Excellent article. The sooner this country accepts the facts outlined in this article, the better. You can bet the Chinese are firm believers. They will have no qualms about embryo selection and genetic enhancement. The truth shall set you free. Knowledge is the goal.
I am surprised and sorry to hear that. Genetic enhancement of positive traits has so much potential to assist humanity's ascent—not for nefarious reasons but to make life better for all people.
Maybe it was. Maybe it was seen as normalizing HIV. It's weird to get immunity for disease which has very low transmissivity. And it's not like they'll test it. And HIV+ people are also likely to have more strains of HSV and HPV etc etc.
(Wild speculation: imagine if some country started modifying genes to get immunity to radiation).
Unfortunately, the word "eugenics" will come up, causing a meltdown. People will put themselves into debt or delay their retirement so their children can go to the "right school" don't believe they're practicing eugenics, though that's what Francis Galton wanted. But using technology? It means you'll support Aktion T4, and then Aktion Rheinhard.
"People will put themselves into debt or delay their retirement so their children can go to the "right school" don't believe they're practicing eugenics, though that's what Francis Galton wanted."
I am not sure what you're actually suggesting here and would like clarification. I'm not combative, I simply want to understand what you mean here.
To make sure you know I'm not setting some kind of snarky rhetorical trap, we *did* spend loads of money to send our child to the best schools available where we live. I was not willing to be separated from my offspring to send her to a boarding school out-of-state if indeed there were demonstrably better choices elsewhere, so we were not absolutists in this regard.
But `what we thought was that we would try to provide her with the best intellectual/ethical toolset for living her life that we could. That she might marry another such peer and have kids was in our minds, vaguely, so in a sense we did have "eugenics" in mind, but of a natural variety.
Is this desire to see one's offspring do as well, and hopefully better, than oneself what you mean by practicing eugenics by sending your child to the right schools?
Galton's idea was to send the best people to the best schools so they would reproduce superior people. What you and lots of people do, but they don't consider it eugenics. I tend to get a bit snarky towards people who aren't willing to admit that's what they're doing while at the same time expressing revulsion at the idea of eugenics. The fact you're here strongly implies you're not on of those people.
Yes. Eugenics needs to be fully, impassionately, and objectively explored.
The same is true for all areas of testable scientific hypotheses, including even the social sciences.
You know, it just dawned on me that the sole rational objection to eugenics might be that if eugenic policies were formalized as national policy and enforced as such, rather than self-selected voluntarily as per Galton.
"I tend to get a bit snarky towards people who aren't willing to admit that's what they're doing while at the same time expressing revulsion at the idea of eugenics."
Eugenics was given a bad context due to some groups forcing experimentation using terrible processes. There is nothing wrong with using modern technology to improve the traits of your offspring if done voluntarily.
The ultimate hereditarian question is: Can we normal people gain, disseminate, and act upon the genetic knowledge necessary to prevent the control of governments and other institutions by sociopaths? I understand that the necessary data bases do not exist yet. Nevertheless, any observant person who has experienced three or more decades of adult life knows that most of the harm in society is not caused by low-IQs but by high-IQs joined with sociopathic motivations. The frontier of HBD studies is psychological experiments for identifying sociopathy's association with genetic markers, and these followed by population studies of professions and ethnic groups.
A person whose D-Factor score is in the upper 20% of the distribution of scores. Someone most definitely does not need to have been incarcerated to be a sociopath. Those who create havoc most widely in society have never been hauled into court for it.
D-Factor is an improvement on the DSM definition. See the work discussed in the link here. https://darkfactor.org/
He's perfectly free to post somewhere else. I generally allow for disagreement but I don't see what is gained by people coming here to insult people. He's free to do so somewhere else. There's a lot of places on the internet where one can insult people one doesn't like.
"This probably won't stop you because you probably don't actually care about the truth. Rather, you care about maintaining an increasingly discredited narrative of racial superiority and inferiority."
How did you come up with that crap? No one said anything about racial superiority. But you, like other liberals, push the nurture narrative.
"This is a matter of pure projection. Ian has previously noted that he only wrote for AmRen a long time ago because he liked the vibes of being a white nat and now has grown distasteful towards those vibes and has consequently switched his tune."
Now that you tell me, I remember hearing that before. Thanks for reminding me.
I'd add: hold the current twitter vanguard to not triangulate and promote deceptive counterproductive statements like race is a social construct. That seems to be the lie that won't die and the only point is to pursuade people away from believing the hereditarian premise.
This might just be my favorite work of yours yet, Emil.
I don't trust the bastards to do it. Hence why I didn't vote for them. But I'd love to be proven wrong, and if Vance manages to shepherd the retard brigade to the light, will even change my vote next time around.
Wilfred Reilly has some data-based takes on crime, but when it comes to blacks, suddenly for him it’s all about culture and institutions and “slave society” legacies.
He’s a Based Black Guy, and a useful prop for normies, but not a hereditarian.
Reilly is a Sowell type. I'm sure he accepts most of HBD regarding sex differences, low vs. upper class, heritability of traits etc., just not the race ones. But that's a good start.
Reilly doesn’t dispute this. I’m saying he’s more on Sowell’s side of the debate on WHY blacks commit more crimes, as opposed to “Hereditarians” like Crémieux.
> Following Thomas Sowell, mainstream conservatives sometimes attribute racial disparities to cultural differences. Amy Wax calls this “soft realism” in contrast to “hard realism” (hereditarianism).
Excellent article. The sooner this country accepts the facts outlined in this article, the better. You can bet the Chinese are firm believers. They will have no qualms about embryo selection and genetic enhancement. The truth shall set you free. Knowledge is the goal.
Um China gave a real prison sentence to that guy who edited genomes of 2 girls to give HIV resistance
"Um China gave a real prison sentence to that guy who edited genomes of 2 girls to give HIV resistance"
And you know this how? It could very well have been a charade for public consumption.
Regardless, you can be sure China is doing research on genetic enhancement.
My Chinese friends tell me they aren't really. They are in an easy situation to win this race, but the agency is lacking.
"My Chinese friends tell me they aren't really."
I am surprised and sorry to hear that. Genetic enhancement of positive traits has so much potential to assist humanity's ascent—not for nefarious reasons but to make life better for all people.
Was the fact that it was "HIV" resistance any major factor, do you think? If the resistance had been for, say, melanoma, would it have mattered?
Serious question, not snide.
Thanks for disclaimer.
I don't know.
Maybe it was. Maybe it was seen as normalizing HIV. It's weird to get immunity for disease which has very low transmissivity. And it's not like they'll test it. And HIV+ people are also likely to have more strains of HSV and HPV etc etc.
(Wild speculation: imagine if some country started modifying genes to get immunity to radiation).
Unfortunately, the word "eugenics" will come up, causing a meltdown. People will put themselves into debt or delay their retirement so their children can go to the "right school" don't believe they're practicing eugenics, though that's what Francis Galton wanted. But using technology? It means you'll support Aktion T4, and then Aktion Rheinhard.
"But using technology? It means you'll support Aktion T4, and then Aktion Rheinhard (sic)."
You're get way out there. No one said anything about eugenics. It amounts to parents wanting to voluntarily produce offspring with positive traits.
"People will put themselves into debt or delay their retirement so their children can go to the "right school" don't believe they're practicing eugenics, though that's what Francis Galton wanted."
I am not sure what you're actually suggesting here and would like clarification. I'm not combative, I simply want to understand what you mean here.
To make sure you know I'm not setting some kind of snarky rhetorical trap, we *did* spend loads of money to send our child to the best schools available where we live. I was not willing to be separated from my offspring to send her to a boarding school out-of-state if indeed there were demonstrably better choices elsewhere, so we were not absolutists in this regard.
But `what we thought was that we would try to provide her with the best intellectual/ethical toolset for living her life that we could. That she might marry another such peer and have kids was in our minds, vaguely, so in a sense we did have "eugenics" in mind, but of a natural variety.
Is this desire to see one's offspring do as well, and hopefully better, than oneself what you mean by practicing eugenics by sending your child to the right schools?
Galton's idea was to send the best people to the best schools so they would reproduce superior people. What you and lots of people do, but they don't consider it eugenics. I tend to get a bit snarky towards people who aren't willing to admit that's what they're doing while at the same time expressing revulsion at the idea of eugenics. The fact you're here strongly implies you're not on of those people.
Yes. Eugenics needs to be fully, impassionately, and objectively explored.
The same is true for all areas of testable scientific hypotheses, including even the social sciences.
You know, it just dawned on me that the sole rational objection to eugenics might be that if eugenic policies were formalized as national policy and enforced as such, rather than self-selected voluntarily as per Galton.
What do you think?
"I tend to get a bit snarky towards people who aren't willing to admit that's what they're doing while at the same time expressing revulsion at the idea of eugenics."
Eugenics was given a bad context due to some groups forcing experimentation using terrible processes. There is nothing wrong with using modern technology to improve the traits of your offspring if done voluntarily.
Real eugenicists know that spending money on high-school education has a negligible effect on subsequent life outcomes.
The ultimate hereditarian question is: Can we normal people gain, disseminate, and act upon the genetic knowledge necessary to prevent the control of governments and other institutions by sociopaths? I understand that the necessary data bases do not exist yet. Nevertheless, any observant person who has experienced three or more decades of adult life knows that most of the harm in society is not caused by low-IQs but by high-IQs joined with sociopathic motivations. The frontier of HBD studies is psychological experiments for identifying sociopathy's association with genetic markers, and these followed by population studies of professions and ethnic groups.
Define "sociopath". Do you mean DSM anti-social personality disorder?
A person whose D-Factor score is in the upper 20% of the distribution of scores. Someone most definitely does not need to have been incarcerated to be a sociopath. Those who create havoc most widely in society have never been hauled into court for it.
D-Factor is an improvement on the DSM definition. See the work discussed in the link here. https://darkfactor.org/
Google's D-Factor results here. https://www.google.com/search?q=d-factor+score&sca_esv=71e700b366dfacef&source=hp&ei=D0kuZ7WqFKTjwN4Pnb3YsAo&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZy5XHxlON2-LI4zS932vueEkGgb7TvkN&oq=d+factor+score&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig5kIGZhY3RvciBzY29yZSoCCAAyBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYhgMYigUyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRIxFlQAFjJOXAAeACQAQKYAcsHoAHvOaoBCzAuMy4xLjUtMS43uAEByAEA-AEBmAIKoAKILcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIFEAAYgATCAg4QLhiABBixAxjRAxjHAcICERAuGIAEGLEDGNEDGIMBGMcBwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAhQQLhiABBixAxjRAxiDARjHARiKBcICCxAuGIAEGNEDGMcBwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAg4QLhiABBjHARiOBRivAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIFEC4YgATCAgcQABiABBgKwgIIEC4YgAQY5QTCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICCBAAGBYYHhgPwgIIEAAYFhgKGB7CAggQABiiBBiJBZgDAJIHCzAuMy4xLjUtMi40oAfrVw&sclient=gws-wiz
Basically bash woke corruption in science,tech and public schools with the law hammer
You have issues. (User was banned for this post.)
Emil, it is your blog, do what you want. The guy is full of crap, but perhaps banning is too harsh. Freedom of speech, even for idiots.
He's perfectly free to post somewhere else. I generally allow for disagreement but I don't see what is gained by people coming here to insult people. He's free to do so somewhere else. There's a lot of places on the internet where one can insult people one doesn't like.
"I generally allow for disagreement but I don't see what is gained by people coming here to insult people."
Point taken.
"This probably won't stop you because you probably don't actually care about the truth. Rather, you care about maintaining an increasingly discredited narrative of racial superiority and inferiority."
How did you come up with that crap? No one said anything about racial superiority. But you, like other liberals, push the nurture narrative.
"This is a matter of pure projection. Ian has previously noted that he only wrote for AmRen a long time ago because he liked the vibes of being a white nat and now has grown distasteful towards those vibes and has consequently switched his tune."
Now that you tell me, I remember hearing that before. Thanks for reminding me.
Excellent comments.
Terrific article. Why don't you make yourself available for a position in the new administration?
I'm not American.
Is Elon American? I assumed it was only the Presidency that foreigners were barred from or is it any position in the administration?
He's a US citizen and resident. I am neither.
Ah, too bad.
We could use some kind of Rectification of Names as well.
I'd add: hold the current twitter vanguard to not triangulate and promote deceptive counterproductive statements like race is a social construct. That seems to be the lie that won't die and the only point is to pursuade people away from believing the hereditarian premise.
Nice to do list... We'll be much better off if even half on it gets accomplished... and I think it will.
This might just be my favorite work of yours yet, Emil.
I don't trust the bastards to do it. Hence why I didn't vote for them. But I'd love to be proven wrong, and if Vance manages to shepherd the retard brigade to the light, will even change my vote next time around.
Wilfred Reilly has some data-based takes on crime, but when it comes to blacks, suddenly for him it’s all about culture and institutions and “slave society” legacies.
He’s a Based Black Guy, and a useful prop for normies, but not a hereditarian.
Reilly is a Sowell type. I'm sure he accepts most of HBD regarding sex differences, low vs. upper class, heritability of traits etc., just not the race ones. But that's a good start.
The fact is blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites.
Reilly doesn’t dispute this. I’m saying he’s more on Sowell’s side of the debate on WHY blacks commit more crimes, as opposed to “Hereditarians” like Crémieux.
> Following Thomas Sowell, mainstream conservatives sometimes attribute racial disparities to cultural differences. Amy Wax calls this “soft realism” in contrast to “hard realism” (hereditarianism).
"Following Thomas Sowell, mainstream conservatives sometimes attribute racial disparities to cultural differences."
Making excuses. But I agree black culture (culture is genetically influenced) lacks integrity and self-control.
"Amy Wax calls this “soft realism” in contrast to “hard realism” (hereditarianism)."
I agree with Amy