The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Derbyshire ArchiveBlogview
The Return of Eugenics—Or Something
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_150408959
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

What a technologically tremendous time we’ve been living through this past few decades! That thought was inspired by the death last week of Andrew Grove, former CEO of Intel Corporation, and a key player in the computing revolution of the past half-century.

I made my living for thirty years in Big Iron, the grand old mainframe computers of the seventies, eighties, and nineties. Software was my trade; I didn’t engage much with hardware. You couldn’t help but brush up against some of the developments, though, if you lived through those decades.

A memory: When I was a kid, there was a lad my age in the street whose parents spoiled him rotten. He always had the latest toy or gadget. I think every street has one of these when you’re a kid. Well, at some date in the late 1950s this boy showed up holding a fancy blue box the size of a dictionary that played music without being plugged into anything! “It’s a transistor radio,” he announced smugly. We were suitably impressed, as we digested our wormwood and gall.

William Shockley was getting the Nobel Prize around the same time—sixty years ago this year—for having invented the transistor (along with Bardeen and Brattain). Later in Shockley’s life, through the 1970s and 1980s, when he himself was in his sixties and seventies, Shockley got interested in genetics. He took up the idea, which has been lying around since the 19th century, and which was illustrated very hilariously b y the 2006 movie Idiocracy, that our easy-living modern societies are dysgenic: that is, they dis-courage breeding by smarter, healthier, better socialized people and en-courage breeding by dumber, sicker, more dysfunctional folk.

The opposite of “dysgenic” is “eugenic.”

I shall pause briefly while you scream, jump on a kitchen chair, and clutch your skirts. … OK, end pause. That’s what you’re supposed to do when you hear the word “eugenics.” It’s a hysteria word.

Over to the London Spectator magazine, a perfectly respectable organ—notwithstanding the fact that I used to write for it—much favored by pallid, pipe-smoking Church of England clergymen in sleepy English villages. The crossword, by the way, is exceptionally challenging.

There’s an article dated April 2nd on the Spectator website (by Spectator editor Fraser Nelson) titled The Return of Eugenics. Subtitle: “Researchers don’t like the word—but they’re running ahead with the idea, and Britain is at the forefront.”

Well, it’s nice to see the old country taking the lead in something. The main subject here is of course designer babies. As I wrote in VDARE.com back in February:

It is already the case today that no-one in a First World country need give birth to a Down Syndrome child, unless she wants to. If my knowledge of current science is correct, it will be the case ten years from now, perhaps less, that no First-Worlder will need to give birth to a stupid child unless she wants to; or an ugly child, or an un-athletic or un-musical child, or an antisocial child.

The thing we can already do is scrutinize the genomes of fertilized human eggs and discard those eggs with gene variants we don’t want. As the Spectator article points out, we’re just starting to be able to do a much more advanced thing: editthe genome of a fertilized egg, actually changing the genes from variants we don’t want to variants we do.

ORDER IT NOW

These new techniques neutralize the moral problem. If you’re fertilizing twenty eggs, then picking the one you want and throwing away the rest, people will say you’re destroying human lives. If you’re just fertilizing one egg, then diddling with its genes to improve the health of the person it will become—or the beauty, or the intelligence, or the musical ability of that person—why is that morally worse than taking out someone’s appendix, or giving them cosmetic dentistry?

This is the world we’re sailing into. If the word “eugenics” gives us the heebie-jeebies, we’d better just change it for another word. Whatever word we use, the thing is what we’re doing, and will be doing more and more of.

And the core issue with eugenics is the same one it has always been: the issue of human liberty. Is this world we’re sailing into one where we freely choose whether, or how, to edit our offspring? Or a world where governments force us to?

And then, if Country A sticks with liberty while Country B goes for coercion, will country B thereby gain some geopolitical advantage over country A?

Or, if the best gene-editing techniques turn out to be really expensive, will the rich edit themselves up into a superman caste while the rest of us slouch around with second-rate genes?

William Shockley, at any rate, seems to have stuck with liberty. His most controversial proposal was that non-taxpayers with an IQ below 100 would be paid if they voluntarily agreed to sterilization—a thousand 1972 dollars for each of their IQ points under 100.

You may think that’s loopy, but it’s still voluntary.

Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century I can’t leave the topic of eugenics without a footnote on the quantity of nonsense talked about it. A good primer is my April 2013 review of John Glad’s book Future Human Evolution here on VDARE.com.

Sample quote: “Hitler was hardly more of a eugenicist than his ideological enemies.”

Hitler doesn’t in fact seem to have been especially keen on eugenics for a man of his time. The word “eugenics” doesn’t show up in the index of Mein Kampfat all. A lot of Hitler’s contemporaries from everywhere on the political spectrum, from Bertrand Russell on the left to Winston Churchill on the right, were more enthusiastic. Germany’s compulsory sterilization law was drafted before the Nazis came to power … and so on.

Most of what most people think they know about eugenics is wrong.

OK, you can come down off that kitchen chair now.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: Eugenics, VDare Archives 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. buzzsaw says:

    There’s also Project Prevention, which pays drug addicts to get sterilized or at least on a long-term birth control. Great charity!

    I’m hoping genetic engineering of human babies comes sooner than later, before the globalist march snuffs out bigger chunks of our genetic resources — we should look at them like natural resources as important as oil and precious metals

    Read More
    • Agree: Jeff77450
    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
    /jderbyshire/the-return-of-eugenics-or-something/#comment-1380080
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. I’m not too sure about the ability of scientists to manipulate genes at that level of precision. However, I do wonder why Derb’s first suggestion – picking the best of the litter before they are born – can’t be done in the next decade or two. Wouldn’t you simply need to know which genes highly correlate to certain traits and then test each fertilized egg to see which one(s) seem to have the best odds to have various traits.

    You wouldn’t need to know exactly how the genes work or how to manipulate them, just that they seem to show up more often for trait X. Also, it wouldn’t be perfect; you’d just be upping the odds. But that’s still a huge leap forward.

    As scientists (with the aid of computers) get better and more information on our DNA, why wouldn’t this be possible in the next ten to twenty years?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    fertilizing embryos outside the body is costly and the females must endure evasive procedures after being primed with hormones to get the eggs to mature and then extracted before being fertilized.. often the implanted embryos fail to grow, thus a repeat of the procedure would be warranted....it gets costly and the female may need to go thru with another invasive procedure to procure more viable eggs..we are a long way away from having parents choosing the best embryos to implant as a mainstream method to have children.

    while the technology may exist to identify the best of your 10 embryos in the next decade, few parents will probably choose this method, unless they are using a surrogate , or cannot get pregnant using the old fashion method. Even today most female will have 3 embryos implanted when they require in-vitro fertilization because the failure rate is still high. Extracting eggs is still not without concern, as they cannot remove dozens of eggs from the potential mother, usually just 10 at a time and then maybe half get fertilized.
  3. Nice essay, Mr. D.
    Leaving aside the main topic, eugenics, I make here a small comment on gadget: portable radio.
    Transistors were (and even more so, nowadays are) crucial for gadgets with much higher functionality. But portability of a radio could be achieved at the previous level of technology: vacuum tubes. I remember buying individual parts and assembling myself in 1950-s a portable radio, based on five-electrode vacuum tube (pentode) of a particular type: 3ж3п. First number, 3, stands for relatively low voltage, 3 Volts, for heating the cathode from a battery source, for portability. (Stationary devices used transformed 6 Volt AC for that purpose, and would be like 6ж3п). Letter ж and second number 3 dealt with particular pentode tube: cathode, anode and different grids between them. But the last letter, п, there stands for “пальчиковая лампа”, “пальчиковая” meaning pinkie-finger-size. The whole device fitted a box from candies, and included inside low-volt battery for cathode heating, and high volt battery (about 30 Volt) for supplying “anode” voltage of relatively low current. The sound was delivered via earphones.
    That is when I learned about and got fascinated by Lee de Forest, inventor of three-electrode vacuum-tube triode (audion), see

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_de_Forest

    Later, in 1960-s at military lessons in University, we studied ground-to-air missiles guided by ground control units with the same “пальчиковая” vacuum tubes 6ж3п.
    All this is to counter the impression that portability of radio was achievable via transistor technology only.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    I would like to add a sad and instructive story (from 1920 ?). The most important application of wireless communications evidently was in the NAVY. Devices were operated by (relatively) low-educated sailors. First receivers contained amplifiers based on triods (see above), where for some reasons there was separate handle to control heating current for cathodes. Empirically those sailors observed that by increasing the current of cathode heating, they were getting stronger signal. As a result, quite often they overheated and burned those triods. Leadership of NAVY concluded that triods are unreliable, and this made quite a delay in their introduction for wireless communications.
    A lesson for Eugenics from the story above. There may be some unforeseen setbacks in the implementation of eugenic practices. However, they may be connected with some unessential defects of current technology. Don’t be discouraged !!!
  4. The core problem with eugenics is that the guys doing all the gene splicing aren’t any wiser than the rest of us.

    Once they’ve bred a new strain of ultra-capable sinners, what then?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Once they’ve bred a new strain of ultra-capable sinners, what then?
     
    "what then" or "what now?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc0m5UMPwtU
  5. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Nice essay, Mr. D.
    Leaving aside the main topic, eugenics, I make here a small comment on gadget: portable radio.
    Transistors were (and even more so, nowadays are) crucial for gadgets with much higher functionality. But portability of a radio could be achieved at the previous level of technology: vacuum tubes. I remember buying individual parts and assembling myself in 1950-s a portable radio, based on five-electrode vacuum tube (pentode) of a particular type: 3ж3п. First number, 3, stands for relatively low voltage, 3 Volts, for heating the cathode from a battery source, for portability. (Stationary devices used transformed 6 Volt AC for that purpose, and would be like 6ж3п). Letter ж and second number 3 dealt with particular pentode tube: cathode, anode and different grids between them. But the last letter, п, there stands for “пальчиковая лампа”, “пальчиковая” meaning pinkie-finger-size. The whole device fitted a box from candies, and included inside low-volt battery for cathode heating, and high volt battery (about 30 Volt) for supplying “anode” voltage of relatively low current. The sound was delivered via earphones.
    That is when I learned about and got fascinated by Lee de Forest, inventor of three-electrode vacuum-tube triode (audion), see
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_de_Forest
    Later, in 1960-s at military lessons in University, we studied ground-to-air missiles guided by ground control units with the same “пальчиковая” vacuum tubes 6ж3п.
    All this is to counter the impression that portability of radio was achievable via transistor technology only.

    I would like to add a sad and instructive story (from 1920 ?). The most important application of wireless communications evidently was in the NAVY. Devices were operated by (relatively) low-educated sailors. First receivers contained amplifiers based on triods (see above), where for some reasons there was separate handle to control heating current for cathodes. Empirically those sailors observed that by increasing the current of cathode heating, they were getting stronger signal. As a result, quite often they overheated and burned those triods. Leadership of NAVY concluded that triods are unreliable, and this made quite a delay in their introduction for wireless communications.
    A lesson for Eugenics from the story above. There may be some unforeseen setbacks in the implementation of eugenic practices. However, they may be connected with some unessential defects of current technology. Don’t be discouraged !!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @macilrae
    Alas for us who cut their teeth on electronic tubes ("valves") - whether they are triodes or, still less, pentodes - it is always an effort to stay on-topic here at unz.com because the responses are so often almost as interesting as the articles that generated them. The challenge is always to find a way to hitch your hobby-horse up to their carriage - Immigrant, you did a better-than-average job here!
    , @colm
    It would have been easier to shoot the soldiers for sabotage than discard the system.

    One bad thing about modern civilization is we value human life too much.
  6. woodNfish says:

    …no First-Worlder will need to give birth to a stupid child unless she wants to; or an ugly child, or an un-athletic or un-musical child, or an antisocial child.

    Excellent! It is nice to know that at some point in the future no more leftists will exist.

    Read More
    • Agree: dc.sunsets
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Excellent! It is nice to know that at some point in the future no more leftists will exist."

    Patently false. One is not able to "program" the political ideology during the "gene-editing" process.

    "And the core issue with eugenics is the same one it has always been: the issue of human liberty."

    Just because one has the liberty to do something does not mean one should exercise that liberty. There are benefits and costs involved. Moreover, suppose the majority of people exercise their liberty to say no to this process. Do the individuals in that society have the liberty to make that decision even if the minority vehemently disagrees?

    "The core problem with eugenics is that the guys doing all the gene splicing aren’t any wiser than the rest of us. Once they’ve bred a new strain of ultra-capable sinners, what then?"

    Thread winner.

  7. All I know is if I were in the baby-making business (or planned to be), I’d be burning a hasty path to the door of Rachel Ward, begging her to let me have a sample of her DNA to be replicated.

    I can’t speak to her intelligence, disposition, kindness or the like, but hers was and is a face that could truly launch that thousand ships.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Rachel Ward is a beautiful woman, but not the feminine ideal or worth granting the golden apple. She has many masculine features, in fact: high cheekbones, narrow face, and a square jaw.
  8. Corvinus says:
    @woodNfish

    ...no First-Worlder will need to give birth to a stupid child unless she wants to; or an ugly child, or an un-athletic or un-musical child, or an antisocial child.
     
    Excellent! It is nice to know that at some point in the future no more leftists will exist.

    “Excellent! It is nice to know that at some point in the future no more leftists will exist.”

    Patently false. One is not able to “program” the political ideology during the “gene-editing” process.

    “And the core issue with eugenics is the same one it has always been: the issue of human liberty.”

    Just because one has the liberty to do something does not mean one should exercise that liberty. There are benefits and costs involved. Moreover, suppose the majority of people exercise their liberty to say no to this process. Do the individuals in that society have the liberty to make that decision even if the minority vehemently disagrees?

    “The core problem with eugenics is that the guys doing all the gene splicing aren’t any wiser than the rest of us. Once they’ve bred a new strain of ultra-capable sinners, what then?”

    Thread winner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Well specifically, I was referring to this part of the quote: "...no First-Worlder will need to give birth to a stupid child..."

    Hence, no more Leftists.
  9. If the word “eugenics” gives us the heebie-jeebies, we’d better just change it for another word.

    Transhumanics?

    Read More
  10. Technomad says:

    The trouble is, the technology to “design” a child will be available to everyone. So “deaf culture” fanatics who want their children to have “a heritage of silence” will be able to do just that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @colm
    No, they will not.

    That's why totalitarianism is necessary for a eugenic future, to prevent such kind of people.
  11. woodNfish says:
    @Corvinus
    "Excellent! It is nice to know that at some point in the future no more leftists will exist."

    Patently false. One is not able to "program" the political ideology during the "gene-editing" process.

    "And the core issue with eugenics is the same one it has always been: the issue of human liberty."

    Just because one has the liberty to do something does not mean one should exercise that liberty. There are benefits and costs involved. Moreover, suppose the majority of people exercise their liberty to say no to this process. Do the individuals in that society have the liberty to make that decision even if the minority vehemently disagrees?

    "The core problem with eugenics is that the guys doing all the gene splicing aren’t any wiser than the rest of us. Once they’ve bred a new strain of ultra-capable sinners, what then?"

    Thread winner.

    Well specifically, I was referring to this part of the quote: “…no First-Worlder will need to give birth to a stupid child…”

    Hence, no more Leftists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Well specifically, I was referring to this part of the quote: “…no First-Worlder will need to give birth to a stupid child…Hence, no more Leftists."

    A person isn't born into a political ideology. He/she may be more prone to conservative or liberal ideas, as current brain research reveals, but for someone to make your implications is ignorant and idiotic.
  12. I figured out early on that our world was going down the toilet, so I decided not to have any children at all — and I married a woman who agreed with me.

    That makes me a genius, and her too.

    Everything I read on this blog confirms my long-held opinion.

    I feel sorry for the children and grandchildren of anybody reading this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    "If I knew grand-kids are such fun, I would start with grand-kids."
    My condolences to you, Mr. Buzz Mohawk.
    By the way, is your handle related to people,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohawk_people ,
    or to hair cut,
    http://therighthairstyles.com/mohawk-hairstyles-for-men/ ?
    Best, I.f.f.U.
    , @dc.sunsets
    Different strokes...

    Given my realization that neither I nor anyone trying to sell me forecasts had even the tiniest clue about the future, I am pleased that my expectation for the world going to hell in a hand basket didn't dissuade me from embarking on one of life's most interesting adventures: fatherhood.

    I agree with Immigrant. Grandkids are fun, and while I have no doubt that mine will face challenges, I never forget that everyone reading here has ancestors who survived recurring famines, plagues and nearly constant warfare. For all its warts, we live in a Garden of Eden compared to Europe of 400 years ago, much less most of the rest of the world.

    Today's people are such pussies.
    , @Stonehands
    "I figured out early on that our world was going down the toilet, so I decided not to have any children at all — and I married a woman who agreed with me.

    That makes me a genius, and her too.

    Everything I read on this blog confirms my long-held opinion.

    I feel sorry for the children and grandchildren of anybody reading this."

    Way to go Buzz, and it didn't even cost the rest of us a dime- to spare us from the self-replications of a "Genius" like you.
  13. expeedee says:

    The human gene pool, especially those of European origin, is full of deleterious mutations. Many, if not most, of our diseases have a genetic component which cost societies massive amounts of money and much suffering. Many health insurance companies will pay for genetic screening of embryos, especially in older parents, as it can potentially save them (the insurance companies) millions of dollars. So I don’t see where this will adversely impact poorer people. Perhaps in later years, geneticists will be able to prevent mental illness and then perhaps enhance humans e.g. athletic skills, intelligence, etc. I am personally very optimistic about this technology and its potential.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Booji Boy

    The human gene pool, especially those of European origin, is full of deleterious mutations.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJT_MKA3i04&nohtml5=False

    Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid
    Happier than you and me.

    Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid
    And it determined what he could see.

    Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid
    One chromosome too many.

    Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid
    And it determined what he could see.

    And he wore a hat,
    And he had a job,
    And he brought home the bacon
    So that no one knew.
  14. @Buzz Mohawk
    I figured out early on that our world was going down the toilet, so I decided not to have any children at all -- and I married a woman who agreed with me.

    That makes me a genius, and her too.

    Everything I read on this blog confirms my long-held opinion.

    I feel sorry for the children and grandchildren of anybody reading this.

    “If I knew grand-kids are such fun, I would start with grand-kids.”
    My condolences to you, Mr. Buzz Mohawk.
    By the way, is your handle related to people,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohawk_people ,
    or to hair cut,
    http://therighthairstyles.com/mohawk-hairstyles-for-men/ ?
    Best, I.f.f.U.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Is my handle related to people, or to hair cut?

    Both,

    and neither.

    Its origins will remain shrouded in mystery and personal history,

    but I will say that a fun time at college has something to do with it.
  15. New state law in Indiana, “…prohibits abortion in the early stages of a pregnancy based on genetic abnormalities…”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-indiana-plannedparenthood-lawsuit-idUSKCN0X427N

    Read More
  16. @Immigrant from former USSR
    "If I knew grand-kids are such fun, I would start with grand-kids."
    My condolences to you, Mr. Buzz Mohawk.
    By the way, is your handle related to people,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohawk_people ,
    or to hair cut,
    http://therighthairstyles.com/mohawk-hairstyles-for-men/ ?
    Best, I.f.f.U.

    Is my handle related to people, or to hair cut?

    Both,

    and neither.

    Its origins will remain shrouded in mystery and personal history,

    but I will say that a fun time at college has something to do with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cracker
    Thanks for telling us. I though you used to be a cab driver in NYC a few decades ago...
  17. Travis says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I'm not too sure about the ability of scientists to manipulate genes at that level of precision. However, I do wonder why Derb's first suggestion - picking the best of the litter before they are born - can't be done in the next decade or two. Wouldn't you simply need to know which genes highly correlate to certain traits and then test each fertilized egg to see which one(s) seem to have the best odds to have various traits.

    You wouldn't need to know exactly how the genes work or how to manipulate them, just that they seem to show up more often for trait X. Also, it wouldn't be perfect; you'd just be upping the odds. But that's still a huge leap forward.

    As scientists (with the aid of computers) get better and more information on our DNA, why wouldn't this be possible in the next ten to twenty years?

    fertilizing embryos outside the body is costly and the females must endure evasive procedures after being primed with hormones to get the eggs to mature and then extracted before being fertilized.. often the implanted embryos fail to grow, thus a repeat of the procedure would be warranted….it gets costly and the female may need to go thru with another invasive procedure to procure more viable eggs..we are a long way away from having parents choosing the best embryos to implant as a mainstream method to have children.

    while the technology may exist to identify the best of your 10 embryos in the next decade, few parents will probably choose this method, unless they are using a surrogate , or cannot get pregnant using the old fashion method. Even today most female will have 3 embryos implanted when they require in-vitro fertilization because the failure rate is still high. Extracting eggs is still not without concern, as they cannot remove dozens of eggs from the potential mother, usually just 10 at a time and then maybe half get fertilized.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    Genetic engineering is doubtful to occur within our lifetime, although the technology will probably exist for gene manipulation within 15 years. Just as cloning has been available and used with animals for the last decade, yet no humans are cloning themselves.

    i suppose the fastest way to genetic engineering will be if they can make super sperm, which removes the worst alleles and adds in beneficial segments of DNA because the female can easily be impregnated with sperm at home with no need for surgery to remove her eggs. But today one can buy seaman from donors with the characteristics females desire, such as healthy, athletic men with college degrees, yet most couples never choose this path unless the male is not fertile.
  18. AndyBoy says:

    As someone said over at Whitaker’s BUGS many years ago … ideology is fading, biology rising.

    Read More
  19. Booji Boy says:
    @expeedee
    The human gene pool, especially those of European origin, is full of deleterious mutations. Many, if not most, of our diseases have a genetic component which cost societies massive amounts of money and much suffering. Many health insurance companies will pay for genetic screening of embryos, especially in older parents, as it can potentially save them (the insurance companies) millions of dollars. So I don't see where this will adversely impact poorer people. Perhaps in later years, geneticists will be able to prevent mental illness and then perhaps enhance humans e.g. athletic skills, intelligence, etc. I am personally very optimistic about this technology and its potential.

    The human gene pool, especially those of European origin, is full of deleterious mutations.

    Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid
    Happier than you and me.

    Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid
    And it determined what he could see.

    Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid
    One chromosome too many.

    Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid
    And it determined what he could see.

    And he wore a hat,
    And he had a job,
    And he brought home the bacon
    So that no one knew.

    Read More
  20. mtn cur says:

    Selection for intelligence? A comparison of those who build MIRVed nukes with those who use a sharpened stick indicates a fugue of complex stupidity which most hunter gatherers would toss into the trash. Two centuries ago, the emergency rooms really sucked, so stupid people didn’t have so many kids. The economy of scale shown here is likewise at work in how “conventional breeding methods for maize yield five times as many useful cultivars as biotech but less monopoly money.Since the seed parents of maize have up to one thousand offspring, indications are that we will wind up with an even smaller and more vicious oligarchy than at present.

    Read More
  21. Truth says:
    @The Grate Deign
    The core problem with eugenics is that the guys doing all the gene splicing aren't any wiser than the rest of us.

    Once they've bred a new strain of ultra-capable sinners, what then?

    Once they’ve bred a new strain of ultra-capable sinners, what then?

    “what then” or “what now?”

    Read More
  22. @Buzz Mohawk
    I figured out early on that our world was going down the toilet, so I decided not to have any children at all -- and I married a woman who agreed with me.

    That makes me a genius, and her too.

    Everything I read on this blog confirms my long-held opinion.

    I feel sorry for the children and grandchildren of anybody reading this.

    Different strokes…

    Given my realization that neither I nor anyone trying to sell me forecasts had even the tiniest clue about the future, I am pleased that my expectation for the world going to hell in a hand basket didn’t dissuade me from embarking on one of life’s most interesting adventures: fatherhood.

    I agree with Immigrant. Grandkids are fun, and while I have no doubt that mine will face challenges, I never forget that everyone reading here has ancestors who survived recurring famines, plagues and nearly constant warfare. For all its warts, we live in a Garden of Eden compared to Europe of 400 years ago, much less most of the rest of the world.

    Today’s people are such pussies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Your point is well-taken. I respect you, and I certainly do not blame you for your choice.

    I do, however, resent any implication, if intended, that one might be a "pussy" for not having children. "Today’s people are such pussies," as you say, but at least my wife and I are not contributing to the rampant overpopulation of America and the Earth that is currently going on. No, instead we are paying exorbitant taxes that help others educate, feed, house, and otherwise care for their offspring. Fully one-half of our outrageous property taxes pay for the schools we don't use, and I don't know how many of our numerous, extorted, federal and state dollars go to help grow our inner city black populations with free school breakfasts, free school lunches, Section 8 free housing, food stamps, etc.

    Having children is easy. It's the natural result of the most pleasurable thing we do. Most parents manage to rear their children no matter how low their income or intelligence; nature takes its course. I don't see parents as noble; I see them as animals having babies after intercourse. Yes, bringing them up takes sacrifice and work, but I always hear parents giving selfish reasons for why they think having children was a good thing to do. (This is natural. One cannot, nor should not, blame them.)

    Before any white person preaches to another white person about the need to reproduce white people: They should do something about the growing over-population of non-whites in America and around the world -- and the increasing transfer of production and wealth to non-whites. The solution to weeds overgrowing your garden is not to plant more good things, it is to remove the weeds, and certainly not to feed them!

    Our ancestors for the past many centuries lived in times when their/our people were at the forefront of improving life on Earth. The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, The American Revolution, The Industrial Revolution, etc.

    Our "Garden of Eden compared to Europe of 400 years ago," as you call it, is what they produced during that time.

    For centuries, there has been a New World and the promise of a better future.

    That is coming to an end

    This new world of ours is filling up with the very same corruption as the old, and the corrupted are filling us up with, and increasingly employing around the world, useful-idiot laborers from the non-enlightened world and its races.

    I worry that you are dooming your offspring to what most likely will be a world worse than the one you enjoy. Even if you leave them a great inheritance, they will be increasingly walled-off, in a shrinking habitat, from the growing masses around them.

    Sounds bad, but it's the truth. The good times are coming to an end. We had the last, great hope on Earth; our leaders, in business and government, ruined it.

    Again, I say this respectfully. I fully understand the good work you are doing by rearing children who probably will be good citizens. I am certain they are a joy to you.

  23. M says:

    I’m more wary of selection for IQ, now that it seems like genetic load has no relationship with IQ – https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/idiot-proof/

    That means any SNP changes that were CRISPRd to improve IQ in would probably be common variants which haven’t swept to fixation.

    And being a common variant which hasn’t swept to fixation means a variant that has disadvantages in our evolutionary past.

    Those disadvantages might be horrible physical health. I’m not sure if a group with huge health problems, even if they had very high IQs, would achieve very much (how many high achievers in history were very smart with chronic health problems? relatively few.).

    (Although on the other hand very smart people don’t tend to obviously seem unhealthy.)

    It’s just harder overall to make the case for SNP changes, when we’re not talking about just eliminating load. Eliminating load doesn’t seem to make people smarter (Cochran in the above link talks about why this may be; the human genome may simply be too robust to genetic load with multiple ways of developing and mechanisms that recognise that if one of them is crudded up by load, route around it).

    Read More
  24. Agent76 says:

    If my memory serves me well Hitler had the same intentions as well. That did not go so well for the ones who died at his hands and rule. On a brighter note allow me to introduce Patrick who was born handicap, and his story is one to see to believe.

    Patrick Henry Hughes – Inspirational Story

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/9xwCG0Ey2Mg

    Read More
  25. Anon7 says:

    It is already the case today that no-one in a First World country need give birth to a Down Syndrome child, unless she wants to.

    I was going to disagree with this, but found that science had marched on since the last time I got my wife pregnant more than 20 years ago. At that time, amniocentesis to test for things like Downs was discouraged for women less than thirty-five, because that was the age at which the risk of doing the procedure was matched by the possibility of finding something wrong (and then having an abortion), which was about 1 in 200.

    Apparently, the risk of doing the procedure is so low now, about 1 in 1,600, that even young women can go ahead and get tested.

    Read More
  26. RW says:

    The important thing is first to select for empathy and against psychopathy. Once that’s done, then focus on intelligence. A bunch of geniuses who don’t mind taking advantage of people, even if it’s just because they look down on people not as smart as they are, aren’t going to advance civilisation for anyone but themselves.

    Regardless, aside from editing out deleterious mutations, using tech to create fast-paced population-wide mutations might have negative and unforeseeable consequences on gene-culture coevolution. Better to do eugenics through social programs without too much technical manipulation and in this way allow societal development to keep up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eonic
    In selecting for empathy may you not be breeding suckers ? It's said there is already one born every minute : more than sufficient as it is.
  27. Any time a new technology comes out there is always some fast-buck artist selling treatments that backfire. I believe gene editing will come about, but there will be tears for the early experimenters.

    Reminds me of the old Gahan Wilson cartoon with a guy at the gate of the stereotypical mad scientist’s mansion – sign on the gate reads “Trespassers will be experimented upon.”

    Read More
  28. I’m all for designer babies if, and only if, they can be made to wear their labels on the inside.

    Read More
  29. ”Intelligence and morality are not the same thing, so morality is not relevant to the intelligence”

    Many people and many sistemizing-hbd minds think like that.

    We live in a world where real morality have weak influence while we live in technological explosion era. We live in a world where many people think that real morality and intelligence are not understood as mutually neeeded.

    A good nation is the place where moral and intelligence are working together.

    Read More
  30. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Before we try eugenics, wouldn’t it be a good idea to give up the obsessive commitment to dysgenics, aka, welfare, universal healthcare, education, etc., etc.

    Anyways, how can you practice eugenics when you don’t know what most of the genome does? There are 30,000 identified genes accounting for 10% of the genome, the rest of the genome being arrogantly dismissed as junk. However, it turns out that not all the junk is junk. In fact, probably most of the junk is not junk, so it seems premature to attempt now to fashion the perfect human genome.

    And who’s to say what would be the perfect genome. RW wants to rid the world of psychos, but do you really want to be rid of the national leadership?

    Those who want a better world should re-read Adam Smith, assuming they’ve read him in the first place (and I mean the complete works, not just The Nature and Causes, etc.), which they probably haven’t. Smith had a firm grasp of the process of natural selection and applied that knowledge to the analysis of social and evolutionary processes far more intelligently than Darwin or his acolytes.

    But if there are feasible means to prevent obvious genetic defects (almost 1% of all newborns have a gross chromosomal abnormality), use them if you wish, even if that means reducing very slightly the occurrence of a key step in what would otherwise have been a giant evolutionary leap for mankind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Before we try eugenics, wouldn’t it be a good idea to give up the obsessive commitment to dysgenics, aka, welfare, universal healthcare, education, etc., etc."

    Assuming that those things you listed are dysgenic.

    Let's, for the sake of argument, the assumption is true. Please offer a biblical argument to support your claim.

    "Smith had a firm grasp of the process of natural selection and applied that knowledge to the analysis of social and evolutionary processes far more intelligently than Darwin or his acolytes."

    Ok, so you name dropped. How would Smith's work make the world a better place? Could you offer even one example?
    , @RW
    Sure, it's problematic. Many high IQ women are less empathetic than less intelligence ones.
  31. Corvinus says:
    @woodNfish
    Well specifically, I was referring to this part of the quote: "...no First-Worlder will need to give birth to a stupid child..."

    Hence, no more Leftists.

    “Well specifically, I was referring to this part of the quote: “…no First-Worlder will need to give birth to a stupid child…Hence, no more Leftists.”

    A person isn’t born into a political ideology. He/she may be more prone to conservative or liberal ideas, as current brain research reveals, but for someone to make your implications is ignorant and idiotic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Actually, it is called humor. You seem incapable of understanding that.
    , @unpc downunder
    I agree that we probably can't determine complex human behaviours like political orientation by minipulating people's genes. It's just too complex. However, you may be downplaying the practical influence of genetics on human behavior. In many cases biological predisposition is destiny.

    Take homosexuality for example. Twin studies indicate homosexuality has a 50 percent heritability rate. Hence, in theory, no one is biological pre-destined to be gay, they are only biologically predisposed to be gay. However, deliberate interventions to make people straight rarely work. Hence, for all practical purposes, at least 50 percent of homosexuals are born gay. It's a similar story with many other biological predispostions, such as being predisposed to have ADHD, Asperger's Syndrome, Bipolar disorder, Gender Identity Disorder, or pedophilia. Unless we learn how to cure, or prevent these disorders early in life, then many people are biologically pre-destined to have them.

  32. macilrae says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    I would like to add a sad and instructive story (from 1920 ?). The most important application of wireless communications evidently was in the NAVY. Devices were operated by (relatively) low-educated sailors. First receivers contained amplifiers based on triods (see above), where for some reasons there was separate handle to control heating current for cathodes. Empirically those sailors observed that by increasing the current of cathode heating, they were getting stronger signal. As a result, quite often they overheated and burned those triods. Leadership of NAVY concluded that triods are unreliable, and this made quite a delay in their introduction for wireless communications.
    A lesson for Eugenics from the story above. There may be some unforeseen setbacks in the implementation of eugenic practices. However, they may be connected with some unessential defects of current technology. Don’t be discouraged !!!

    Alas for us who cut their teeth on electronic tubes (“valves”) – whether they are triodes or, still less, pentodes – it is always an effort to stay on-topic here at unz.com because the responses are so often almost as interesting as the articles that generated them. The challenge is always to find a way to hitch your hobby-horse up to their carriage – Immigrant, you did a better-than-average job here!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    --- Thank you. I am waiting for the occasion to describe, what was the technical, programming achievement of Bill Gates, as opposed to his commercial success. I read about it in one of biographical books written about him, and checked with my kids (who, sure, never met Gates.)
    My best. I.f.f.U.
  33. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy
    Before we try eugenics, wouldn't it be a good idea to give up the obsessive commitment to dysgenics, aka, welfare, universal healthcare, education, etc., etc.

    Anyways, how can you practice eugenics when you don't know what most of the genome does? There are 30,000 identified genes accounting for 10% of the genome, the rest of the genome being arrogantly dismissed as junk. However, it turns out that not all the junk is junk. In fact, probably most of the junk is not junk, so it seems premature to attempt now to fashion the perfect human genome.

    And who's to say what would be the perfect genome. RW wants to rid the world of psychos, but do you really want to be rid of the national leadership?

    Those who want a better world should re-read Adam Smith, assuming they've read him in the first place (and I mean the complete works, not just The Nature and Causes, etc.), which they probably haven't. Smith had a firm grasp of the process of natural selection and applied that knowledge to the analysis of social and evolutionary processes far more intelligently than Darwin or his acolytes.

    But if there are feasible means to prevent obvious genetic defects (almost 1% of all newborns have a gross chromosomal abnormality), use them if you wish, even if that means reducing very slightly the occurrence of a key step in what would otherwise have been a giant evolutionary leap for mankind.

    “Before we try eugenics, wouldn’t it be a good idea to give up the obsessive commitment to dysgenics, aka, welfare, universal healthcare, education, etc., etc.”

    Assuming that those things you listed are dysgenic.

    Let’s, for the sake of argument, the assumption is true. Please offer a biblical argument to support your claim.

    “Smith had a firm grasp of the process of natural selection and applied that knowledge to the analysis of social and evolutionary processes far more intelligently than Darwin or his acolytes.”

    Ok, so you name dropped. How would Smith’s work make the world a better place? Could you offer even one example?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Please offer a biblical argument to support your claim.
     
    I didn't make the Bible the basis of my claim that welfare is a form of dysgenics, so I don't feel obliged to offer a Biblical justification.

    I did quote Adam Smith who said the following in Chapter 8 of Book 1 of An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations


    poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely unfavourable to the rearing of children. The tender plant is produced, but in so cold a soil and so severe a climate, soon withers and dies. It is not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive. Several officers of great experience have assured me, that so far from recruiting their regiment, they have never been able to supply it with drums and fifes from all the soldiers' children that were born in it. A greater number of fine children, however, is seldom seen anywhere than about a barrack of soldiers. Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of thirteen or fourteen. In some places one half the children born die before they are four years of age; in many places before they are seven; and in almost all places before they are nine or ten. This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive at maturity.
     
    Implied by Smith's remarks is the fact that those who are more successful in climbing the social ladder, i.e., the smarter, more cunning, better looking, more disease resistant, more skillful in battle, etc. leave more descendants (in general) than those of what Smith called of lower station. Thus, when population is static, the poor, as a class, fail to fully reproduce themselves, while the upper classes produce an excess of progeny who must, therefore, be downwardly mobile. This means that the fitter members of society continually make up for the reproductive deficit of the less fit.

    That of course was then. Today, we have stood things on their head, with the result that those who are most intelligent, educated, etc., American Jewish women to take an example, have the fewest children, while many indigent women of few social accomplishments make a living as welfare mothers.

    But while Smith was not a Christian and would have considered modern welfare arrangements preposterous, he did consider aid to the worthy poor a moral obligation of those of "higher station." On the other hand, he considered the suffering of the children of those who were dissolute, lazy, etc. to be an unfortunate consequence of a necessary process of natural selection, since he assumed moral characteristics to be heritable.

  34. woodNfish says:
    @Corvinus
    "Well specifically, I was referring to this part of the quote: “…no First-Worlder will need to give birth to a stupid child…Hence, no more Leftists."

    A person isn't born into a political ideology. He/she may be more prone to conservative or liberal ideas, as current brain research reveals, but for someone to make your implications is ignorant and idiotic.

    Actually, it is called humor. You seem incapable of understanding that.

    Read More
  35. Travis says:
    @Travis
    fertilizing embryos outside the body is costly and the females must endure evasive procedures after being primed with hormones to get the eggs to mature and then extracted before being fertilized.. often the implanted embryos fail to grow, thus a repeat of the procedure would be warranted....it gets costly and the female may need to go thru with another invasive procedure to procure more viable eggs..we are a long way away from having parents choosing the best embryos to implant as a mainstream method to have children.

    while the technology may exist to identify the best of your 10 embryos in the next decade, few parents will probably choose this method, unless they are using a surrogate , or cannot get pregnant using the old fashion method. Even today most female will have 3 embryos implanted when they require in-vitro fertilization because the failure rate is still high. Extracting eggs is still not without concern, as they cannot remove dozens of eggs from the potential mother, usually just 10 at a time and then maybe half get fertilized.

    Genetic engineering is doubtful to occur within our lifetime, although the technology will probably exist for gene manipulation within 15 years. Just as cloning has been available and used with animals for the last decade, yet no humans are cloning themselves.

    i suppose the fastest way to genetic engineering will be if they can make super sperm, which removes the worst alleles and adds in beneficial segments of DNA because the female can easily be impregnated with sperm at home with no need for surgery to remove her eggs. But today one can buy seaman from donors with the characteristics females desire, such as healthy, athletic men with college degrees, yet most couples never choose this path unless the male is not fertile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Genetic engineering is doubtful to occur within our lifetime, although the technology will probably exist for gene manipulation within 15 years. Just as cloning has been available and used with animals for the last decade, yet no humans are cloning themselves.
     
    We have a comedian here.

    The first ANNOUNCED human cloning took place in 1977. Anything announced is 20 year old technology putting the human cloning timeline at 1957. Scientists in the field more or less settle on the Nazis at the first to achieve human cloning, and I've read estimates as early as THE CIVIL WAR ERA.
  36. @macilrae
    Alas for us who cut their teeth on electronic tubes ("valves") - whether they are triodes or, still less, pentodes - it is always an effort to stay on-topic here at unz.com because the responses are so often almost as interesting as the articles that generated them. The challenge is always to find a way to hitch your hobby-horse up to their carriage - Immigrant, you did a better-than-average job here!

    — Thank you. I am waiting for the occasion to describe, what was the technical, programming achievement of Bill Gates, as opposed to his commercial success. I read about it in one of biographical books written about him, and checked with my kids (who, sure, never met Gates.)
    My best. I.f.f.U.

    Read More
  37. guest says:
    @dc.sunsets
    All I know is if I were in the baby-making business (or planned to be), I'd be burning a hasty path to the door of Rachel Ward, begging her to let me have a sample of her DNA to be replicated.

    I can't speak to her intelligence, disposition, kindness or the like, but hers was and is a face that could truly launch that thousand ships.

    https://youtu.be/Zd0FY2uzAJQ

    Rachel Ward is a beautiful woman, but not the feminine ideal or worth granting the golden apple. She has many masculine features, in fact: high cheekbones, narrow face, and a square jaw.

    Read More
  38. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Corvinus
    "Before we try eugenics, wouldn’t it be a good idea to give up the obsessive commitment to dysgenics, aka, welfare, universal healthcare, education, etc., etc."

    Assuming that those things you listed are dysgenic.

    Let's, for the sake of argument, the assumption is true. Please offer a biblical argument to support your claim.

    "Smith had a firm grasp of the process of natural selection and applied that knowledge to the analysis of social and evolutionary processes far more intelligently than Darwin or his acolytes."

    Ok, so you name dropped. How would Smith's work make the world a better place? Could you offer even one example?

    Please offer a biblical argument to support your claim.

    I didn’t make the Bible the basis of my claim that welfare is a form of dysgenics, so I don’t feel obliged to offer a Biblical justification.

    I did quote Adam Smith who said the following in Chapter 8 of Book 1 of An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations

    poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely unfavourable to the rearing of children. The tender plant is produced, but in so cold a soil and so severe a climate, soon withers and dies. It is not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive. Several officers of great experience have assured me, that so far from recruiting their regiment, they have never been able to supply it with drums and fifes from all the soldiers’ children that were born in it. A greater number of fine children, however, is seldom seen anywhere than about a barrack of soldiers. Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of thirteen or fourteen. In some places one half the children born die before they are four years of age; in many places before they are seven; and in almost all places before they are nine or ten. This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive at maturity.

    Implied by Smith’s remarks is the fact that those who are more successful in climbing the social ladder, i.e., the smarter, more cunning, better looking, more disease resistant, more skillful in battle, etc. leave more descendants (in general) than those of what Smith called of lower station. Thus, when population is static, the poor, as a class, fail to fully reproduce themselves, while the upper classes produce an excess of progeny who must, therefore, be downwardly mobile. This means that the fitter members of society continually make up for the reproductive deficit of the less fit.

    That of course was then. Today, we have stood things on their head, with the result that those who are most intelligent, educated, etc., American Jewish women to take an example, have the fewest children, while many indigent women of few social accomplishments make a living as welfare mothers.

    But while Smith was not a Christian and would have considered modern welfare arrangements preposterous, he did consider aid to the worthy poor a moral obligation of those of “higher station.” On the other hand, he considered the suffering of the children of those who were dissolute, lazy, etc. to be an unfortunate consequence of a necessary process of natural selection, since he assumed moral characteristics to be heritable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    The passage you quote relies on anecdote rather than data, and contains numerous vulnerable assertions.
    , @Corvinus
    "I didn’t make the Bible the basis of my claim that welfare is a form of dysgenics, so I don’t feel obliged to offer a Biblical justification."

    Yet, on your last post found on your website, you make numerous references to the Bible, which seem to contradict eugenics. I was hoping for some clarification.

    "This means that the fitter members of society continually make up for the reproductive deficit of the less fit."

    Assuming that the lower classes, as a whole, are "unfit", i.e. less cunning, not attractive, more prone to disease, less skillful in battle.

    "On the other hand, he considered the suffering of the children of those who were dissolute, lazy, etc. to be an unfortunate consequence of a necessary process of natural selection, since he assumed moral characteristics to be heritable."

    Or, it could be the result of lack of structure at home, or substandard parenting skills, or outside influences.
  39. @dc.sunsets
    Different strokes...

    Given my realization that neither I nor anyone trying to sell me forecasts had even the tiniest clue about the future, I am pleased that my expectation for the world going to hell in a hand basket didn't dissuade me from embarking on one of life's most interesting adventures: fatherhood.

    I agree with Immigrant. Grandkids are fun, and while I have no doubt that mine will face challenges, I never forget that everyone reading here has ancestors who survived recurring famines, plagues and nearly constant warfare. For all its warts, we live in a Garden of Eden compared to Europe of 400 years ago, much less most of the rest of the world.

    Today's people are such pussies.

    Your point is well-taken. I respect you, and I certainly do not blame you for your choice.

    I do, however, resent any implication, if intended, that one might be a “pussy” for not having children. “Today’s people are such pussies,” as you say, but at least my wife and I are not contributing to the rampant overpopulation of America and the Earth that is currently going on. No, instead we are paying exorbitant taxes that help others educate, feed, house, and otherwise care for their offspring. Fully one-half of our outrageous property taxes pay for the schools we don’t use, and I don’t know how many of our numerous, extorted, federal and state dollars go to help grow our inner city black populations with free school breakfasts, free school lunches, Section 8 free housing, food stamps, etc.

    Having children is easy. It’s the natural result of the most pleasurable thing we do. Most parents manage to rear their children no matter how low their income or intelligence; nature takes its course. I don’t see parents as noble; I see them as animals having babies after intercourse. Yes, bringing them up takes sacrifice and work, but I always hear parents giving selfish reasons for why they think having children was a good thing to do. (This is natural. One cannot, nor should not, blame them.)

    Before any white person preaches to another white person about the need to reproduce white people: They should do something about the growing over-population of non-whites in America and around the world — and the increasing transfer of production and wealth to non-whites. The solution to weeds overgrowing your garden is not to plant more good things, it is to remove the weeds, and certainly not to feed them!

    Our ancestors for the past many centuries lived in times when their/our people were at the forefront of improving life on Earth. The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, The American Revolution, The Industrial Revolution, etc.

    Our “Garden of Eden compared to Europe of 400 years ago,” as you call it, is what they produced during that time.

    For centuries, there has been a New World and the promise of a better future.

    That is coming to an end

    This new world of ours is filling up with the very same corruption as the old, and the corrupted are filling us up with, and increasingly employing around the world, useful-idiot laborers from the non-enlightened world and its races.

    I worry that you are dooming your offspring to what most likely will be a world worse than the one you enjoy. Even if you leave them a great inheritance, they will be increasingly walled-off, in a shrinking habitat, from the growing masses around them.

    Sounds bad, but it’s the truth. The good times are coming to an end. We had the last, great hope on Earth; our leaders, in business and government, ruined it.

    Again, I say this respectfully. I fully understand the good work you are doing by rearing children who probably will be good citizens. I am certain they are a joy to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "Before any white person preaches to another white person about the need to reproduce white people: They should do something about the growing over-population of non-whites in America and around the world"

    Well, America's abortionists are certainly making their contribution, if the "1 Af-Am baby in 3 aborted" stat is anywhere near true. But the only thing that's really likely to make a difference is the abolition of welfare simply for producing children - and the same applies in the rest of the developed world. A pity, as welfare was originally created to help unfortunate natives.

    Of course our elites would, in the longer term, LOVE that to happen. Welfare states imply a high tax burden.

    As for the rest of the world, Western medicine is out of the bottle and unlikely to go back in. A Victorian mother in England might have eight children with three surviving, but as child mortality improved, English mothers had fewer kids. Child mortality has improved in Africa, but a Nigerian mother might still have eight kids. Not sure what any Westerner can do about that, short of getting on a pale horse.

    , @Truth

    I do, however, resent any implication, if intended, that one might be a “pussy” for not having children. “Today’s people are such pussies,” as you say, but at least my wife and I are not contributing to the rampant overpopulation of America and the Earth that is currently going on. No, instead we are paying exorbitant taxes that help others educate, feed, house, and otherwise care for their offspring. Fully one-half of our outrageous property taxes pay for the schools we don’t use, and I don’t know how many of our numerous, extorted, federal and state dollars go to help grow our inner city black populations with free school breakfasts, free school lunches, Section 8 free housing, food stamps, etc.
     
    Translation:

    "I'm extremely self-centered, so much so, that I can't that I'm self centered, because that would demand introspection. I have been since I was born, I hate children and love my x-box, or golf clubs; however, being self-centered, all this needs to be someone else's fault..."

  40. Seamus says:

    William Shockley, at any rate, seems to have stuck with liberty. His most controversial proposal was that non-taxpayers with an IQ below 100 would

    be paid if they voluntarily agreed to sterilization—a thousand 1972 dollars for each of their IQ points under 100.

    If such a proposal were ever adopted, I’d like to see how you’d stop people from gaming the system, deliberately choking on their IQ tests in order to get a higher payout. I’m guessing that it’s a lot easier for smart people to convincingly fake stupidity than it is for stupid people to convincingly fake being smart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RW
    Seamus, back when Shockley made that proposal I don't think they had developed the technique that allows us to scan brains for mental activity. Apparently, there is a type of scan that just takes a few seconds and that allows for just as precise reading of intelligence as an IQ test. I figure that would be difficult to fake.
    , @Grandpa Jack
    I personally think a propensity for violent crime is something that is more pressing than the left side of the bell curve to breed out of society. Who would you rather live around, a quiet, friendly, somewhat dim guy who does menial work like stocking groceries at the grocery store you go to, or a bright young psychopath who goes on a shooting spree at your kid's high school?

    Granted, these are not your average representatives of their respective cohorts, but I think the case can be made that violent criminals are more damaging to society than individuals with just low IQ.

    Not only that, I think you could more easily win over the public to do it to violent offenders than to lower IQ people, and could more readily enact it as part of the punishment. From what I understand, some types of criminals (repeat sex offenders) even already are being castrated.
  41. “A memory: When I was a kid, there was a lad my age in the street whose parents spoiled him rotten.”

    Today just about every kid is spoiled rotten, which is one of the reasons why increasing numbers of people don’t want kids.

    Read More
  42. Cracker says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Is my handle related to people, or to hair cut?

    Both,

    and neither.

    Its origins will remain shrouded in mystery and personal history,

    but I will say that a fun time at college has something to do with it.

    Thanks for telling us. I though you used to be a cab driver in NYC a few decades ago…

    Read More
  43. @Corvinus
    "Well specifically, I was referring to this part of the quote: “…no First-Worlder will need to give birth to a stupid child…Hence, no more Leftists."

    A person isn't born into a political ideology. He/she may be more prone to conservative or liberal ideas, as current brain research reveals, but for someone to make your implications is ignorant and idiotic.

    I agree that we probably can’t determine complex human behaviours like political orientation by minipulating people’s genes. It’s just too complex. However, you may be downplaying the practical influence of genetics on human behavior. In many cases biological predisposition is destiny.

    Take homosexuality for example. Twin studies indicate homosexuality has a 50 percent heritability rate. Hence, in theory, no one is biological pre-destined to be gay, they are only biologically predisposed to be gay. However, deliberate interventions to make people straight rarely work. Hence, for all practical purposes, at least 50 percent of homosexuals are born gay. It’s a similar story with many other biological predispostions, such as being predisposed to have ADHD, Asperger’s Syndrome, Bipolar disorder, Gender Identity Disorder, or pedophilia. Unless we learn how to cure, or prevent these disorders early in life, then many people are biologically pre-destined to have them.

    Read More
  44. Dumbo says:

    I am always baffled at the idea that eugenics should always be only about “IQ”, or “removing people of low IQ” from the gene pool. There are so many more important characteristics.

    What about other traits, such as, removing PSYCHOPATHY?

    I much prefer some people with Down syndrome than high IQ psychopaths.

    Even lower class black males are not a problem because of their low IQ, but because of their ultra-violence and psychopathic tendencies.

    Not everybody has to be ultra-smart. A good society needs average people too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I am always baffled at the idea that eugenics should always be only about “IQ”
     
    That may be the idea some people have, but the idea that the ruling elite have is to breed out the European people by mass immigration of allegedly Syrian, alleged refugees, who are in fact mostly young male settlers (arriving in Germany alone at a rate of 50,000 a week) who will outcompete much of the native males for a large proportion of the available native females.

    Something similar is happening to the European population of the US as a result of mass Hispanic immigration to the Southern border states.

    The elite have always hated the common folk of their own nationality and have now found a way to destroy them and replace them by people with no silly ideas about constitutional government, democracy, etc., but with a tolerance, based on long experience, of government that is as totally corrupt as Western governments have now become.
    , @Corvinus
    "Even lower class black males are not a problem because of their low IQ, but because of their ultra-violence and psychopathic tendencies."

    Conversely, even upper class white males are not a problem because of their high IQ, but because of their ultra-competitive and psychopathic tendencies, especially when it comes to white-collar crime.

    See how easy it is to be a race baiter?
  45. RW says:
    @Seamus

    William Shockley, at any rate, seems to have stuck with liberty. His most controversial proposal was that non-taxpayers with an IQ below 100 would
     
    be paid if they voluntarily agreed to sterilization—a thousand 1972 dollars for each of their IQ points under 100.

    If such a proposal were ever adopted, I'd like to see how you'd stop people from gaming the system, deliberately choking on their IQ tests in order to get a higher payout. I'm guessing that it's a lot easier for smart people to convincingly fake stupidity than it is for stupid people to convincingly fake being smart.

    Seamus, back when Shockley made that proposal I don’t think they had developed the technique that allows us to scan brains for mental activity. Apparently, there is a type of scan that just takes a few seconds and that allows for just as precise reading of intelligence as an IQ test. I figure that would be difficult to fake.

    Read More
  46. RW says:
    @CanSpeccy
    Before we try eugenics, wouldn't it be a good idea to give up the obsessive commitment to dysgenics, aka, welfare, universal healthcare, education, etc., etc.

    Anyways, how can you practice eugenics when you don't know what most of the genome does? There are 30,000 identified genes accounting for 10% of the genome, the rest of the genome being arrogantly dismissed as junk. However, it turns out that not all the junk is junk. In fact, probably most of the junk is not junk, so it seems premature to attempt now to fashion the perfect human genome.

    And who's to say what would be the perfect genome. RW wants to rid the world of psychos, but do you really want to be rid of the national leadership?

    Those who want a better world should re-read Adam Smith, assuming they've read him in the first place (and I mean the complete works, not just The Nature and Causes, etc.), which they probably haven't. Smith had a firm grasp of the process of natural selection and applied that knowledge to the analysis of social and evolutionary processes far more intelligently than Darwin or his acolytes.

    But if there are feasible means to prevent obvious genetic defects (almost 1% of all newborns have a gross chromosomal abnormality), use them if you wish, even if that means reducing very slightly the occurrence of a key step in what would otherwise have been a giant evolutionary leap for mankind.

    Sure, it’s problematic. Many high IQ women are less empathetic than less intelligence ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    My sister is high IQ and highly empathetic. The problem is she very frequently allows her empathy to override her basic sense. She is fully capable of thinking things through (at least by female standards) but she usually just succombs to her cheap sentimental warm fuzzies.
  47. Truth says:
    @Travis
    Genetic engineering is doubtful to occur within our lifetime, although the technology will probably exist for gene manipulation within 15 years. Just as cloning has been available and used with animals for the last decade, yet no humans are cloning themselves.

    i suppose the fastest way to genetic engineering will be if they can make super sperm, which removes the worst alleles and adds in beneficial segments of DNA because the female can easily be impregnated with sperm at home with no need for surgery to remove her eggs. But today one can buy seaman from donors with the characteristics females desire, such as healthy, athletic men with college degrees, yet most couples never choose this path unless the male is not fertile.

    Genetic engineering is doubtful to occur within our lifetime, although the technology will probably exist for gene manipulation within 15 years. Just as cloning has been available and used with animals for the last decade, yet no humans are cloning themselves.

    We have a comedian here.

    The first ANNOUNCED human cloning took place in 1977. Anything announced is 20 year old technology putting the human cloning timeline at 1957. Scientists in the field more or less settle on the Nazis at the first to achieve human cloning, and I’ve read estimates as early as THE CIVIL WAR ERA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Jack
    If he is, he's not the only comedian. I guess next you'll tell us the ancient Egyptians had Google Glass.
  48. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Dumbo
    I am always baffled at the idea that eugenics should always be only about "IQ", or "removing people of low IQ" from the gene pool. There are so many more important characteristics.

    What about other traits, such as, removing PSYCHOPATHY?

    I much prefer some people with Down syndrome than high IQ psychopaths.

    Even lower class black males are not a problem because of their low IQ, but because of their ultra-violence and psychopathic tendencies.

    Not everybody has to be ultra-smart. A good society needs average people too.

    I am always baffled at the idea that eugenics should always be only about “IQ”

    That may be the idea some people have, but the idea that the ruling elite have is to breed out the European people by mass immigration of allegedly Syrian, alleged refugees, who are in fact mostly young male settlers (arriving in Germany alone at a rate of 50,000 a week) who will outcompete much of the native males for a large proportion of the available native females.

    Something similar is happening to the European population of the US as a result of mass Hispanic immigration to the Southern border states.

    The elite have always hated the common folk of their own nationality and have now found a way to destroy them and replace them by people with no silly ideas about constitutional government, democracy, etc., but with a tolerance, based on long experience, of government that is as totally corrupt as Western governments have now become.

    Read More
  49. AndrewR says:

    Designer babies might be smarter or stronger, but they might have any number of corresponding flaws that make them less socially adept or reproductively fit. So now mom and dad are out thousands of dollars and they’re stuck with a brilliant, narcissistic and neurotic “superkid.” Or any number of plausible, unpredictable permutations.

    Humans are complex, so to think we could just make babies “better” with no downsides shows a lack of perspective.

    Read More
  50. AndrewR says:
    @RW
    Sure, it's problematic. Many high IQ women are less empathetic than less intelligence ones.

    My sister is high IQ and highly empathetic. The problem is she very frequently allows her empathy to override her basic sense. She is fully capable of thinking things through (at least by female standards) but she usually just succombs to her cheap sentimental warm fuzzies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yep. I've notice that same trait with a number of very smart, very capable women who are also enjoyable to be around, i.e. empathetic. Once they leave the office, they become typical women in decision-making. They just don't employ their rational side much outside of work even though they're full capable.
  51. Dr. X says:

    We’ve always had eugenics. Always. The legal prohibition against marrying your sister or your mother or your first cousin is eugenics. Cultural intermarriage is eugenics — Irish marrying Irish, Jews marrying Jews, etc. Upper classes and royal families marrying only their own kind and not “commoners” is eugenics. The Subcontinental caste system is eugenics. The former ban on miscegenation in the U.S. is eugenics.

    But that’s kind of a low-level, watered-down eugenics. You would, of course, be engaged in what was essentially selective breeding, but there would still be a wide variety of outcomes. Within your own ethnic group or class you would still get random mutations of the sickly, the retarded, the stupid, etc. and you would still accept them as your own and love them and include them anyway.

    People get freaked out about eugenics when the possibility exists to map the entire genome, select for very, very specific traits, and than eliminate and/or abort very specific traits that don’t meet parents’ subjective expectations. Designing a kid to have an IQ of, say, 130-140 and also breeding him for ruthlessness and ambition while aborting your kid who might have an IQ of 90 but be a hell of a nice guy is the scary aspect of this.

    People who have money and power to indulge their subjective whims at the expense of other people are creepy — like Jon Benet Ramsay’s parents, etc. etc.

    What you’d probably get is freakish people designing freakish kids. Animal breeders have already done this. Some of the designer dog breeds, like English bulldogs, are frankly ugly and grotesque. I’d prefer a mixed-breed mutt with a proportional body structure and a gentle disposition to some of the purebreds out there any day.

    Read More
  52. 5371 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Please offer a biblical argument to support your claim.
     
    I didn't make the Bible the basis of my claim that welfare is a form of dysgenics, so I don't feel obliged to offer a Biblical justification.

    I did quote Adam Smith who said the following in Chapter 8 of Book 1 of An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations


    poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely unfavourable to the rearing of children. The tender plant is produced, but in so cold a soil and so severe a climate, soon withers and dies. It is not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive. Several officers of great experience have assured me, that so far from recruiting their regiment, they have never been able to supply it with drums and fifes from all the soldiers' children that were born in it. A greater number of fine children, however, is seldom seen anywhere than about a barrack of soldiers. Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of thirteen or fourteen. In some places one half the children born die before they are four years of age; in many places before they are seven; and in almost all places before they are nine or ten. This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive at maturity.
     
    Implied by Smith's remarks is the fact that those who are more successful in climbing the social ladder, i.e., the smarter, more cunning, better looking, more disease resistant, more skillful in battle, etc. leave more descendants (in general) than those of what Smith called of lower station. Thus, when population is static, the poor, as a class, fail to fully reproduce themselves, while the upper classes produce an excess of progeny who must, therefore, be downwardly mobile. This means that the fitter members of society continually make up for the reproductive deficit of the less fit.

    That of course was then. Today, we have stood things on their head, with the result that those who are most intelligent, educated, etc., American Jewish women to take an example, have the fewest children, while many indigent women of few social accomplishments make a living as welfare mothers.

    But while Smith was not a Christian and would have considered modern welfare arrangements preposterous, he did consider aid to the worthy poor a moral obligation of those of "higher station." On the other hand, he considered the suffering of the children of those who were dissolute, lazy, etc. to be an unfortunate consequence of a necessary process of natural selection, since he assumed moral characteristics to be heritable.

    The passage you quote relies on anecdote rather than data, and contains numerous vulnerable assertions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The passage you quote relies on anecdote rather than data, and contains numerous vulnerable assertions.
     
    Ha! so we can consign Adam Smith to the trash can of history of ideas because he didn't have any post-docs to crunch some numbers.

    As for the vulnerable assertions, there are none so vulnerable that you'd care to identify them, apparently.

    LOL
  53. colm says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    I would like to add a sad and instructive story (from 1920 ?). The most important application of wireless communications evidently was in the NAVY. Devices were operated by (relatively) low-educated sailors. First receivers contained amplifiers based on triods (see above), where for some reasons there was separate handle to control heating current for cathodes. Empirically those sailors observed that by increasing the current of cathode heating, they were getting stronger signal. As a result, quite often they overheated and burned those triods. Leadership of NAVY concluded that triods are unreliable, and this made quite a delay in their introduction for wireless communications.
    A lesson for Eugenics from the story above. There may be some unforeseen setbacks in the implementation of eugenic practices. However, they may be connected with some unessential defects of current technology. Don’t be discouraged !!!

    It would have been easier to shoot the soldiers for sabotage than discard the system.

    One bad thing about modern civilization is we value human life too much.

    Read More
  54. colm says:
    @Technomad
    The trouble is, the technology to "design" a child will be available to everyone. So "deaf culture" fanatics who want their children to have "a heritage of silence" will be able to do just that.

    No, they will not.

    That’s why totalitarianism is necessary for a eugenic future, to prevent such kind of people.

    Read More
  55. Eonic says:
    @RW
    The important thing is first to select for empathy and against psychopathy. Once that's done, then focus on intelligence. A bunch of geniuses who don't mind taking advantage of people, even if it's just because they look down on people not as smart as they are, aren't going to advance civilisation for anyone but themselves.

    Regardless, aside from editing out deleterious mutations, using tech to create fast-paced population-wide mutations might have negative and unforeseeable consequences on gene-culture coevolution. Better to do eugenics through social programs without too much technical manipulation and in this way allow societal development to keep up.

    In selecting for empathy may you not be breeding suckers ? It’s said there is already one born every minute : more than sufficient as it is.

    Read More
  56. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @5371
    The passage you quote relies on anecdote rather than data, and contains numerous vulnerable assertions.

    The passage you quote relies on anecdote rather than data, and contains numerous vulnerable assertions.

    Ha! so we can consign Adam Smith to the trash can of history of ideas because he didn’t have any post-docs to crunch some numbers.

    As for the vulnerable assertions, there are none so vulnerable that you’d care to identify them, apparently.

    LOL

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [It is not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive]

    [Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of thirteen or fourteen]

    [This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive at maturity.]

    There, identified them for you. ROFLMAO.

    Seriously, if you think actual quantitative data on this subject was unknown in Smith's day, you have a lot to learn.
  57. 5371 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The passage you quote relies on anecdote rather than data, and contains numerous vulnerable assertions.
     
    Ha! so we can consign Adam Smith to the trash can of history of ideas because he didn't have any post-docs to crunch some numbers.

    As for the vulnerable assertions, there are none so vulnerable that you'd care to identify them, apparently.

    LOL

    [It is not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive]

    [Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of thirteen or fourteen]

    [This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive at maturity.]

    There, identified them for you. ROFLMAO.

    Seriously, if you think actual quantitative data on this subject was unknown in Smith’s day, you have a lot to learn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Seriously, if you think actual quantitative data on this subject was unknown in Smith’s day, you have a lot to learn.
     
    Well, since you are so well informed, do give us the details.
    , @CanSpeccy

    Seriously, if you think actual quantitative data on this subject was unknown in Smith’s day, you have a lot to learn.
     
    Well, since you are so well informed about social statistics available in Scotland in the year 1776, do give us the details. Certainly, I am not obliged to.

    And incidentally, are you the same person as Corvinus? You seem to share a common strain of aggressive unreasonableness.

  58. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Please offer a biblical argument to support your claim.
     
    I didn't make the Bible the basis of my claim that welfare is a form of dysgenics, so I don't feel obliged to offer a Biblical justification.

    I did quote Adam Smith who said the following in Chapter 8 of Book 1 of An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations


    poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely unfavourable to the rearing of children. The tender plant is produced, but in so cold a soil and so severe a climate, soon withers and dies. It is not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive. Several officers of great experience have assured me, that so far from recruiting their regiment, they have never been able to supply it with drums and fifes from all the soldiers' children that were born in it. A greater number of fine children, however, is seldom seen anywhere than about a barrack of soldiers. Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of thirteen or fourteen. In some places one half the children born die before they are four years of age; in many places before they are seven; and in almost all places before they are nine or ten. This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive at maturity.
     
    Implied by Smith's remarks is the fact that those who are more successful in climbing the social ladder, i.e., the smarter, more cunning, better looking, more disease resistant, more skillful in battle, etc. leave more descendants (in general) than those of what Smith called of lower station. Thus, when population is static, the poor, as a class, fail to fully reproduce themselves, while the upper classes produce an excess of progeny who must, therefore, be downwardly mobile. This means that the fitter members of society continually make up for the reproductive deficit of the less fit.

    That of course was then. Today, we have stood things on their head, with the result that those who are most intelligent, educated, etc., American Jewish women to take an example, have the fewest children, while many indigent women of few social accomplishments make a living as welfare mothers.

    But while Smith was not a Christian and would have considered modern welfare arrangements preposterous, he did consider aid to the worthy poor a moral obligation of those of "higher station." On the other hand, he considered the suffering of the children of those who were dissolute, lazy, etc. to be an unfortunate consequence of a necessary process of natural selection, since he assumed moral characteristics to be heritable.

    “I didn’t make the Bible the basis of my claim that welfare is a form of dysgenics, so I don’t feel obliged to offer a Biblical justification.”

    Yet, on your last post found on your website, you make numerous references to the Bible, which seem to contradict eugenics. I was hoping for some clarification.

    “This means that the fitter members of society continually make up for the reproductive deficit of the less fit.”

    Assuming that the lower classes, as a whole, are “unfit”, i.e. less cunning, not attractive, more prone to disease, less skillful in battle.

    “On the other hand, he considered the suffering of the children of those who were dissolute, lazy, etc. to be an unfortunate consequence of a necessary process of natural selection, since he assumed moral characteristics to be heritable.”

    Or, it could be the result of lack of structure at home, or substandard parenting skills, or outside influences.

    Read More
  59. Corvinus says:
    @Dumbo
    I am always baffled at the idea that eugenics should always be only about "IQ", or "removing people of low IQ" from the gene pool. There are so many more important characteristics.

    What about other traits, such as, removing PSYCHOPATHY?

    I much prefer some people with Down syndrome than high IQ psychopaths.

    Even lower class black males are not a problem because of their low IQ, but because of their ultra-violence and psychopathic tendencies.

    Not everybody has to be ultra-smart. A good society needs average people too.

    “Even lower class black males are not a problem because of their low IQ, but because of their ultra-violence and psychopathic tendencies.”

    Conversely, even upper class white males are not a problem because of their high IQ, but because of their ultra-competitive and psychopathic tendencies, especially when it comes to white-collar crime.

    See how easy it is to be a race baiter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    IQ reductionists who dominate this site do not get it.
  60. utu says:
    @Corvinus
    "Even lower class black males are not a problem because of their low IQ, but because of their ultra-violence and psychopathic tendencies."

    Conversely, even upper class white males are not a problem because of their high IQ, but because of their ultra-competitive and psychopathic tendencies, especially when it comes to white-collar crime.

    See how easy it is to be a race baiter?

    IQ reductionists who dominate this site do not get it.

    Read More
  61. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @5371
    [It is not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive]

    [Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of thirteen or fourteen]

    [This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive at maturity.]

    There, identified them for you. ROFLMAO.

    Seriously, if you think actual quantitative data on this subject was unknown in Smith's day, you have a lot to learn.

    Seriously, if you think actual quantitative data on this subject was unknown in Smith’s day, you have a lot to learn.

    Well, since you are so well informed, do give us the details.

    Read More
  62. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @5371
    [It is not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive]

    [Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of thirteen or fourteen]

    [This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive at maturity.]

    There, identified them for you. ROFLMAO.

    Seriously, if you think actual quantitative data on this subject was unknown in Smith's day, you have a lot to learn.

    Seriously, if you think actual quantitative data on this subject was unknown in Smith’s day, you have a lot to learn.

    Well, since you are so well informed about social statistics available in Scotland in the year 1776, do give us the details. Certainly, I am not obliged to.

    And incidentally, are you the same person as Corvinus? You seem to share a common strain of aggressive unreasonableness.

    Read More
  63. @AndrewR
    My sister is high IQ and highly empathetic. The problem is she very frequently allows her empathy to override her basic sense. She is fully capable of thinking things through (at least by female standards) but she usually just succombs to her cheap sentimental warm fuzzies.

    Yep. I’ve notice that same trait with a number of very smart, very capable women who are also enjoyable to be around, i.e. empathetic. Once they leave the office, they become typical women in decision-making. They just don’t employ their rational side much outside of work even though they’re full capable.

    Read More
  64. @Buzz Mohawk
    Your point is well-taken. I respect you, and I certainly do not blame you for your choice.

    I do, however, resent any implication, if intended, that one might be a "pussy" for not having children. "Today’s people are such pussies," as you say, but at least my wife and I are not contributing to the rampant overpopulation of America and the Earth that is currently going on. No, instead we are paying exorbitant taxes that help others educate, feed, house, and otherwise care for their offspring. Fully one-half of our outrageous property taxes pay for the schools we don't use, and I don't know how many of our numerous, extorted, federal and state dollars go to help grow our inner city black populations with free school breakfasts, free school lunches, Section 8 free housing, food stamps, etc.

    Having children is easy. It's the natural result of the most pleasurable thing we do. Most parents manage to rear their children no matter how low their income or intelligence; nature takes its course. I don't see parents as noble; I see them as animals having babies after intercourse. Yes, bringing them up takes sacrifice and work, but I always hear parents giving selfish reasons for why they think having children was a good thing to do. (This is natural. One cannot, nor should not, blame them.)

    Before any white person preaches to another white person about the need to reproduce white people: They should do something about the growing over-population of non-whites in America and around the world -- and the increasing transfer of production and wealth to non-whites. The solution to weeds overgrowing your garden is not to plant more good things, it is to remove the weeds, and certainly not to feed them!

    Our ancestors for the past many centuries lived in times when their/our people were at the forefront of improving life on Earth. The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, The American Revolution, The Industrial Revolution, etc.

    Our "Garden of Eden compared to Europe of 400 years ago," as you call it, is what they produced during that time.

    For centuries, there has been a New World and the promise of a better future.

    That is coming to an end

    This new world of ours is filling up with the very same corruption as the old, and the corrupted are filling us up with, and increasingly employing around the world, useful-idiot laborers from the non-enlightened world and its races.

    I worry that you are dooming your offspring to what most likely will be a world worse than the one you enjoy. Even if you leave them a great inheritance, they will be increasingly walled-off, in a shrinking habitat, from the growing masses around them.

    Sounds bad, but it's the truth. The good times are coming to an end. We had the last, great hope on Earth; our leaders, in business and government, ruined it.

    Again, I say this respectfully. I fully understand the good work you are doing by rearing children who probably will be good citizens. I am certain they are a joy to you.

    “Before any white person preaches to another white person about the need to reproduce white people: They should do something about the growing over-population of non-whites in America and around the world”

    Well, America’s abortionists are certainly making their contribution, if the “1 Af-Am baby in 3 aborted” stat is anywhere near true. But the only thing that’s really likely to make a difference is the abolition of welfare simply for producing children – and the same applies in the rest of the developed world. A pity, as welfare was originally created to help unfortunate natives.

    Of course our elites would, in the longer term, LOVE that to happen. Welfare states imply a high tax burden.

    As for the rest of the world, Western medicine is out of the bottle and unlikely to go back in. A Victorian mother in England might have eight children with three surviving, but as child mortality improved, English mothers had fewer kids. Child mortality has improved in Africa, but a Nigerian mother might still have eight kids. Not sure what any Westerner can do about that, short of getting on a pale horse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Jack
    I think if we cut off all the Western aid, and interventions into all the messes Africans have a propensity to get themselves into, nature would take care of the overpopulation problem.
  65. @Seamus

    William Shockley, at any rate, seems to have stuck with liberty. His most controversial proposal was that non-taxpayers with an IQ below 100 would
     
    be paid if they voluntarily agreed to sterilization—a thousand 1972 dollars for each of their IQ points under 100.

    If such a proposal were ever adopted, I'd like to see how you'd stop people from gaming the system, deliberately choking on their IQ tests in order to get a higher payout. I'm guessing that it's a lot easier for smart people to convincingly fake stupidity than it is for stupid people to convincingly fake being smart.

    I personally think a propensity for violent crime is something that is more pressing than the left side of the bell curve to breed out of society. Who would you rather live around, a quiet, friendly, somewhat dim guy who does menial work like stocking groceries at the grocery store you go to, or a bright young psychopath who goes on a shooting spree at your kid’s high school?

    Granted, these are not your average representatives of their respective cohorts, but I think the case can be made that violent criminals are more damaging to society than individuals with just low IQ.

    Not only that, I think you could more easily win over the public to do it to violent offenders than to lower IQ people, and could more readily enact it as part of the punishment. From what I understand, some types of criminals (repeat sex offenders) even already are being castrated.

    Read More
  66. @Anonymous Nephew
    "Before any white person preaches to another white person about the need to reproduce white people: They should do something about the growing over-population of non-whites in America and around the world"

    Well, America's abortionists are certainly making their contribution, if the "1 Af-Am baby in 3 aborted" stat is anywhere near true. But the only thing that's really likely to make a difference is the abolition of welfare simply for producing children - and the same applies in the rest of the developed world. A pity, as welfare was originally created to help unfortunate natives.

    Of course our elites would, in the longer term, LOVE that to happen. Welfare states imply a high tax burden.

    As for the rest of the world, Western medicine is out of the bottle and unlikely to go back in. A Victorian mother in England might have eight children with three surviving, but as child mortality improved, English mothers had fewer kids. Child mortality has improved in Africa, but a Nigerian mother might still have eight kids. Not sure what any Westerner can do about that, short of getting on a pale horse.

    I think if we cut off all the Western aid, and interventions into all the messes Africans have a propensity to get themselves into, nature would take care of the overpopulation problem.

    Read More
  67. @Truth

    Genetic engineering is doubtful to occur within our lifetime, although the technology will probably exist for gene manipulation within 15 years. Just as cloning has been available and used with animals for the last decade, yet no humans are cloning themselves.
     
    We have a comedian here.

    The first ANNOUNCED human cloning took place in 1977. Anything announced is 20 year old technology putting the human cloning timeline at 1957. Scientists in the field more or less settle on the Nazis at the first to achieve human cloning, and I've read estimates as early as THE CIVIL WAR ERA.

    If he is, he’s not the only comedian. I guess next you’ll tell us the ancient Egyptians had Google Glass.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Well, My Good Man, I guess it all comes down to one factor; from whom do you take your information, those college professors who gave you all of the information you needed on 1960s era technology (in the 1990's) or your own lyin' eyes?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUDN83lGroI#t=219
  68. Truth says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Your point is well-taken. I respect you, and I certainly do not blame you for your choice.

    I do, however, resent any implication, if intended, that one might be a "pussy" for not having children. "Today’s people are such pussies," as you say, but at least my wife and I are not contributing to the rampant overpopulation of America and the Earth that is currently going on. No, instead we are paying exorbitant taxes that help others educate, feed, house, and otherwise care for their offspring. Fully one-half of our outrageous property taxes pay for the schools we don't use, and I don't know how many of our numerous, extorted, federal and state dollars go to help grow our inner city black populations with free school breakfasts, free school lunches, Section 8 free housing, food stamps, etc.

    Having children is easy. It's the natural result of the most pleasurable thing we do. Most parents manage to rear their children no matter how low their income or intelligence; nature takes its course. I don't see parents as noble; I see them as animals having babies after intercourse. Yes, bringing them up takes sacrifice and work, but I always hear parents giving selfish reasons for why they think having children was a good thing to do. (This is natural. One cannot, nor should not, blame them.)

    Before any white person preaches to another white person about the need to reproduce white people: They should do something about the growing over-population of non-whites in America and around the world -- and the increasing transfer of production and wealth to non-whites. The solution to weeds overgrowing your garden is not to plant more good things, it is to remove the weeds, and certainly not to feed them!

    Our ancestors for the past many centuries lived in times when their/our people were at the forefront of improving life on Earth. The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, The American Revolution, The Industrial Revolution, etc.

    Our "Garden of Eden compared to Europe of 400 years ago," as you call it, is what they produced during that time.

    For centuries, there has been a New World and the promise of a better future.

    That is coming to an end

    This new world of ours is filling up with the very same corruption as the old, and the corrupted are filling us up with, and increasingly employing around the world, useful-idiot laborers from the non-enlightened world and its races.

    I worry that you are dooming your offspring to what most likely will be a world worse than the one you enjoy. Even if you leave them a great inheritance, they will be increasingly walled-off, in a shrinking habitat, from the growing masses around them.

    Sounds bad, but it's the truth. The good times are coming to an end. We had the last, great hope on Earth; our leaders, in business and government, ruined it.

    Again, I say this respectfully. I fully understand the good work you are doing by rearing children who probably will be good citizens. I am certain they are a joy to you.

    I do, however, resent any implication, if intended, that one might be a “pussy” for not having children. “Today’s people are such pussies,” as you say, but at least my wife and I are not contributing to the rampant overpopulation of America and the Earth that is currently going on. No, instead we are paying exorbitant taxes that help others educate, feed, house, and otherwise care for their offspring. Fully one-half of our outrageous property taxes pay for the schools we don’t use, and I don’t know how many of our numerous, extorted, federal and state dollars go to help grow our inner city black populations with free school breakfasts, free school lunches, Section 8 free housing, food stamps, etc.

    Translation:

    “I’m extremely self-centered, so much so, that I can’t that I’m self centered, because that would demand introspection. I have been since I was born, I hate children and love my x-box, or golf clubs; however, being self-centered, all this needs to be someone else’s fault…”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    He IS paying taxes that supports other peoples' kids. It is considered poor form to bite the hand that feeds you.

    I don't understand this compulsion with brow-beating people who don't want them into having kids. No one likes to be brow-beaten, especially over a life-changing decision that is entirely private, personal in nature.

  69. Truth says:
    @Grandpa Jack
    If he is, he's not the only comedian. I guess next you'll tell us the ancient Egyptians had Google Glass.

    Well, My Good Man, I guess it all comes down to one factor; from whom do you take your information, those college professors who gave you all of the information you needed on 1960s era technology (in the 1990′s) or your own lyin’ eyes?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUDN83lGroI#t=219

    Read More
  70. @Truth

    I do, however, resent any implication, if intended, that one might be a “pussy” for not having children. “Today’s people are such pussies,” as you say, but at least my wife and I are not contributing to the rampant overpopulation of America and the Earth that is currently going on. No, instead we are paying exorbitant taxes that help others educate, feed, house, and otherwise care for their offspring. Fully one-half of our outrageous property taxes pay for the schools we don’t use, and I don’t know how many of our numerous, extorted, federal and state dollars go to help grow our inner city black populations with free school breakfasts, free school lunches, Section 8 free housing, food stamps, etc.
     
    Translation:

    "I'm extremely self-centered, so much so, that I can't that I'm self centered, because that would demand introspection. I have been since I was born, I hate children and love my x-box, or golf clubs; however, being self-centered, all this needs to be someone else's fault..."

    He IS paying taxes that supports other peoples’ kids. It is considered poor form to bite the hand that feeds you.

    I don’t understand this compulsion with brow-beating people who don’t want them into having kids. No one likes to be brow-beaten, especially over a life-changing decision that is entirely private, personal in nature.

    Read More
  71. Truth says:

    I didn’t browbeat anyone. One who is happy with a personal decision doesn’t need to rationalize it. It really is as simple as that.

    Read More
  72. Corvinus says:

    “No one likes to be brow-beaten, especially over a life-changing decision that is entirely private, personal in nature.”

    You do realize that the pro-white crowd insists that their brethren have white children, and lots of them, to counter the non-white proliferation. What say you about their “advice”?

    Read More
  73. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Much of today’s “dysgenics” can probably be tied in with r/K selection theory.

    http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    R-K selection theory is pseudoscience. The author is noted for offering social evidence for a phenomenon that mandates first biological evidence. Then, one is able to provide insight into the resulting sociological implications.

    Randall, why don't YOU offer your take on this theory?
  74. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous
    Much of today's "dysgenics" can probably be tied in with r/K selection theory.

    http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/

    R-K selection theory is pseudoscience. The author is noted for offering social evidence for a phenomenon that mandates first biological evidence. Then, one is able to provide insight into the resulting sociological implications.

    Randall, why don’t YOU offer your take on this theory?

    Read More
  75. @Buzz Mohawk
    I figured out early on that our world was going down the toilet, so I decided not to have any children at all -- and I married a woman who agreed with me.

    That makes me a genius, and her too.

    Everything I read on this blog confirms my long-held opinion.

    I feel sorry for the children and grandchildren of anybody reading this.

    “I figured out early on that our world was going down the toilet, so I decided not to have any children at all — and I married a woman who agreed with me.

    That makes me a genius, and her too.

    Everything I read on this blog confirms my long-held opinion.

    I feel sorry for the children and grandchildren of anybody reading this.”

    Way to go Buzz, and it didn’t even cost the rest of us a dime- to spare us from the self-replications of a “Genius” like you.

    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 John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering