Science book agent John Brockman rounds up the usual suspects for his annual January high-brow pow-wow. This year's question, "What Should We Be Worried About?"
So far, Geoffrey Miller's contribution is getting the most attention: "Chinese Eugenics."
David Berreby worries about "Global Greying" making society less creative and innovative. Fortunately, America has more immigrants so it will have less of a problem. (After all, who can't quickly come up with a long list of innovations our vibrantly creative young Mexican-American population has blessed us with recently? There's, like ... no ... well, let me get back to you on this one.) The real danger, Berreby says, is that aging could lead to "xenophobic nationalism," and when is that not the real danger?
What I worry about, personally, is that smart people don't worry about many problems that manifest themselves in ceteris paribus fashions: i.e., all else being equal, more of X means more of Y. But more of Y probably won't cause the End of World. We're likely to muddle on through thanks to Moore's Law and other blessings.
So, why worry about it? In fact, don't even ever think about it. When we find ourselves in a hole, we must keep on digging because ... uh, all we have to do is hire another construction crew to push the dirt back in as we dig it out. But that sounds kind of expensive ... Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's hire a really low wage construction crew to push the dirt back in, which is, obviously, when you stop and think about it, a job Americans just won't do. Those American bastard workers, always wanting to get paid like Americans. We'll fix them. ... Where was I? Oh, yeah, so keep on digging!
So, why worry about it? In fact, don't even ever think about it. When we find ourselves in a hole, we must keep on digging because ... uh, all we have to do is hire another construction crew to push the dirt back in as we dig it out. But that sounds kind of expensive ... Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's hire a really low wage construction crew to push the dirt back in, which is, obviously, when you stop and think about it, a job Americans just won't do. Those American bastard workers, always wanting to get paid like Americans. We'll fix them. ... Where was I? Oh, yeah, so keep on digging!
Posts
68 comments:
Chinese eugenics will work only if its familist.
A Chinese will favor his own kid over a smart kid.
But if his own kid can be made smarter, that might be something.
Btw, eugenics, under the name of something as innocuous sounding as 'genetic therapy', will be led by the West.
Jews will lead and own it.
My interpretation of Miller's contribution is that he's trying to use the Chinese bogeyman to scare Americans into practicing eugenics. I guess it's far-fetched, but I'm not sure how else to explain his piece.
The real danger, Berreby says, is that aging could lead to "xenophobic nationalism"
I see that Berreby "was born in France in 1958 to an American mother and Jewish father" and that he "has spent most of his life in New York City", so naturally he hides under the covers at night thinking of all those xenophobic nationalists waiting to kill him.
The real question is why what is called "public discourse" in America is almost exclusively based on the neurotic fantasies of a handful of New York Jews.
I would have said (1) debt and (2) antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Re: (2), I also wonder if vaccines and anti-retrovirals are having the same effect. Maybe an epidemiologist out there can educate me otherwise.
Speaking of eugenics, obviously the negative version remains verboten, but what about the positive version -- encouraging high human capital types to reproduce? You could argue that some of Bloomberg's policies you've blogged about are a form of that, but a mayor a few miles west of him comes to mind: Corey Booker. No doubt he's improved things in Newark at the margins -- his predecessor was criminally corrupt, and Booker has attracted a lot of Wall Street and Silicon Valley philanthropy to his city (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg's $100 million gift to Newark schools). But in the long term, would he have had a bigger positive impact on Newark if he donated to a sperm bank that impregnated 100 local women with his Rhodes Scholar DNA?
Long term, dysgenic fertility & the death of most all civilization [which is to say, the extinctions of most all civilizable peoples] is a certainty.
But given the suffocating, overwhelming, all-consuming nihilism which lies at the heart of the modern academy, in the near term, I truly fear this.
[QUOTE]After all, who can't quickly come up with a long list of innovations our vibrantly creative young Mexican-American population has blessed us with recently? There's like ... well, let me get back to you on this one.)[/QUOTE]
Young Mexican Americans are vibrantly creative when it comes to the art of gang graffiti. They are the future of this country.
Clearly someone needs to explain to Geoffrey Miller that IQ is a meaningless social construct and there's nothing genetic about it.
Those Chinese - what fools!
Don't they know that "Eugenics" is a long-discredited pseudoscience!?
"What I worry about, personally, is that smart people don't worry about many problems that manifest themselves in ceteris paribus fashions: i.e., all else being equal, more of X means more of Y. But more of Y probably won't cause the End of World. We're likely to muddle on through thanks to Moore's Law and other blessings."
Yes, technological progress masks the harm caused by Third World immigration, but you see civilization declining in aspects that technology cannot improve, like illegitimacy, or like movie, music, and television preferences, for example.
1/ So the Chinese want people to have children later.
And how is that going to lessen birth defects or create people with higher IQ's?
2/ After all that eugenics work the brilliant Chinese have invented hardly anything, and many or their brilliant young want to move to the dysgenic USA. Beats committing brilliant suicide on a brilliant Foxconn assembly line.
3/ While they're trying to create a race with super brains, do you thing they'll get around to creating a race with super lungs? Cough, choke, welcome to Beijing.
4/ Ever go to a place with a huge bank of slot machines? You have to be really stupid to spend a huge amount of time there. One look and you may find race and IQ theories a bit harder to... oh listen to the coins drop!
5/ But just look at every member of their politburo. None of them is bald (see M. Zedong) and none has a single grey hair (unlike B. H. Obama, age 51). So I guess eugenics does work.
Steve have you seen Frum's latest race awareness column? As usual, it goes something like this: have you seen this backwards wrongheaded argument these conservatives are pushing (wink wink). I mean, just look at it (wink).
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/
The only reason to fear China practicing eugenics is if one believes the state pushing eugenics works and the West is therefore getting left behind. Miller clearly believes this.
China will probably do fine despite its program, not because of it.
Two reasons off the top of my head why state involvement in eugenics does not work. The first was alluded to by another participant at Edge on the power of lust.
Lust is the ultimate eugenics weapon. A force hewed by millions of years of evolution, state eugenics can't compare. Also, lust and other drives and ensuing behaviors have a time line making it more tricky to grapple with. We've just recently learned that rising paternal age is very bad for a society (not as much on an individual level). Yet, in China and in the West, it's been a hallmark of intelligent behavior to overcome our biology "that hasn't caught up to the realities of the modern era" and start parenthood in our thirties.
Gregory Cochran:
But you can’t beat the facts. The advanced paternal age associated with polygamy increases genetic load. Cousin marriage increases infant mortality and decreases IQ. The Hapsburgs turned into a mess, the Ptolemies went straight downhill, and King Tut had more things wrong with him than you could shake a stick at.
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men.
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/who-could-have-known/
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/110861/how-older-parenthood-will-upend-american-society
Perhaps even more important is the pushing of an anti-human conceptual framework on the masses that human beings are disposable and that each one is NOT "fearfully and wonderfully made". One has the freedom to have a really smart child, but the price is that one has to accept its moral underpinnings.
I believe this road quickly leads to nihilism which itself ultimately leads back to not wanting children. As such, it will afflict the intelligent more.
The piece on Chinese eugenics reminds me of the late English sf writer John Brunner's 1968 novel Stand on Zanzibar part of which deals with the consequences of the public announcement of a genetics breakthrough by a genius biologist working for an Indonesia-like fictional state named Yatakang permitting the creation of a superior human being. A panicked US government dispatches a secret agent to the country in order to discover the truth behind the program. The novel also depicts a jungle war fought in the Philippines between US forces and the Chinese operating out of Yatakang. With the recent Chinese moves in waters off the Philippines Brunner seems more relevant every day.
He dealt with the bad effects of mass pollution (e.g. Beijing) in his later book, The Sheep look up.
Some smart boys were thinking about these possible threats 40 years ago.
Yao Ming was the product of eugenics. His parents were the tallest man in China and tallest woman in China.
Surely, China cannot force people to marry like this in today's world.
But what if China were to encourage a whole lot of women to mate with a supersmart guy. Suppose Wing Ding has an IQ of 180 and impregnates a 1000 Chinese women.
But the most effective way of eugenics is the Schwarz Project but Chinese wouldn't be able to get away this as a kid who's half-Chinese and half-Jewish will stand out.
But if Arabs were to do it, they'd end up with lots of smart Arabs. Imagine if a bunch of Arab agents secretly sucked out the sperm of a bunch of supersmart Jews at Harvard and NY and impregnated 1000s of Arab women with it.
Jewish sperm is the most precious commodity in the world.
http://www.danwei.com/the-difference-between-the-way-jews-and-chinese-do-business/
"The difference between Jewish and Chinese people: A Jew opens a gas station in some place and business is very good. Then a second Jew comes along and opens a restaurant, and then third Jew opens a supermarket, and the place very quickly prospers. When a Chinese person opens a gas station and business is very good, the second Chinese will definitely open a second gas station, and then the third, the fourth… Competition is vicious and it’s no fun for anybody."
In other words, Jews find new stuff to do whereas Chinese just copy.
[QUOTE]Jewish sperm is the most precious commodity in the world.[/QUOTE]
I thought "vibrantly diverse" sperm (NAM) was the most precious commodity in the world.
After all I see so many high I.Q NAM scientists, lawyers, and doctors in Hollywood movies.
"Steve have you seen Frum's latest race awareness column? As usual, it goes something like this: have you seen this backwards wrongheaded argument these conservatives are pushing (wink wink). I mean, just look at it (wink)."
I don't think that's what Frum's doing. Back in 2010, when conservatives swept the midterms, Frum wrote this piece on immigration that could have been written by Steve. In the current Frum essay you refer to, Frum is continuing his new, post-Sandy Hook massacre gun control zealotry.
I think what Frum is doing is similar to what Ariana Huffington did years ago: he's switching sides. Switching to the left, divorcing herself from right wing nutters (and her gay GOP hubby), and then tacking back a little to the center has helped Ariana make a fortune building and then selling HuffPo. Maybe Davy has similar dreams for the Frum forum. If nothing else, as a lefty he'll get invited to more fancier cocktail parties.
Hiring low-wage workers to put the dirt back in the hole.
Reminded be of "Cool Hand Luke."
Yao Ming was the product of eugenics. His parents were the tallest man in China and tallest woman in China.
He wasn't the product of eugenics. His parents weren't the tallest man and woman in China. Both of his parents were tall basketball players though. It was more assortive mating.
But if Arabs were to do it, they'd end up with lots of smart Arabs. Imagine if a bunch of Arab agents secretly sucked out the sperm of a bunch of supersmart Jews at Harvard and NY and impregnated 1000s of Arab women with it.
Yes, but there's no point for the Arabs to do that, because that would be against their genetic interests.
But the most effective way of eugenics is the Schwarz Project but Chinese wouldn't be able to get away this as a kid who's half-Chinese and half-Jewish will stand out.
But if Arabs were to do it, they'd end up with lots of smart Arabs. Imagine if a bunch of Arab agents secretly sucked out the sperm of a bunch of supersmart Jews at Harvard and NY and impregnated 1000s of Arab women with it.
That wouldn't actually be eugenics. That would be like population replacement or producing a new breed.
Speaking of workers who do jobs Americans won't do...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16529145-ap-before-election-arrest-of-sex-offender-who-was-senate-intern-was-postponed-documents-show?lite=
John Glad wrote in his recent book "Jewish Eugenics" that eugenic practices are alive and well in the contemporary Jewish community, especially genetic screening for Jewish genetic diseases:
http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Eugenics-John-Glad/dp/0897030052
anony-mouse said:
"...the brilliant Chinese have invented hardly anything..."
It's this sort of irresponsible statement that keeps this site a notch below GNXP and only slightly above AMREN. Sure, White males blow everyone out of the water, but the Chinese are at least a distant second and far ahead of all other colored races.
In other words, Jews find new stuff to do whereas Chinese just copy.
Jews don't find new stuff to do. They just do more prestigious stuff like media, finance, law, etc. whereas the Chinese just do small time retail. It's Euro gentiles that do new stuff.
"Jewish sperm is the most precious commodity in the world."
Sperm is cheap;eggs are expensive.
I find it amazing that liberals list "global warming" among their top worries when it seems likely to me that the slowdown of the world's industrialized economies in the next ten years due to the debt crisis will solve that problem better than any Kyoto Protocol.
I don't know if it's a worry or a hope, but it seems to me that the United States is becoming increasingly unsustainable as a unified polity. The hate liberals express for the non-liberal is out of control.
OK, so of course I clicked on Brian Eno's answer first. (Silly me, I thought mentioning Eno might take the comments off-topic. Ha ha!) His answer, in a sentence: if we don't do politics, someone else will. Just more proof that it's all been downhill since Another Green World.
Apparently there were lots of scientists answering, too. Scientists are some of the dumbest people in the world, when they talk about anything other than science.
"Chinese Eugenics."
Haaaaaan!
Do super-brilliant whiz-kids like Miller even consider the issue of whether the Chinese eugenics program is immoral, all the potential economic and psycholgical benefits notwithstanding? I guess not, since he undoubtedly feels hairy-chested about avoiding those oh-so-gauche ethical issues that his lessers worry their silly little heads about. Not even an honest acknowledgement or peep about the potential dangers of Chinese eugenics, of how in Churchill's words such advances could cause the world to "sink into the abyss of a New Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." Am I the only one who finds this disturbing, a sad commentary on our intellectual elite?
By the way Mr. Sailer, an excellent essay you recently wrote about Silver Lining Playbook - one of your best.
Imagine if a bunch of Arab agents secretly sucked out the sperm of a bunch of supersmart Jews at Harvard and NY and impregnated 1000s of Arab women with it.
Sounds like a typical Jewish fantasy. Which, American show biz being what it is, means you could probably get it made into a movie!
re:Chine Eugenics
After reading 200 books on China I feel sure the idea of a "Han ethno-state" is highly unlikely.
The Chinese population is one of the most fractuous on earth -- genetically, linguistically, geographically, etc. They will never get together. Xenophobia is something drummed up by Chinese media, and may be popular among elite students in Beijing, which doesn't make it any less dangerous I suppose. But the idea that all Han belong to one ethnic group is a myth.
You will notice that the only successful modern Chinese states have been very small, namely, Singapore and Taiwan. And Singapore for a while.
"My interpretation of Miller's contribution is that he's trying to use the Chinese bogeyman to scare Americans into practicing eugenics."
I think he's subtly hinting that the blank slate nonsense that has held western science in a retarded death grip for 80 years is coming to an end now that genetics has slipped outside of PC control.
It's a shame about all the harm that's been done in the process but at least we won't have to put up with the stupidity for much longer...
yes, young jonnie once upon a time people said you could make smarter dogs by putting puppies in a no puppy left behind program instead of breeding a smart mummy dog and a smart daddy dog - weren't they silly?
.
"but you see civilization declining in aspects that technology cannot improve, like illegitimacy..."
I wouldn't bet on that.
.
"But if Arabs were to do it, they'd end up with lots of smart Arabs. Imagine if a bunch of Arab agents secretly sucked out the sperm of a bunch of supersmart Jews at Harvard and NY and impregnated 1000s of Arab women with it."
That's not eugenics that's stealth genocide - which i guess is eugenic if you're a nazi.
.
"Jewish sperm is the most precious commodity in the world."
Except
1) Jews are culturally insane and always eventually destroy their environment
2) the most valuable sperm in the world is actually contained in a few thousand anglo special forces
- high IQ
- cooperative
- controlled aggression
- determination
- good looking
- supremely healthy
or in short the humans with the lowest amount of genetic load
(by accident, no master race stuff)
"But the idea that all Han belong to one ethnic group is a myth."
But what if *actual* *population* eugenics - as opposed to the *individual* eugenic fantasies of people who think they're cleverer than they are dreaming about their own personal harems - is really about that kind of thing i.e. making the most co-operative large scale group?
If so then part of population eugenics would be making a population more related to each other to some optimal degree.
Today.
The one thing I worry about today is the imminent attempt by that smug prick who-would-be-king in the White House to infringe by his executive fiat our Second Amendment right.
All over this land in the last twenty-five years speech codes have been planted and have taken deep root (Larry Summers, Juan Williams, John Derbyshire, anyone?). Now the myopic miserable bastards who imposed the speech codes come, just as the Crown had its soldiers march on Lexington, for our arms. Compared with these ongoing active threats, Chinese eugenics comes in a long way down the list of things to worry about.
My view is actual whole population eugenics is likely to show just how biological we are - very clever lichen - and a lot of people might be freaked out by that so that could be a worry - but *actual* whole population eugenics - if it is eugenic will be benign by definition imo.
The most likely form isn't that of course - the most likely form is a caste based conspiracy against the majority which is eugenic for some and dysgenic for the majority (hence isn't maximally eugenic) - but personally i think if even one country chooses the benign form then they'll win.
(for reasons of maximum synergy)
This truly makes me hope for a world government where somebody puts an end to this frankenstein nonsense. Intelligence is not particularly essential any more,we have reached a state where most of our desires have been fulfilled as a species. Unless ooh ooh global warming and ooh ooh asteroid striking the earth are among your list of major problems.
The only value of intelligence would be in inter group competition. ie a zero sum game.
Genetic modification will lead to opening an unnecessary can of worms. You cannot seek happiness by being faster, stronger, smarter. There is no end to that road. That fire will keep consuming everything you throw at it. The Catholic church knows this. All religions know it. Dehumanizing humanity is not a good idea and the only people who think it is a good idea would be autistics and commie fascists like the chinese.
This truly be like dat Prometheus shit. Leave humans alone the way they are. We dont need any improvements. Dont immanentize the eschaton!
I wish I'd been a believer, I could back my arguments up with "because we were made in the mould of God" but I cannot.
A one-child policy could have a de facto eugenic effect, even if it wasn't the intention.
The only value of intelligence would be in inter group competition. ie a zero sum game.
Actually the dumber the people, the more of a zero-sum game it will become. It becomes increasingly a breeding war where you're trying to pump out as much people as fast as possible. If you want to avoid zero-sum games, you want more intelligence to apply to positive-sum outcomes like expanding into space, where there's enough space to avoid zero-sum games.
The Catholic church knows this.
The Catholic Church is interested in more people becoming Catholics and pumping out more Catholics. This is a zero-sum game.
"You cannot seek happiness by being faster, stronger, smarter"
You can remove a lot of unhappiness by making people healthier though.
This truly be like dat Prometheus shit. Leave humans alone the way they are. We dont need any improvements. Dont immanentize the eschaton!
It's not as if avoiding eugenics means everything is static and people aren't changing. Differential fertility always exists and is in a "eugenic" or "dysgenic" direction, depending on your viewpoint.
2) the most valuable sperm in the world is actually contained in a few thousand anglo special forces
But then why aren't they off doing something else? It's not as if having all those traits won't get your foot in the door in other places.
But then why aren't they off doing something else? It's not as if having all those traits won't get your foot in the door in other places.
It did. It also get them into special forces
"But then why aren't they off doing something else? It's not as if having all those traits won't get your foot in the door in other places."
Because they're not wired to be dog eat dog - even though they're exceptionally good at it when they do - except in the service of the group.
Like i say - the most valuable in terms of *population* eugenics as opposed to individual eugenics.
Anonydroid at 12:10 AM: But then why aren't they off doing something else?
Hunsdon: Because going forth to destroy the tribe's enemies is how they are wired, it is what they are wired for. This "choice" business is a distraction.
Ever wondered what is the incidence of left-handedness among Jews. I presume that is higher than the world average. This could explain a number of personality traits and creativity in this population and the gap of creativity in the Chinese population.
Here is a quote on American dysgenics, from Richard Lynn's Eugenics: A Reassessment, published in 2001:
"The United States will experience both dysgenic fertility and dysgenic immigration for a number of decades into the twenty-first century. ... significant numbers of well-educated and intelligent women opt to remain childless in order to further their careers and to preserve their affluent lifestyles, while poorly educated and less intelligent women continue to have children either because of their inefficient use of contraception or deliberately in order to live on welfare as a preferable alternative to working. ...
"As Hispanics and blacks become an increasing proportion of the U.S. population, ... an Hispanic-led coalition of nonwhites will become the dominant political force. ... the increasingly multiracial nature of the U.S. population will generate enormous internal strains on social cohesion. The major racial and ethnic groups will continue to perform at different levels in education and earnings, with whites and Asians performing best, Hispanics performing intermediately, and blacks performing worst. These differences will continue to generate resentment among Hispanics and blacks, who will lobby to obtain compensation for them by affirmative action and set-aside quotas, reserving business contracts for themselves. The different racial groups and their advocates will also strive to secure increased immigration quotas and amnesties for illegal immigrants of their own peoples. ...
"To escape black, and Hispanic crime, there will be increasing white flight and also "Asian flight" from the black-Hispanic cities to white and Asian communities in suburbs and satellite towns where whites and Asians will increasingly come to live in fortified estates. ... the United States will ... come to resemble the Hispanic republics of Latin America. ... However the details of the decline of the United States work out, it will forfeit its position as the leading world economic, scientific and military power and eventually cease to be a major force in global politics."
And here is what he thinks about Chinese eugenics:
"This scenario for the twenty-first century, in which China assumes world domination and establishes a world eugenic state, may well be considered an unattractive future. But this is not really the point. Rather, it should be regarded as the inevitable result of Francis Galton's (1909) prediction made in the first decade of the twentieth century, that 'the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth' (p. 34)."
" So this method of "preimplantation embryo selection" might allow IQ within every Chinese family to increase by 5 to 15 IQ points per generation."
That guy is out of his depth in all sorts of ways
A one-child policy could have a de facto eugenic effect, even if it wasn't the intention.
Yeah, that could be since it reduces the fertility of the lower classes to the fertility of the upper classes. It would be even better to allow top performers to have more kids, while still limiting those at the bottom to one.
Well, Miller's discussion of "Chinese eugenics" puzzled me quite a little.
He focused on Deng's one-child policy as supposedly being one of its core elements. But from what I've read over the years, the one-child requirement was most commonly waived or ignored by rural peasants, and only fully implemented among educated urban elites. Also, China's various non-Han minority groups (who tend to be much lower-performing) were completely exempted from the requirement, causing a substantial rise in China's non-Han percentages over the last generation or so.
So offhand, the one-child policy would seem more "anti-eugenic" than "eugenic" by Miller's definition. Overall, current Chinese elites have among the world's lowest total fertility rate, which really doesn't sound very Galtonian.
But it's perfectly possible that Miller's knowledge of Chinese social policy is far more detailed and accurate than my own...or then again, perhaps not.
RKU said,
"But from what I've read over the years, the one-child requirement was most commonly waived or ignored by rural peasants, and only fully implemented among educated urban elites".
That struck me, too. I've read about the one-child policy for years and it has seemed that I've come across this fact, that peasants are treated more leniently than others, many times. I just assumed Mr. Miller knew more than me and trusted him.
If I recall from past readings, the peasants were allowed a second, for a shot at a boy, because a girl was seen as an unbearable hardship on these poor people.
Because they're not wired to be dog eat dog - even though they're exceptionally good at it when they do - except in the service of the group.
Like i say - the most valuable in terms of *population* eugenics as opposed to individual eugenics.
Well corporations, professional sports teams, etc. are groups too. Which group are they helping by serving in military boondoggles and quagmires? You're making them sound like mindless fighting robots with no ability to make sound judgments about larger strategy.
"Jewish sperm is the most precious commodity in the world."
But if you were looking for a single donor, considering that there are many more Gentiles than Jews, the highest IQ sperm could as well come from a gentile.
Robert Hume
From what I can gather, "Chinese eugenics" at this point consists of parents undergoing genetic screening for disease. This is also available in the US and apparently even recommended by certain American medical associations. If the American medical system becomes increasingly socialized, I wonder if this will become mandatory or strongly encouraged and incentivized, since reducing preventable genetic diseases would be a way to significantly reduce costs for a socialized med system.
https://www.arcfertility.com/painless-genetic-screening-of-parents-for-inheritable-disease-now-available.html
"The American College of Medical Genetics and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology have recently recommended that all couples of reproductive age who are attempting to conceive be offered pre-conceptual genetic testing. The purpose of this testing is to identify those couples who are carriers of a variety of conditions that could affect their children. Testing potential parents for genetic diseases is not a novel concept, but recent advances in technology have made testing simple, painless, and affordable."
Perhaps any small closing of the "gap" is due to dysgenics due to smart white and Asian couples postponing conception while blacks and Hispanics continue to have children while they are young.
Robert Hume
And their children might be smart enough to reject Islam.
Islam doesn't seem to be any more stupid a religion than religions favored by Jews, from Judaism to communism, blank slate-ism, political correctness, etc.
I will also add that the present-day fact that Arabs are so gung-ho about Islam was largely the result of Anglo-American-Israeli sabotage of secular Arab nationalism in the 1970s. The most powerful Cold War weapon again godless communism was militant Islam. Just check out CHARLIE WILSON's WAR.
I'm sort of skeptical, in that I just saw an article about Chinese government and populist outrage at the right evading the one-child policy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5540739/Chinas-one-child-policy-undermined-by-the-rich.html
"In addition, the government has gone on the offensive against public figures with multiple children, in order to set an example. "The fine is a piece of cake for the rich, the government had to hit them harder where it really hurt, at their fame, reputation and standing in society," said Zhai Zhenwu, a sociology professor with Renmin University of China."
Anyone familiar with China know what's going on here?
*curly black hair
"Sperm is cheap;eggs are expensive."
But eggs are inefficient. Every woman has fixed number of eggs, and each egg can produce one kid.
So, if Arabs steal a 1000 Jewish women's eggs, they can produce only 1000 half-Jewish kids.
But if an Arab gets a batch of Jewish sperm, he has 100s of millions of tiny tadpoles that can impregnate millions of Arab women with high IQ genes.
That's why Jewish sperm is more valuable.
It's like this. If you abduct 10 very smart Jewish women and force them to have kids with Arab men, only 10 women will be impregnated.
But if you abduct just one Jewish guy with high IQ, you can make him hump 10 Arab women a day. In a year, that's 3650 Arab women. That's a whole lot of preggy-weggies.
Now, if you suck out his sperm and found a way to use each of his micro-tadpole, that's a whole lot of spermic action. You can literally impregnate millions of women.
If Chinese wanna win in track, they should pay Usain Bolt for a batch of sperm and impregnate a 1000 Chinese women. On the other hand, who wants negro genes spreading all around? The hell with olympics. In the long run, they decide nothing. It will be the brains.
Is there a good reference on what technology will be available for engineering smarter/healthier children in the near future? Like, it's easy to see how to do a 19th century form of eugenics as selective breeding of humans, and it's easy to see how to add in genetic counseling so two parents with recessive Tay Sachs or Sickle Cell genes don't have babies together. Since animals are being cloned rather routinely now, I assume humans have been or wil be sooner or later, whatever ethical or legal restrictions may exist, and it's pretty obvious that a clone of someone very smart and accomplished is a good bet to also be smart and accomplished. But how much more than that can realistically be done with existing or almost-existing technology?
Jewish sperm is the most precious commodity in the world
That´s the funniest line I´ve read in years. Did shiksas get the memo?
Arabs (at least Levantines) are plenty smart, they just largely have a shitty culture that holds them back (thanks, contemporary Islam!) Give them a semi-Western culture (like the Christian Lebanese) or transplant them to more Westernized ones (the US, Europe, even Latin America) and they turn into...Carlos Ghosn, Steve Jobs, or Shakira. The richest guy on the planet is Christian Lebanese Carlos Slim Helu.
I never thought the Chinese were very orthodox Marxists, and this Darwinian, rather than Lamarckian, policy is just more proof. I link to this with discussion and also a link to Kevin MacDonald's reaction here:
Chinese Eugenics
"(by accident, no master race stuff)" - by chance, but by the same token, difficult to disaggregate.
It was probably Plato and Aristotle who first popularized eugenics:
http://tinyurl.com/79y5ssw
...
Post a Comment