQ is proof that the average IQ of mestizos and/or Indios is equally high. You don't live in Lake Wobegone, but Lake Chapala. Why do you keep writing about this? You're beginning to sound like the NYT insisting the existence of one negro with an IQ of 140 proves all negroes are brilliant.

    People should leave Fred’s family out of this, but they keep raising the issue.

    Read More
  82. @expeedee
    IQ is not everything, but because it is correlated so closely with many positive behaviors, it cannot be ignored. Eugenics will probably result in a modest increase in IQ and a very positive shift in beneficial behaviors that will be conducive to a better living standards for societies.

    Also,to the best of my knowledge, no one on the left side of the Bell Curve has ever won a Nobel in science.

    *, no one on the left side of the Bell Curve has ever won a Nobel in science.*

    give it 50 years and progressive liberalism will make it happen

    Read More
  83. Given humanity’s instinctive immersion in corruption, egotism, psychopathy, war, slaughter, totalitarianism, torture, murder and thievery, caution might be advisable in producing people better than we are at these things

    Why is it assumed that mankind will never give up its biological based tribalness?

    God also gave us brains. Clearly our brains can override our tribalistic genetics. The best part of Western culture uses brains to guide itself.

    There is a philosophy that is centered on the individual – NOT the group.

    INDIVIDUALISM, in contrast to socialism and all other forms of totalitarianism, is based on the respect of Christianity for the individual man and the belief that it is desirable that men should be free to develop their own individual gifts and bents. This philosophy, first fully developed during the Renaissance, grew and spread into what we know as Western civilization. The general direction of social development was one of freeing the individual from the ties which bound him in feudal society. – Hayek

    We have no choice but to choose the idealistic Christian philosophy as our guiding social principle. That is the only way to disempower the tribal state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    The notion of rights vested in the individual did not originate with Christianity. It was picked up by some Hebrew scholars (Essenes) who were introduced to Greek ideas during the Hellenic period. That movement was personified in the legend of Jesus. The Greeks appear to have been influenced by the Hittites in the development of their ideas on individual rights. The big boost to individualism occurred during the development of rationalist social philosophy during the Enlightenment. Protestants adopted it. Catholics opposed it.
  84. @John Jeremiah Smith

    So rabbits are never fearful, their just wary. Look, you’re just playing with words.
     
    Using words correctly is not "playing".

    Paranoia is an abnormal, unjustified, personal and individual fear that someone or something intends to harm you.

    I think it was Mark Twain who said that a man who picks up a cat by the tail learns a lesson he can learn no other way.

    Likewise, until people have dealt with a paranoiac at close range and in some depth they really don’t understand the term.

    /voice of experience

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Likewise, until people have dealt with a paranoiac at close range and in some depth they really don’t understand the term.
     
    Thanks. You and I both know that specialized terminology enters the vernacular, and from there it's devil-takes-the-hindmost.

    Any insistence on accuracy of definition tends to rile the cognitively rigid of the ideological cohorts that populate Internet forums. 'Taint worth it to argue. ;-)
  85. @another fred
    I think it was Mark Twain who said that a man who picks up a cat by the tail learns a lesson he can learn no other way.

    Likewise, until people have dealt with a paranoiac at close range and in some depth they really don't understand the term.

    /voice of experience

    Likewise, until people have dealt with a paranoiac at close range and in some depth they really don’t understand the term.

    Thanks. You and I both know that specialized terminology enters the vernacular, and from there it’s devil-takes-the-hindmost.

    Any insistence on accuracy of definition tends to rile the cognitively rigid of the ideological cohorts that populate Internet forums. ‘Taint worth it to argue. ;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Yes of course a word like "paranoid" has a meaning in ordinary language which no doubt differs from it's meaning in some technical vocabulary. But criticising the ordinary use of the word "paranoid" because it is not in accord with some technical use is like critising the ordunary use of the word "energy" because it does not agree with the technical definition of energy in physics.

    I think Fred was using the word "paranoid" in it's everyday normal meaning. Your critisisms are just irrelevent pedantry.
  86. @pyrrhus
    The average IQ in subSaharan Africa is about 70, and they are breeding like crazy. The UN estimates they will be 4 billion strong by 2060, an increase of more than 20000% over the historic level of 15 million...

    cuud be.
    you and einstein go survive in sub saharan africa.

    the sub saharan iq measured by how well these subjects did on jew developed tests measuring what the jew tester thinks the jew tester knows?

    everybody has to breed like crazy because the hi iq, judaized west is killing by the 100s of millions.

    Read More
  87. This will be the mother, father, and all other relatives of unintended consequences. Imagine an arms race among the most scientifically advanced nations in breeding superhumans, while the rest of the world looks on in horror. There is a zero room for error.

    Read More
  88. @wolfy
    dysgenics while occurring is not so severe.

    Wolfe, I see no reason to be so sanguine about it. Smarter women have fewer children at longer generational intervals. While welfare encourages the less fit to have lots of less fit children.

    Read More
  89. @bondo
    cuud be.
    you and einstein go survive in sub saharan africa.

    the sub saharan iq measured by how well these subjects did on jew developed tests measuring what the jew tester thinks the jew tester knows?

    everybody has to breed like crazy because the hi iq, judaized west is killing by the 100s of millions.

    Speaking of IQs of 70 and 75…

    Read More
  90. Improving cognitive capacity without corresponding moral capacity is not eugenic. It is by definition dysgenic.

    Would you want to operate a Formula One car without a steering wheel? Or be anywhere in the vicinity when someone else does?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Improving cognitive capacity without corresponding moral capacity is not eugenic. It is by definition dysgenic.
     
    [sigh] No. If the target is pure intelligence, than it would be eugenics. Eugenics does not imply moral improvement. Morality is a relative and subjective concept.

    I appreciate your opinionated effort, but it's bullshit.
    , @Talha
    Right on (in the sentiment if not the exact wording of your statement) - you could be 'manufacturing' very intelligent Hannibal Lectors. Many sociopaths are very intelligent and use their knowledge of the lack of the same in others to manipulate them.

    Intelligence at the end, at least to me, seems to be a tool, akin to physical strength, and can be used as a multiplier effect. I could be wrong, but the demographic landscape of Germany circa 1930s was very intelligent as compared to the rest of Europe.

    , @Thirdeye
    Antisocial behavior during early childhood is most prevalent among the less intelligent. Its onset tends to be later among the more intelligent kids, suggesting that antisocial behavior is at least in part learned.
  91. @Cracker
    What we really need is less black people.

    What we really need is less black people.

    Fewer.

    Jus’ sayin’, bro…

    Read More
  92. @pyrrhus
    The average IQ in subSaharan Africa is about 70, and they are breeding like crazy. The UN estimates they will be 4 billion strong by 2060, an increase of more than 20000% over the historic level of 15 million...

    The late Prof Rushton explained this. Westerners and Asians with IQs of 70 almost always have something serious wrong with them. Africans with the same are perfectly healthy, and can function in their own societies. Which includes breeding.

    Read More
  93. @Reg Cæsar
    Improving cognitive capacity without corresponding moral capacity is not eugenic. It is by definition dysgenic.

    Would you want to operate a Formula One car without a steering wheel? Or be anywhere in the vicinity when someone else does?

    Improving cognitive capacity without corresponding moral capacity is not eugenic. It is by definition dysgenic.

    [sigh] No. If the target is pure intelligence, than it would be eugenics. Eugenics does not imply moral improvement. Morality is a relative and subjective concept.

    I appreciate your opinionated effort, but it’s bullshit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Yeah - maybe his exact wording was not technically correct, but I think the sentiment is that - is it a positive development to create more capable moral monsters? Which of course, as you stated, is a generally subjective evaluation and not likely under the purview of science.

    I think Fred mentions this in his article, what if these ubermensch think the lesser ones are only good as a base for solyent green...

  94. @Reg Cæsar
    Improving cognitive capacity without corresponding moral capacity is not eugenic. It is by definition dysgenic.

    Would you want to operate a Formula One car without a steering wheel? Or be anywhere in the vicinity when someone else does?

    Right on (in the sentiment if not the exact wording of your statement) – you could be ‘manufacturing’ very intelligent Hannibal Lectors. Many sociopaths are very intelligent and use their knowledge of the lack of the same in others to manipulate them.

    Intelligence at the end, at least to me, seems to be a tool, akin to physical strength, and can be used as a multiplier effect. I could be wrong, but the demographic landscape of Germany circa 1930s was very intelligent as compared to the rest of Europe.

    Read More
  95. To talk knowledgeably on this subject you have to be an expert in genetics, Since no one here is, guess what, it is all meaningless speculation.

    However Fred is right, it is a subject worth following because the next ten years will prove very interesting in what is discovered regarding the genetic architecture of intelligence. The two blogs you want to follow are GNXP and West Hunter. Go there, read what is said, educate yourselves on these subjects by following up what is over your head through internet searches and shut your trap, because vapid speculators are not treated as kindly as in these parts. :)

    Read More
  96. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Improving cognitive capacity without corresponding moral capacity is not eugenic. It is by definition dysgenic.
     
    [sigh] No. If the target is pure intelligence, than it would be eugenics. Eugenics does not imply moral improvement. Morality is a relative and subjective concept.

    I appreciate your opinionated effort, but it's bullshit.

    Yeah – maybe his exact wording was not technically correct, but I think the sentiment is that – is it a positive development to create more capable moral monsters? Which of course, as you stated, is a generally subjective evaluation and not likely under the purview of science.

    I think Fred mentions this in his article, what if these ubermensch think the lesser ones are only good as a base for solyent green…

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I think Fred mentions this in his article, what if these ubermensch think the lesser ones are only good as a base for solyent green…
     
    Then, the eugenics experiment has succeeded, da? ;-)
  97. @Talha
    Yeah - maybe his exact wording was not technically correct, but I think the sentiment is that - is it a positive development to create more capable moral monsters? Which of course, as you stated, is a generally subjective evaluation and not likely under the purview of science.

    I think Fred mentions this in his article, what if these ubermensch think the lesser ones are only good as a base for solyent green...

    I think Fred mentions this in his article, what if these ubermensch think the lesser ones are only good as a base for solyent green…

    Then, the eugenics experiment has succeeded, da? ;-)

    Read More
  98. @John Jeremiah Smith

    So rabbits are never fearful, their just wary. Look, you’re just playing with words.
     
    Using words correctly is not "playing".

    Paranoia is an abnormal, unjustified, personal and individual fear that someone or something intends to harm you.

    I don’t think Fred was using the term “paranoia” in a technical sense but simply referring to fear. He seemed to be describing a dog being alarmed at every passing stranger as exhibiting pathological behavior. But a dog who is alarmed by every passing stranger has a much better chance of survival than a dog who is never alarmed.

    Fear is not pathological. Fear is your friend. Never ignore it.

    Read More
  99. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Likewise, until people have dealt with a paranoiac at close range and in some depth they really don’t understand the term.
     
    Thanks. You and I both know that specialized terminology enters the vernacular, and from there it's devil-takes-the-hindmost.

    Any insistence on accuracy of definition tends to rile the cognitively rigid of the ideological cohorts that populate Internet forums. 'Taint worth it to argue. ;-)

    Yes of course a word like “paranoid” has a meaning in ordinary language which no doubt differs from it’s meaning in some technical vocabulary. But criticising the ordinary use of the word “paranoid” because it is not in accord with some technical use is like critising the ordunary use of the word “energy” because it does not agree with the technical definition of energy in physics.

    I think Fred was using the word “paranoid” in it’s everyday normal meaning. Your critisisms are just irrelevent pedantry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I think Fred was using the word “paranoid” in it’s everyday normal meaning. Your critisisms are just irrelevent pedantry.

     

    Fred? My response was not to Fred; it was to your misuse of the word "paranoia", which does NOT mean "fear". Permit me to direct your attention to the definitions at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranoia?s=t, to wit:

    1.
    Psychiatry. a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
    2.
    baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

    Again, my dear overly stubborn, insistent and wrong fellow, paranoia is not plain-vanilla fear.
  100. @Jim
    Yes of course a word like "paranoid" has a meaning in ordinary language which no doubt differs from it's meaning in some technical vocabulary. But criticising the ordinary use of the word "paranoid" because it is not in accord with some technical use is like critising the ordunary use of the word "energy" because it does not agree with the technical definition of energy in physics.

    I think Fred was using the word "paranoid" in it's everyday normal meaning. Your critisisms are just irrelevent pedantry.

    I think Fred was using the word “paranoid” in it’s everyday normal meaning. Your critisisms are just irrelevent pedantry.

    Fred? My response was not to Fred; it was to your misuse of the word “paranoia”, which does NOT mean “fear”. Permit me to direct your attention to the definitions at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranoia?s=t, to wit:

    1.
    Psychiatry. a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
    2.
    baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

    Again, my dear overly stubborn, insistent and wrong fellow, paranoia is not plain-vanilla fear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    The word "paranoia" in ordinary language means "fear". That's how I was using the word amd how I believe Fred was using the word. Again you are like someone responding to ordinary usuage of the word "energy" by quoting from a treatise on theoretical physics. You are definitely a pedant.

    Fred seemed to me to be saying that fear or wariness was pathological. I was simply remarking that fear is not pathological but highly valuable for biological survival. I'm sorry that my use of the word "paranoia" offended you.
  101. @John Jeremiah Smith

    I think Fred was using the word “paranoid” in it’s everyday normal meaning. Your critisisms are just irrelevent pedantry.

     

    Fred? My response was not to Fred; it was to your misuse of the word "paranoia", which does NOT mean "fear". Permit me to direct your attention to the definitions at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranoia?s=t, to wit:

    1.
    Psychiatry. a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
    2.
    baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

    Again, my dear overly stubborn, insistent and wrong fellow, paranoia is not plain-vanilla fear.

    The word “paranoia” in ordinary language means “fear”. That’s how I was using the word amd how I believe Fred was using the word. Again you are like someone responding to ordinary usuage of the word “energy” by quoting from a treatise on theoretical physics. You are definitely a pedant.

    Fred seemed to me to be saying that fear or wariness was pathological. I was simply remarking that fear is not pathological but highly valuable for biological survival. I’m sorry that my use of the word “paranoia” offended you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Don't be catty, son; I was not offended. Paranoia does not mean "fear" in ordinary language. Your apparent belief that "paranoia" DOES mean "fear" is your issue -- I was simply trying to help, as is my simple, kindly, humble purpose in life.
  102. @Jim
    The word "paranoia" in ordinary language means "fear". That's how I was using the word amd how I believe Fred was using the word. Again you are like someone responding to ordinary usuage of the word "energy" by quoting from a treatise on theoretical physics. You are definitely a pedant.

    Fred seemed to me to be saying that fear or wariness was pathological. I was simply remarking that fear is not pathological but highly valuable for biological survival. I'm sorry that my use of the word "paranoia" offended you.

    Don’t be catty, son; I was not offended. Paranoia does not mean “fear” in ordinary language. Your apparent belief that “paranoia” DOES mean “fear” is your issue — I was simply trying to help, as is my simple, kindly, humble purpose in life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    There's no point in arguing about words. I'll give you the word "paranoia" . My point was that fear or if you prefer wariness is not pathological but very conducive to survival.

    I'm not sure if even "true paranoia" is necessarily pathological. Many historians have described Stalin as "paranoid". If he was so his "paranoia" doesn't seem to have done him any harm. Maybe having Trotsky's skull split open in Mexico was taking things a bit too far but as Stalin was fond of sayiug "No man, no problem".
  103. “If kids at CalTech, who are very highly selected for intelligence, marry each other partly in hopes of having intelligent children, this is eugenics. ”

    No it’s not. Eugenics is what happens when the state plays at cattle breeder with human beings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff77450
    Agreed. Smart people marrying other smart people is selective mating/breeding.
  104. @John Jeremiah Smith
    Don't be catty, son; I was not offended. Paranoia does not mean "fear" in ordinary language. Your apparent belief that "paranoia" DOES mean "fear" is your issue -- I was simply trying to help, as is my simple, kindly, humble purpose in life.

    There’s no point in arguing about words. I’ll give you the word “paranoia” . My point was that fear or if you prefer wariness is not pathological but very conducive to survival.

    I’m not sure if even “true paranoia” is necessarily pathological. Many historians have described Stalin as “paranoid”. If he was so his “paranoia” doesn’t seem to have done him any harm. Maybe having Trotsky’s skull split open in Mexico was taking things a bit too far but as Stalin was fond of sayiug “No man, no problem”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Perplexed
    If there's no point to arguing about words, then "men" can be "women," etc., one word as good as another.

    Anyway, people generally recognize that paranoia is an abnormal, unhealthy state. Witness the "even" in the popular statement "Even paranoids have enemies."

    Stalin's "paranoia" may have been good for him, but harmed a lot of others.
  105. There’s no point in arguing about words.

    Fair enough. I suppose every point that could be made, from either perspective, was.

    Read More
  106. @rod1963
    What the world does need a is a tasty birth control drink given to all the 3rd world peoples. Shrink the world's population to say 3 billion, then we can talk about enhancing the homo sapiens.

    Agreed.

    Read More
  107. @London Observer
    "If kids at CalTech, who are very highly selected for intelligence, marry each other partly in hopes of having intelligent children, this is eugenics. "

    No it's not. Eugenics is what happens when the state plays at cattle breeder with human beings.

    Agreed. Smart people marrying other smart people is selective mating/breeding.

    Read More
  108. @Art
    Given humanity’s instinctive immersion in corruption, egotism, psychopathy, war, slaughter, totalitarianism, torture, murder and thievery, caution might be advisable in producing people better than we are at these things

    Why is it assumed that mankind will never give up its biological based tribalness?

    God also gave us brains. Clearly our brains can override our tribalistic genetics. The best part of Western culture uses brains to guide itself.

    There is a philosophy that is centered on the individual – NOT the group.

    INDIVIDUALISM, in contrast to socialism and all other forms of totalitarianism, is based on the respect of Christianity for the individual man and the belief that it is desirable that men should be free to develop their own individual gifts and bents. This philosophy, first fully developed during the Renaissance, grew and spread into what we know as Western civilization. The general direction of social development was one of freeing the individual from the ties which bound him in feudal society. - Hayek
     
    We have no choice but to choose the idealistic Christian philosophy as our guiding social principle. That is the only way to disempower the tribal state.

    The notion of rights vested in the individual did not originate with Christianity. It was picked up by some Hebrew scholars (Essenes) who were introduced to Greek ideas during the Hellenic period. That movement was personified in the legend of Jesus. The Greeks appear to have been influenced by the Hittites in the development of their ideas on individual rights. The big boost to individualism occurred during the development of rationalist social philosophy during the Enlightenment. Protestants adopted it. Catholics opposed it.

    Read More
  109. @Reg Cæsar
    Improving cognitive capacity without corresponding moral capacity is not eugenic. It is by definition dysgenic.

    Would you want to operate a Formula One car without a steering wheel? Or be anywhere in the vicinity when someone else does?

    Antisocial behavior during early childhood is most prevalent among the less intelligent. Its onset tends to be later among the more intelligent kids, suggesting that antisocial behavior is at least in part learned.

    Read More
  110. @bomag
    Bullshit. Churches have maintained their tax-exempt status despite engaging in all sorts of activity that wouldn’t be tax-exempt if they weren’t churches.

    There is a difference here between a grandfathered-in group and one applying for status.

    Churches have seen their political power wane while their tax exempt counter parts (Southern Poverty Law Center; ACLU; Ford foundation; etc) have seen their political power increase.

    Does DMV discriminate against white Christians in issuing driver’s licenses?

    Not a fair comparison. Everyone gets a license, eventually; and not having one is not that big of a deal. A license to breed, on the other hand, will invite all kinds of gamesmanship. Plus, imagine an unlicensed baby face down on the beach while the "mother" wails about her attempt to emigrate so she could raise it in a better country. The fallout from that will have the lower classes issued artificial wombs so they can generate even more organisms to fill the ecosystem completely.

    Churches don’t maintain tax-exempt status because they are grandfathered, they main it because they are churches. They don’t have to prove that they are charitable or service oriented because the blanket presumption is that they are, even when they push the envelope. I am not disagreeing that tax-exempt secular nonprofits can also practice political or group interest advocacy under the false pretense of providing service. It’s just much harder for them to do it because of the rules of accountability that they operate under that churches are exempt from.

    The comparison with a driver’s license is entirely fair. The key point is that the process for getting one is standardized and transparent. Show some basic knowledge of traffic laws and demonstrate some basic competence and you get one. Most, but not all, people are capable of that. The standards for suspension or revocation are pretty definite too under DUI laws and a lot of people lose driving privileges because of them. Then there’s the additional enforcement mechanism of insurance laws that keep a lot of people from driving. If you get in an accident without insurance, you can be criminally charged. For most people losing a driver’s license is a big deal.

    The rest of your paragraph is completely rambling and incoherent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag
    I'm sympathetic to your licensing proposal, but society wide we lack the technocratic sensibilities to make something like that work. Even something straightforward like driver's licenses are gamed and ignored. The chronic DUIs around here just drive with suspended licenses and serve their couple of days if caught. We are in the age of the Expanding Man, and I can't imagine prosecutors and judges having enough public support to deny the usual miscreants their spawn. So we'll get more of our current dysfunction where the careful and law abiding suppress their fertility to make room for the irresponsible.
  111. @Thirdeye
    Churches don't maintain tax-exempt status because they are grandfathered, they main it because they are churches. They don't have to prove that they are charitable or service oriented because the blanket presumption is that they are, even when they push the envelope. I am not disagreeing that tax-exempt secular nonprofits can also practice political or group interest advocacy under the false pretense of providing service. It's just much harder for them to do it because of the rules of accountability that they operate under that churches are exempt from.

    The comparison with a driver's license is entirely fair. The key point is that the process for getting one is standardized and transparent. Show some basic knowledge of traffic laws and demonstrate some basic competence and you get one. Most, but not all, people are capable of that. The standards for suspension or revocation are pretty definite too under DUI laws and a lot of people lose driving privileges because of them. Then there's the additional enforcement mechanism of insurance laws that keep a lot of people from driving. If you get in an accident without insurance, you can be criminally charged. For most people losing a driver's license is a big deal.

    The rest of your paragraph is completely rambling and incoherent.

    I’m sympathetic to your licensing proposal, but society wide we lack the technocratic sensibilities to make something like that work. Even something straightforward like driver’s licenses are gamed and ignored. The chronic DUIs around here just drive with suspended licenses and serve their couple of days if caught. We are in the age of the Expanding Man, and I can’t imagine prosecutors and judges having enough public support to deny the usual miscreants their spawn. So we’ll get more of our current dysfunction where the careful and law abiding suppress their fertility to make room for the irresponsible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    I agree that the roadblocks to regulating reproduction revolve around sensibilities. It's easy to get people to understand enforcement of motor vehicle laws because the consequences of breaking them can be dramatic and impact individual lives profoundly. The consequences of irresponsible reproduction are a little more difficult to fathom and the term "eugenics" carries some baggage because it was corrupted for certain racialist ideologies. Some of the biggest objections would probably come from groups that would see their collective well-being benefit the most from regulated reproduction.

    I can think of one difference between combating DUI scofflaws and reproductive scofflaws. There is no equivalent of Norplant to prevent DUI scofflaws from driving. Financial incentives for Norplant might work.

    I'm not going to pretend that there wouldn't be potential unintended consequences of regulated reproduction that would need to be thought out very carefully. Consider the China example, where the one child per family policy resulted in a gender imbalance due to selective abortion or export of baby girls. Not a great situation if you're a young Chinese man.

  112. Question for the better informed among you: Instead of focusing on changing DNA of embryos, what about simple testing of embryos for certain traits and then simply choosing the best?

    Here’s the scenario. Scientists begin to discover certain genes (or whatever the correct term may be) that strongly correlate to IQ or other behavioral traits. Now, scientists haven’t discovered all of the genes that contribute to trait X, Y or Z, but they’ve found some and can test an embryo for them.

    Next, a couple has six eggs fertilized by the husband’s sperm. Then, the couple has the six eggs tested for a variety of traits. Now, there’s no manipulation of the fertilized egg, just getting a preview of what their strengths and weaknesses may be. Can’t be sure, of course, but you are dramatically increasing the odds.

    Basically, you’re allowed to choose the smartest (more athletic, best-looking, etc.) or best combination of traits of the six. I mean, if I had six kids, one of them likely would be pretty bright. Not a genius, but certainly ~130 IQ or above.

    So, in this case, we’re not necessarily creating a race of geniuses, but if everyone picked the smartest out of five potential children for each child that they have, you’d see a very dramatic increase in average IQ, certainly enough to massively change society.

    Why won’t this be possible in 10 or 20 years (give or take a decade)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred
    To a certain extent this is already happening regarding defects. I would be surprised if the practice did not expand - and well before 10 or 20 years.
  113. This talk of genetic engineering is not going to alter anything.

    What is the scarcest of all resources? Status and power. Will GE somehow increase the availability of that? I doubt it.

    The problem with GE is the push for uniformity. All men want to be tall and good looking. All women want to be beautiful. Everyone wants to be smart and talented. The more uniformity, the more vicious the competition will become for that which cannot be so readily supplied.

    It’s a dystopian future.

    Read More
  114. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Question for the better informed among you: Instead of focusing on changing DNA of embryos, what about simple testing of embryos for certain traits and then simply choosing the best?

    Here's the scenario. Scientists begin to discover certain genes (or whatever the correct term may be) that strongly correlate to IQ or other behavioral traits. Now, scientists haven't discovered all of the genes that contribute to trait X, Y or Z, but they've found some and can test an embryo for them.

    Next, a couple has six eggs fertilized by the husband's sperm. Then, the couple has the six eggs tested for a variety of traits. Now, there's no manipulation of the fertilized egg, just getting a preview of what their strengths and weaknesses may be. Can't be sure, of course, but you are dramatically increasing the odds.

    Basically, you're allowed to choose the smartest (more athletic, best-looking, etc.) or best combination of traits of the six. I mean, if I had six kids, one of them likely would be pretty bright. Not a genius, but certainly ~130 IQ or above.

    So, in this case, we're not necessarily creating a race of geniuses, but if everyone picked the smartest out of five potential children for each child that they have, you'd see a very dramatic increase in average IQ, certainly enough to massively change society.

    Why won't this be possible in 10 or 20 years (give or take a decade)?

    To a certain extent this is already happening regarding defects. I would be surprised if the practice did not expand – and well before 10 or 20 years.

    Read More
  115. @bomag
    I'm sympathetic to your licensing proposal, but society wide we lack the technocratic sensibilities to make something like that work. Even something straightforward like driver's licenses are gamed and ignored. The chronic DUIs around here just drive with suspended licenses and serve their couple of days if caught. We are in the age of the Expanding Man, and I can't imagine prosecutors and judges having enough public support to deny the usual miscreants their spawn. So we'll get more of our current dysfunction where the careful and law abiding suppress their fertility to make room for the irresponsible.

    I agree that the roadblocks to regulating reproduction revolve around sensibilities. It’s easy to get people to understand enforcement of motor vehicle laws because the consequences of breaking them can be dramatic and impact individual lives profoundly. The consequences of irresponsible reproduction are a little more difficult to fathom and the term “eugenics” carries some baggage because it was corrupted for certain racialist ideologies. Some of the biggest objections would probably come from groups that would see their collective well-being benefit the most from regulated reproduction.

    I can think of one difference between combating DUI scofflaws and reproductive scofflaws. There is no equivalent of Norplant to prevent DUI scofflaws from driving. Financial incentives for Norplant might work.

    I’m not going to pretend that there wouldn’t be potential unintended consequences of regulated reproduction that would need to be thought out very carefully. Consider the China example, where the one child per family policy resulted in a gender imbalance due to selective abortion or export of baby girls. Not a great situation if you’re a young Chinese man.

    Read More
  116. @Jim
    There's no point in arguing about words. I'll give you the word "paranoia" . My point was that fear or if you prefer wariness is not pathological but very conducive to survival.

    I'm not sure if even "true paranoia" is necessarily pathological. Many historians have described Stalin as "paranoid". If he was so his "paranoia" doesn't seem to have done him any harm. Maybe having Trotsky's skull split open in Mexico was taking things a bit too far but as Stalin was fond of sayiug "No man, no problem".

    If there’s no point to arguing about words, then “men” can be “women,” etc., one word as good as another.

    Anyway, people generally recognize that paranoia is an abnormal, unhealthy state. Witness the “even” in the popular statement “Even paranoids have enemies.”

    Stalin’s “paranoia” may have been good for him, but harmed a lot of others.

    Read More
  117. @A.
    Ten years seems to me a bit pessimistic. Being able to edit the genome is necessary, but not sufficient, to implementing any kind of eugenic program; it's also necessary to understand what genes actually exist and how they are expressed, and that is a much more complex and difficult problem. Having spent a year working for (though not among) bioinformaticians at the vanguard of the field, and thus had opportunity to observe closely at first hand the extent to which knowledge of the human genome has been developed, I would be surprised to see effective eugenics by direct genome editing become possible within my lifetime, and I am yet a fairly young man.

    Great.

    Someone who is actually scientifically literate enough to point out current realities.

    Unfortunately, there are also science-trained personnel in the bio-tech field without any intelligent grasp of the limits of paradigm,much less epistemology (genetic investigating into the ‘origins
    ‘ of language for example.)

    Such folk will merely execute the task assigned them, while marketing flogs the snake oil to ignorant investors.

    Read More
  118. @Fred Reed
    Actually Fred's wife is well on the brown side and, being one of those female multi-taskers we read about, is currently reading Hobbes, Aristotle, Milan Kundera, Hunter Thompson (in Spanish), as well as Robert Graves' two-volume thing on mythology as well as a couple of other things on the bedside table that I'm not going to go look at. This is an actual data point, verified daily over coffee with three useless but agreeable cats in bed with us. The cats do probably have low IQs. Fred's stepdaughter, based on his admittedly inexactly and anecdotal observation, would have no trouble entering Mensa. But, as I have repeatedly observed, nobody knows more about Mexico than those who know nothing about it.

    Fred.

    Those cats have IQ’s in the 800+ range. Don’t ever, ever, suggest in any way that you might suspect this.

    Read More
  119. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Many good points, but there’s one huge overstatement. Behavior is less and less considered to be genetic, both in animals and in people. For example, scientists used to believe that almost all bird behavior had a genetic basis; now they see the examples of complex learning. Some crows learn so well that they can pass this information down to the next generation. That information is not passed genetically. Only crows that learn it from their parents get it.

    Mr. Reed, you weaken your arguments by blithely implying that the world is genetically determined to a large extent. If even the lesser animals are now seen to evaluate choices, to change their behavior based upon learning and pondering what is best for them, how can we revert to the typical “intelligence is genetic” old paradigm? As my son says, he wasn’t born knowing how to deal with hardware and software issues. It ain’t rocket science. It was a lot of patient reading, analyzing, and practicing. “Intelligent” people learn this! :)

    Read More
  120. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Is it just a de jevu?
    Angelic beings, centaurs, mermaids, & godlike powers are legendary. History and archaeology uncover tales of great battles, flight, and amazing architecture.
    Eugenics in present society? C-span comments in a discussion on the Zika virus and birth defects had the guests and callers bemoan Brazil’s abortion laws. I guess that some infected mothers may have infected fetuses, but the folks mentioned in the discussion on C-Span were ready to advocate a paranoid, eugenic escalation of abortion to further their ideas of a cultured society.

    Read More
  121. Boy this article threw military families under the bus. This whole eugenics thing is nonsense pure nonsense and if you study the breeding of animals you will see why. Mongrel dogs are always healthier than pure breeds. Race horses are bred for one thing and that is why they are nervous and quite stupid. Everying has a balance and if you favor one set of genes then another is weakened or we find that unforeseen changes happen. The ancient Spartans let malformed babies
    die so that only the strong survived. So where are the Spartan people today? The manipulation of genes is easy but the outcome can be unknown. If you favor red hair people then you will get light skinned people with red hair and blue eyes but you also get people who are more sensitive to pain and need much more sedative medication for a visit to the dentist not to mention surgery. The gene that makes a person have red hair also regulates pain tolerance.

    Groups of people whole only marry into their ethnic group also have problems. The Jewish people have a blood disorder as do blacks. The Irish tend to produce too much iron in their blood which causes problems. So don’t be so quick to plan designer babies.

    Read More
  122. Boy this article threw military families under the bus. This whole eugenics thing is nonsense pure nonsense and if you study the breeding of animals you will see why. Mongrel dogs are always healthier than pure breeds. Race horses are bred for one thing and that is why they are nervous and quite stupid. Everying has a balance and if you favor one set of genes then another is weakened or we find that unforeseen changes happen. The ancient Spartans let malformed babies
    die so that only the strong survived. So where are the Spartan people today? The manipulation of genes is easy but the outcome can be unknown. If you favor red hair people then you will get light skinned people with red hair and blue eyes but you also get people who are more sensitive to pain and need much more sedative medication for a visit to the dentist not to mention surgery. The gene that makes a person have red hair also regulates pain tolerance.

    Groups of people who only marry into their ethnic group also have problems. The Jewish people have a blood disorder as do blacks. The Irish tend to produce too much iron in their blood which causes problems. So don’t be so quick to plan designer babies. Sometimes nature knows best.

    Read More
  123. Impressive response, for this suggestive article.

    World population measurement would be directly and faster then any other behaviour can, be affected.

    “Engineering” for quality, the resulting different humanoids, would incline the masses to the new tang, cognitive means, and cognitive peaks first would bring the elites to impose opportunistic policies in the longer run (say four milliard years, our time left on earth according to solar spects), that would make more sense generationally, and the masses could be engineered for conformity. A better world, it is hard to go against cognitive ability, genetic traits of homogeneity within groups, to obtain any other outcome of quality.

    Imagine a few thousand infiltrators in the dumb worlds of our elites, being part of their own, being allowed to tweak God like?, the stupor of today. The elites taking responsibility and the masses slightly more absorptive, thus submissive to better understood quests for quality, not quantity.

    Groups that do not participate, waning, no harm done. Biodiversity at the root is guaranteed.

    How fast can this materialise? and that is the incredible angle: within years. One can say that CRISPR and it’s derivatives is the miracle tool once in a while hands over. Timing, and content are right. The effect of a bomb.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave