Eugenics
#21
Potential confounding factors in the realm of #Eugenics, from most to least confounding:

1. The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis

2. Matriarchial-line domination of inherited intelligence

3. Mean-regression (potentially; I'm unclear if this is a function of social arrangements or a hard function of biology)

4. Using the tools of husbandry as they stand on a sentient population (Alien Sex had something to say contra this IIRC).
#22
(12-05-2022, 12:13 PM)rockies Wrote: 1. The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis

I think this a non-issue. You simply need to set the absolute bar lower for women than men. Let's say, as a hypothetical, that the IQ bell curve for women has a σ of 10, whereas that for men has a σ of 20, for a population-wide σ of 15 (averaging sigmas doesn't work this way, but whatever). A 110-IQ woman can thus be considered as having a "latent male IQ" of 120, which will reliably manifest in her sons and brothers if the father is of similar genotypic IQ.

(12-05-2022, 12:13 PM)rockies Wrote: 2. Matriarchial-line domination of inherited intelligence

This is a big problem because of the war-bride / Mestizification impulse - the individual male drive to propagate one's own genes along with inferior maternal lines. Tantum lists this as one of the potential factors behind the browning of Aryan India:

Quote:A more realistic theory is sexual selection. Under Vedic law, a Brahmin who was willing to take wives of a lower caste could have four times as many wives (and presumably, four times as many offspring) as one who only wanted a Brahmin woman.  Acquiring, and having large families with, four women is no easy task; those with a stronger attraction to non-Aryan women were presumably the most energetic polygamists and had the most children. This would spread attraction to non-Aryan physical traits widely in the Indian population, which would then lead to positive sexual selection for those traits.

(12-05-2022, 12:13 PM)rockies Wrote: 3. Mean-regression (potentially; I'm unclear if this is a function of social arrangements or a hard function of biology)

Both, though it's unclear which component is more influential in a modern context. Our  society is an IQ-shredder, but so is the process of sexual recombination:

[Image: image.png]

Mean-regression doesn't make it impossible to settle the population at a new mean; just that the process will be subject to some "back-sliding", moreso the more extreme the shift. With embryo selection and full-genome sequencing of prospective couples you could probably halt it entirely.

(12-05-2022, 12:13 PM)rockies Wrote: 4. Using the tools of husbandry as they stand on a sentient population (Alien Sex had something to say contra this IIRC).

Here's "Alien Sex", for those who want to read it.

I think this is the biggest issue of them all, owing to its inexplicability. Why have we been unable to break the species barrier with artificial selection? Why do all our domestic animals rapidly regress to wild-type as soon as selection is relaxed? What imperceptible "secret sauce" does natural selection impart on population-genomes that allows them to sustain wildly divergent means? I suspect a vast network of invisible genes and local optima... the shadow strings by which Nature contorts us into our evolved shapes. This also implies a great latent potential in the act of splicing a wholly "unnatural" genome.
#23
Eugenics Quarterly Archives (about 90% available on sci-hub). A nigh-limitless supply of kino.
#24
Peter Frost indeed blames most of the IQ drops of today on an abundance of inferior women, and hypergamy.
#25
http://thirdreichocculthistory.blogspot....rmany.html


Overview 




The decline in 'genotypic' intelligence coincided with the dissemination of information about contraception. For several centuries prior to 1800, married couples had natural fertility, essentially uninfluenced by efforts to limit it. During this period, there was a strong taboo against sex outside of marriage, and many people never had children because they were too poor to marry. Illegitimacy was rare and infant mortality was high, especially among the lower classes. Harsh though it may have been, natural selection operated to maintain a healthy population, and to keep intelligence gradually increasing. Then in the early 1800s, several books on contraception were published. These ideas naturally affected the reading classes disproportionately. Goodyear perfected the vulcanization of rubber, making it an ideal material for the mass production of condoms and diaphragms. By the middle of the century, it was becoming apparent that educated people were having fewer children than the uneducated. Charles Darwin worried about the fact that "the scum" of society were so prolific, and expressed deep concern about the future of civilization because natural selection had ceased to operate. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, coined the term 'Eugenics', and was its main proponent
#26
(12-05-2022, 12:13 PM)rockies Wrote: 3. Mean-regression (potentially; I'm unclear if this is a function of social arrangements or a hard function of biology)

Mean-regression is not a hard function of biology, it's a statistical effect, if your population mean intelligence is X, what happens if your group doesn't make a concentrated effort to effectively impede the high iq and the low iq to procreate and even limit the procreation of the low iq is that they will end up procreating and slowly but surely the iq of the offspring tends to X. This doesn't impede a new mean to be achieved through the aforementioned efforts to impede such procreation.
#27
(12-10-2022, 08:07 AM)Okeener Wrote:
(12-05-2022, 12:13 PM)rockies Wrote: 3. Mean-regression (potentially; I'm unclear if this is a function of social arrangements or a hard function of biology)

Mean-regression is not a hard function of biology, it's a statistical effect, if your population mean intelligence is X, what happens if your group doesn't make a concentrated effort to effectively impede the high iq and the low iq to procreate and even limit the procreation of the low iq is that they will end up procreating and slowly but surely the iq of the offspring tends to X. This doesn't impede a new mean to be achieved through the aforementioned efforts to impede such procreation.

That's a sizeable "if". Not guaranteed that it could take place even if the idea "evil legacy of the Germans" wasn't embedded into every higher-order organism in the West- things rapidly fell apart with the American movement over this 'distasteful nation', and while they may not have had the most sophisticated or empirical research, theirs was the closest to an actual #Eugenic movement that the world had ever seen... and it's premier minds went from that to being marriage therapists.

The second part of that 'if'- 'if' there is a sustainable local minima that can be held, biologically and socially, over 130 IQ. I believe there is, but there could just as well be political issues with an entire population capable of thinking for themselves. Many of the old, tried-and-true Cold War methods of political control may not work, and the country could end up spiralling into nothingness.
#28
http://thirdreichocculthistory.blogspot....reich.html


A fundamental purpose of National Socialism was the creation of a healthy, pure and beautiful race, - where ‘health’ was understood within a particular aesthetic-ideological frame.
National Socialist aesthetics took shape in the collective actions and ideology of the NSDAP, and gave shape to numerous aspects of German life.
In developing National Socialist eugenics, the life sciences and holistic biology in particular served to enhance völkisch aesthetic ideals.
The enhancement of the Nordic Aryan race implied that, both ‘positive’ eugenic measures had to be taken to strengthen the quality of the race, and ‘negative’ eugenic measures needed to be taken to eliminate the procreation of ‘unfit’ individuals.
Aesthetic consideration, however, were concomitant with eugenic, biological considerations.
It should be noted that almost half of the highest levels of the government of the Third Reich were professional, or aspiring, artists.
Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels was a novelist and poet, Alfred Rosenberg, founder of the first 'National Socialist Society for Culture', was a painter and novelist, and Adolf Hitler had made his living as an artist before the Great War, and undoubtedly Hitler’s personal artistic inclinations found expression in much of the aesthetic culture of the Third Reich.  " .......
#29
Most of the hard scientific endeavours into the field had surprisingly limited lifespans. The Soviet attempt (lol) was very shortly curtailed by the rise of Stalinism. Key players: Iurii Filipchenko, Valerii Bunak. One wonders not if something similar is happening here and now (it obviously is), but to what sources and what timeframes one can investigate in order to extract new informations and details. The knee-jerk, school-taught assumption is that "newer is better", but with a replicability crisis of unknown but severe impact, as well as the obvious political censorship, it's possible that much of the anthropology of the 80s, 90s, early 00s, and beyond are ruined beyond belief. Perhaps medical studies have fared better, but I doubt it.

Chud; It's interesting that you posted that link to Eugenics Quarterly. I see a few symposiums hosted at Cold Spring Harbor. I'll add them to my own backlog.
#30
What's curious, from a historical standpoint, is that many of the original #Eugenic programs in various countries were prototypes of biological politics. I may have mentioned this before, but there was very little disentanglement between "epieugenics" (finding a method by which the best phenotype can be pulled from a genotype) and pure eugenics (the derivation/distillation of a stellar average genotype). Indeed, much of the focus in contemporary biological politics (Dissident Right, Alt Right, whatever one prefers to call it) falls into the former category, rather than the latter, perhaps because it is easier to understand... or perhaps because it is easier to sell supplements.

It turns out that many predisposed to "biological politics" (NS adjacent) are philosophically well-versed, but biologically and chemically illiterate. I was recently asked if there was "a method by which white people could be engineered to smell less when sweating, like Asians". Perspiration byproducts are only part of the smell profile of a people. Most B.O. is derived from microorganisms that live on the skin, which consume the byproducts produced by sweat glands, and which bond to various different proteins on the skin and in body hair. The answer to such a question may be "Yes, but no, but yes", if one is willing to suppress the gene that expresses body hair on Whites; but it isn't a purely chemical system as was understood by the original requestor.

Politically, genetic education provides the only pure counter to "Marxist" style thought (there is not yet a better term for the politics of biotrash resentment), and "our side" is very clearly lacking in this department. Many of the things that should be common knowledge among the aspiring architects of the KeyedStaat (the higher heritability of intelligence from the mother, a fact separate from the narrower normal curve for female intelligence), simply do not have proper recognition. However, we have no choice in the matter, it is the path to victory.

It may appear that issue arises in attempting to comprehend a system with deceptively simple rules, but endless little complexities that then must be mapped thru five or six different layers of expression before emerging as something like a behavioral tendency. This is an overcomplication when viewed in the frame of petty politics (niggers very much enjoy committing crimes, and there is no need to find a purely protein based reason for that), but for the sake of separating epieugenics and eugenics, such a calculus must emerge. This is not made any easier by Life Itself. From Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas R. Hofstader:

Quote: Recently, the entire genome of the the tiniest known virus, ΦX174, has been lade bare. One most unexpected discovery was made en route; some of it's nine genes overlap- that is, two distinct proteins are coded for by the same stretch of DNA! There is even one gene contained entirely inside another! This is accomplished by having the reading frames of the two genes shifted relative to each other, by exactly one unit.

Heaven Alone knows how many times, if any, this trick and similar is performed in higher organisms such as human beings. Trying to expand the construction of proteins to behavior at the highest level, while possible, is a significant amount of work for an easily-ignored talking point. Disentangling genes from the lowest levels of the human animal and extrapolating to the highest level is quite tricky already, and trying to disseminate this memetically is not possible in the current social context; it also isn't required, if #Eugenics is to remain only a political tool.

An intermediate proposal. Coarse association strongly enforced can be used to establish a "stock pool" from which statistical assessments can take place, and "spellchecking" and further "editing" and "engineering" of novel genes can proceed later down the road. In a world where one can only strive towards perfect information, this could be considered the "first step". Thus, less effort is expended on epieugenics, which widely at this point is the attempt to sell dried beef liver to the gullible, and more effort can be focused on something akin to establishing an insular biogeography.
#31
(01-06-2023, 02:03 PM)rockies Wrote:
Quote:Recently, the entire genome of the the tiniest known virus, ΦX174, has been lade bare. One most unexpected discovery was made en route; some of it's nine genes overlap- that is, two distinct proteins are coded for by the same stretch of DNA! There is even one gene contained entirely inside another! This is accomplished by having the reading frames of the two genes shifted relative to each other, by exactly one unit.

Heaven Alone knows how many times, if any, this trick and similar is performed in higher organisms such as human beings. Trying to expand the construction of proteins to behavior at the highest level, while possible, is a significant amount of work for an easily-ignored talking point. Disentangling genes from the lowest levels of the human animal and extrapolating to the highest level is quite tricky already, and trying to disseminate this memetically is not possible in the current social context; it also isn't required, if #Eugenics is to remain only a political tool.

Changes at the protein-level are indeed very complicated and interlinked and difficult to engineer without significant computation and iteration. Most DNA isn't proteins however. Evolvability - the chance that a mutation will make significant changes to the organism - is itself a genetic trait acted on by natural selection, and animal genomes are full of "levers" that increase evolvability by making mutations do things independent of their protein-coding values. Think of it as an invariant molecular "interpreter" for a more chaotic body-level "program". An example is the way our blood vessels and neurons grow:

Quote:During embryonic development, each incipient network of vessels matches its blood supply to the needs of its target tissues by sprouting more than enough branches and then pruning the excess in response to local cues such as oxygen tension. Ultimately, what matters is the volume of blood flow through the vascular tree, not the exact shape of the tree itself.

Indeed, tubular branching processes in general rely more on ad-libbed local signals than on hard-wired genetic blueprints. Other instances of the genome’s laissez-faire attitude toward the routing of our plumbing include bronchiole branching in our lungs and ductal branching in our mammary glands, salivary glands, kidneys, prostate, and lymphatic system.

Pruning is also used as a fine-tuning trick throughout our nervous system. Successive stages of sprouting and culling dictate how batteries of neurons achieve parity relative not only to one another but also to their muscle targets. Surprisingly, blood vessels and nerves use many of the same chemical cues to navigate throughout the body. Hence, their paths actually coincide to a startling extent, despite the inherent vagaries of local conditions. Because nerves evolved before vessels, this congruence must be due to a “Johnny-come-lately” vascular co-option of previously established neural guidance cues. (“Co-option” entails a new function for an old feature.)

Despite the fact that sprouting is messy and pruning is wasteful, this overall strategy is remarkably reliable. It is also ironically Darwinian because it uses a “survival of the fittest” filter to sift an initially random population.

The automatic ability of vessels and nerves to tailor their supply to the demand of their targets has meant that natural selection could alter virtually any body part (e.g., lengthen our legs) without having to “wait” for other mutations to adjust the neural or vascular input every time it did so. Exploratory processes like these have therefore made anatomy much more “evolvable” than anyone had ever guessed. They have also made our anatomy more variable from person to person (e.g., muscle insertions) than most medical textbooks would ever lead one to presume.

I don't think it's ridiculous to assert that any system like this, designed to give leverage to random chance, will also give leverage to genetic engineering.

Another enticingly-exploitable system is the chemical gradient that differentiates body parts.

[Image: image.png]

It goes like this, basically:

  1. Embryo of undifferentiated cells develops
  2. Head of embryo emits "head morphogen", ass emits "ass morphogen", front emits "front morphogen", back emits "back morphogen", etc.; these diffuse across the body creating a concentration gradient
  3. Genes evolve that respond to a certain morphogen concentration; e.g. "rib coordinator gene" says, "I have twice as much head-morphogen as ass-morphogen - I must be part of a rib."
  4. These "coordinator genes" create transcription factors that "rope in" other genes containing a certain DNA sequence, expressing their proteins
  5. We now have a mechanism to assign arbitrary proteins to arbitrary body regions
  6. ???
  7. Cambrian Explosion

An example of such a system in the human hand. One morphogen for "distance from index finger"; another for "distance from thumb"; four genes interweaving to establish finger identities. The index finger is just a "weakly expressed" pinky. c is a human mutant, d is a pterodactyl.

[Image: image.png]

A genetic engineer could change the human body plan by either manipulating morphogens in vitro or inserting body-part binding sequences into genes affecting growth, pigmentation, and so on. I think this sort of gross alteration will be possible in the very near future. Who knows - we may be able to get around the slow process of breeding for intelligence by just gene-splicing humans to have enormous heads and brains; factory farming will take care of the caloric constraint, c-sections the obstetric one.
#32
Very good! I seem to recall you mentioning similarities in morphogens with humans as well as many different animal embryos. It is rather stunning how similar embryos of different species could be.
#33
@Chud @rockies Fascinating. Thank you for this clear high IQ explanation. I always wondered how this worked. Are there any implications first for having non-crippled/non-retarded children and second for maximizing their intellectual health and masculine development? One of my worst phobias messing up my kids somehow or having them come out retarded and I have a neurotic feeling about how fragile this development process is, especially with all the right wing fear porn about toxins and xenoestrogens in the environment.
#34
Regarding Spartan practices on first page:

There is another value to what they did. If you know that you made it through this filter at birth, then you will have a different view of yourself. And if you know other nations/groups do NOT do this filtering...You will likely think yourself superior to most of their population (if not at all).

Some will find it unsavory, or un-satisfying, but self-perception has a measurable effect on hormone production. This has far-reaching consequences. On the opposite side, if one is born to think everyone is equal...Does one drag himself down or drag the world up? It's too tiring to drag the world up, since reality proves you wrong so often.

Anyway, disparity itself adds to the feedback loop of perception and development. See how age affects athletic ability (those who are "older" within a year do better early, and this compounds as the years go on.) If you giga-genetic-maxx the population, disparity will still exist, along with all the trouble and fun that it brings. Ex. How to maintain a society that uses eugenics...When at any moment, someone who has "lost" the genetic lottery (even with tinkering) can rabble-rouse a revolution. If your answer is that you will maintain a close range, then you will be sorely disappointed. Because disparity will conquer biology, as it is a higher law of science.

What the Spartans had was effective against this...Because you are already born "above" such a rabble. Less "crude" approaches may struggle with this, as relationships form between types.

I will add that genetic-level tinkering will likely be...disappointing. Unless there is a reason for a tinkered-with organism to succeed, or reach beyond itself, it will remain "locked'. The autismo drive to perfect an organism is uncommon, and likely not a driver of the most exceptional types. Or simply: What is the point of eugenics-maxxing? Is it sufficient to drive a nation, or anything beyond a small group of autists?

From my perspective, the simple steps will be most effective. Encouraging good health in a population is easier, lower-risk, and faster-acting than experimenting genetically. The greatest risk is obviously: You miss some relation in the system of equations. Or even more likely: You miss an entire system of equations within the system. This leads to grotesque results, or mildly disappointing results, or no results. Encouraging good mate choice is also easier, since people's natural preferences are already eugenic. Other posts on sterilization for cash etc. are also good and easy-to-do. But a more difficult change that is needed is arrangement of space...This is a type of physical segregation that will be difficult to sell in highly dense areas.
The easiest way to pull it off is probably a belief in national superiority, which still works now to some degree. Anyway, I hope this guest post adds to the discussion.

Lastly: Note how the best of men was not for eugenics on their own sake. Instead as a tool, to build his name, his army, and so on. This innate selfishness, and known superiority, had the ironic ability to cause a greater eugenic effect than a council of men aimed at the task.
#35
(01-07-2023, 03:04 AM)rockies Wrote: I seem to recall you mentioning similarities in morphogens with humans as well as many different animal embryos. It is rather stunning how similar embryos of different species could be.

You can splice mouse eye genes into a fly to get it to grow extra eyes. Edits to the human genome, likewise, could first be tested in homologous sections in mice or monkeys.

(01-07-2023, 10:29 AM)BillyONare Wrote: Are there any implications first for having non-crippled/non-retarded children and second for maximizing their intellectual health and masculine development? One of my worst phobias messing up my kids somehow or having them come out retarded and I have a neurotic feeling about how fragile this development process is, especially with all the right wing fear porn about toxins and xenoestrogens in the environment.

See: Archive of Viriculture, Salo Xenoestrogens Thread.
#36
One of my ambitions is to open a worldwide "Viriculture Foundation" which would basically shill this on every corner of the globe, deal with such "esoteric science" - boosted by Ray Peat knowledge.

As for the gene-modding, bigger heads and more intelligence and whatnot - I think this is more easily solved on the energy end. Certain animals grow ludicrously quickly, and with our modern agricultural and energetic potential this can be applied to us, like this:

1. Babies are born smaller - for easier birthing, focus in utero shifted to maximal basic physical development
2. Brain ultra-connectivity of babies preserved for much longer
3. Entire process of maturation sped up extremely - one becomes a teen at about 7 years old, for example.
4. Brain increased to maximum size (Neanderthals had the biggest iirc, I doubt it can get bigger than that and run well), body also greatly strengthened (gorilla strength)

A consequence of this might be that women might have to be turned into basically breeding sows in order to provide the child with enough ultra-nutritious breastmilk for this to work. But who cares, spiritually it's true already, as demonstrated by their constant urge to eat themselves into blobs
#37
(01-08-2023, 01:10 PM)Svevlad Wrote: 4. Brain increased to maximum size (Neanderthals had the biggest iirc, I doubt it can get bigger than that and run well), body also greatly strengthened (gorilla strength)

It's the amount/density of neurons in the brain and higher amount of neuron connections that correlates with intelligence, not brain size.
I'm not sure I want you in charge of eugenics.
#38
(01-08-2023, 02:13 PM)Guest Wrote:
(01-08-2023, 01:10 PM)Svevlad Wrote: 4. Brain increased to maximum size (Neanderthals had the biggest iirc, I doubt it can get bigger than that and run well), body also greatly strengthened (gorilla strength)

It's the amount/density of neurons in the brain and higher amount of neuron connections that correlates with intelligence, not brain size.
I'm not sure I want you in charge of eugenics.

More brain, even more neurons. Even with normal neuron "densification" you'd eventually run out of space.
#39
(01-08-2023, 03:12 PM)Svevlad Wrote: More brain, even more neurons. Even with normal neuron "densification" you'd eventually run out of space.

Yea, you're one of the people to whom eugenics should be applied. There are animals with massive heads and massive brains who are far less intelligent than human beings, and humans have the greatest neuronal density of anything in the animal kingdom.
Plus women already have difficulty with childbirth due to the size of infants heads, compared to many mammal species where childbirth is much easier.
You're suggesting the creation of grotesque guild navigator mutants, which is far from what Eugenics should be used for.
And I'm all for increasing intelligence, but there are hundreds of thousands of examples of people with genius level IQ who have average sized heads.

Don't get me started on this idea about "puberty at 7" and the sad trouble that would cause

I'm also trans btw not sure if that matters lol
#40
(01-08-2023, 07:38 PM)Guest Wrote: Yea, you're one of the people to whom eugenics should be applied. There are animals with massive heads and massive brains who are far less intelligent than human beings, and humans have the greatest neuronal density of anything in the animal kingdom.

Within the human species, brain size is associated with intelligence; Richard Lynn says the correlation is something like 0.40. Africans and Australian Aboriginals have smaller brains than Europeans and Asians, which partially explains the differences in intelligence (keyword here being partially - the Inuit have the largest brains of all extant human types, but an average IQ of ~90). You literally explained why larger-brained animals aren't as intelligent as humans right after stating that they aren't. Density = # neurons / volume, thus density * volume = # neurons, and greater volume * same density = greater # neurons = more intelligence (though there's probably not a straightforward correlation between the two - + at a certain threshold you could run into inherent "wiring" issues like those that restrict the size of a computer's cache lines).

(01-08-2023, 07:38 PM)Guest Wrote: Don't get me started on this idea about "puberty at 7" and the sad trouble that would cause

I agree with this - the largest "advantages" we have over our great-ape ancestors are neoteny and atavism. Longer gestation and youth correlate to longer lifespan.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)