Quote note (#273)

Left behind:

Western democracies are, by design, sensitive to popular opinion. Elected politicians will be less likely to fund controversial projects, and more likely to restrict them. By contrast, countries like China that lack direct democratic systems are thereby less sensitive to opinion, and officials can play an outsize role in shaping public opinion to align with government priorities. This would include residual opposition to human enhancement, even if it were present. International norms are arguably emerging against genetic enhancement, but in other arenas China has proven willing to reject international norms in order to promote its own interests. […] Indeed, if we set ethical and safety objections aside, genetic enhancement has the potential to bring about significant national advantages. Even marginal increases in intelligence via gene editing could have significant effects on a nation’s economic growth. Certain genes could give some athletes an edge in intense international competitions. Other genes may have an effect on violent tendencies, suggesting genetic engineering could reduce crime rates. […] Many of these potential benefits of enhancement are speculative, but as research advances they may move into the realm of reality. If further studies bear out the reliability of gene editing in improving such traits, China is well-poised to become a leader in the area of human enhancement.

(Relevant.)

August 15, 2016admin 40 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , ,

40 Responses to this entry

  • reactionaryfuture Says:

    I don’t get this. One minute your are utterly opposed to governace, the next you are apparently positive about Chinese government action?

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Where has Land been ‘utterly opposed to governance’? And how is being interested in Chinese govenmental science policy actions & possibilities necessarily conflicting with (mainly anglophone & western) exit?

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Being opposed to centrally-planned economy and totalitarianism ≠ being opposed to governance. Not that you’ll get that, you don’t even pass Turing test (you are more like a crazed chat-bot AI gone rogue, than thinking human being).

    [Reply]

    Uriel Alexis Reply:

    analysis isn’t prescription. saying that the Chinese government will have a better environment for the development of genetic enhancement does not equal approving central economic planning of such government.

    and I never saw Land being utterly against not listening to popular demands. plutocracy means precisely that

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Action? Mere permission.

    [Reply]

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    Permission is action. Government is everywhere and always absolute. Private /public is delusion.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You don’t really do physics, do you? (Second Law of Thermodynamics as an expression on omnipotent government.)

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Government is an illusion, there’s only human action. There’s nothing public, everything is always and everywhere private…
    …the problem occurs when that fact is not recognized.

    Saying that wu wei is government action can pass (and is indeed frequently done), but it just muddies the water in this case (because you don’t advocate wei wu wei government, but Stalinism).

    [Reply]

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    Irrelevent comparison. And you are avoiding the challenge. If sovereign property exists, then there is no private and public, it is all sovereign and secondary, secondary being merely delegated usage as per the legal distinction of feudal europe. This status is confered by dominance of sovereign government rendering its control complete.
    This is what Moldbug was outlining.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >>Government is everywhere and always absolute.

    That´s logically impossible.

    No really, it is. If it was absolute, there would be no thing but it.

    E.g. “I can´t fit it in the cupboard, it´s literally absolutely full!”

    >>there’s only human action. There’s nothing public, everything is always and everywhere private…

    +1

    Altho res publica isn´t a mere illusion. It´s something experienced, and thus real. There´s a special experience of, as it were, ‘public matters.’ Which is why people take privacy measures (I really don´t, but as somebody said “my life will be a documentary.”)

    [Reply]

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    ” There’s nothing public, everything is always and everywhere private…” so you are an anarchist.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    No. I’m just stating the obvious. Everything is de facto private even if it isn’t recognized de jure, e.g. Stalin was de facto owner of USSR. Public ownership is, much like Rousseau’s “general will,” logically impossible. Nothing can be owned by everyone – it’s either unowned (which then tends to get pillaged i.e. homesteaded), or owned by someone.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    RF believes that the Messianic Kingdom has already (and always) immanentized the Eskhaton — he just doesn’t realize it yet.

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    “Stalin was de facto owner of USSR” we are getting lost here. If Stalin was de facto owner, then that includes all property, making private property in the commonly understood context void. There is no private/public, there is only sovereign and then delegated property. To head of the claim that will likely follow that sovereign property can be individual, I will point out that man is a societal being and society comes before the individual, so primary property must be a function of a society, so hyper individual sovereign property is absurd.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Pray tell, how does this “society” thing act? How do I get to know its “general will”? I suppose we need Committee of Society to give us Enlightened dictator who, through his heroic greatness communes directly with The Heroic in History, and is therefore able to know “general will,” and guide us according to wishes of “society.”

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    when it kills you you will know you have fucked up.

    reactionaryfuture Reply:

    Engage with the argument instead of erecting strawmen.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Take your own advice doctor.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >people who ignore arguments suggesting that others should engage with arguments

    Goes for both of you, frankly. A real philosopher (this means someone who loves wisdom; and ‘wisdom’ if you know indoeuropean word history means ‘science’) will have an answer for pretty much everything — even if it´s just an ad-hoc answer or a speculative one. So does any proper systematician.

    Posted on August 15th, 2016 at 7:35 am Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    >sensitive to popular opinion

    Fulltext here. (PDF)
    Though it bears mention that we’re seeing, in the media’s campaign against Trump, just how easily “opinion” can be shaped.

    >significant effects

    Here.

    >Certain genes

    The AGT CC genotype is actually very common. There are better ways. Switching off MSTN leads to extremely large muscles and a very lean phenotype. Turbo-charging LRP5 (G171V LRP5) leads to dense, strong bones and a very thick skull. If endurance is your thing, PEPCK looks like one hell of an attractive target.

    >Many of these potential benefits of enhancement are speculative, but as research advances they may move into the realm of reality.

    Not exactly speculative, already part of “the realm of reality.”

    I don’t know whether or not China’s leading the way, but it’s likely enough. Safe to say that America won’t, in any case. The stakes are too high — and the barriers to entry are too low — for the FDA’s 15-year+/$2,000,000,000+ review process. What’s more, human enhancement is ethically incompatible with the religion of the state. (There’s a hint of this in how they pursue “dopers” who made the mistake of taking banned cough medicines, in how they went after Maria Sharapova for using a drug of unproven and speculative benefit to athletes, and so forth.)

    [Reply]

    Uriel Alexis Reply:

    how much part of the “realm of reality” are those enhancements? like, next Olympics could see super-human chinese winning all golds? or more like “things we’ll be afraid our children do”?

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    Human germline modification is quite easily possible with currently-available methods like CRISPR and TALEN. (And dozens of labs in industry and academia are looking for new-‘n-improved methods that they can patent, so there’s more to come.) On a budget a full order of magnitude lower than the going rate for FDA approval, any reasonably well-equipped and competently-staffed lab can surely develop a method of turning regular humans into PEPCK+/MSTN- superhumans. I don’t know how long it would take, but less than four years is a reasonable assumption.

    Aside: I’ve seen this MSTN knockout kit available from Origene, which is a legitimate company. As-sold, I don’t believe that the kit is likely to work in human adults, but with a few tweaks I suppose anything is possible. And I have heard that garage biohackers have been self-experimenting with CRISPR for some time now.

    There are living people with LRP5 mutations. This lady, for one instance. Her bone density is 6.5+ standard deviations above the mean for her age, but she’s seemingly normal otherwise. Very sturdy lady. What boxers and other combat athletes wouldn’t give for that!

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2016 at 8:13 am Reply | Quote
  • Henk Says:

    if we set ethical and safety objections aside, genetic enhancement has the potential to bring about significant national advantages

    This is, of course, the perfect example of a “multipolar trap” as described in Scott Alexander’s Meditations on Moloch.

    The end game:

    The process continues until all other values that can be traded off have been – in other words, until human ingenuity cannot possibly figure out a way to make things any worse.

    Just one correction. Autonomous techno-capital can drive the process far beyond the limits of mere human ingenuity. The boundaries of human ingenuity don’t limit how bad things can get.

    [Reply]

    Untrue Neutral Reply:

    The dream time is going to end one way or another. Once one nation decides to pursue its advantages we have to match them or perish. Or to put it otherwise…”Gotcha! You die anyways!”

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Having values that don’t align with the values of the gods (the forces of nature forever beyond mortal control) is a prescription for insanity and/or despair. Genetic engineering, deus vult.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    You are all entirely correct. Frankly, the rightness and the utter inevitability of eugenic genetic engineering are what enable me to remain an optimist.

    Posted on August 15th, 2016 at 9:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    The same human pretense behind equality — “we are perfect as we are, and Darwinism for us has ceased” — lurks behind the opposition to knowledge of genes and editing. It makes individuals feel uncomfortable.

    [Reply]

    Xopher Halftongue Reply:

    That opposition to genes and genetic engineering… as well as the insistence of imposing affirmative action on IT security and Silicon Valley… will be The Cathedral’s Achilles Heel.

    You already see this now with Russian hackers publishing secret data of the Inner Party. LaQuisha Jackson the affirmative action IT hire is no match against Russian hackers (or Chinese hackers).

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2016 at 10:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Etiq Says:

    The superstitions of the plebs don’t matter. I struggle to believe that the elites, who pursue every advantage, would refuse this technology if it were available to them. Yet they do not fund it. Have they drunk their own kool-aid? I guess this post is asking the same question as the Merkel post.

    I was reading Peter Thiel’s book ‘Zero to One’, and in it he says when he interviews someone, he asks them ‘what important truth do very few people agree with you on?’. He says that startups should be founded upon such truths. I guess the Chinese have got their truth.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    They’ll still travel to China to have genetic engineering performed for their own benefit, just like how elite gun control advocates still surround themselves with armed guards. They might also just be doing it at the level of black secrecy gov research (do you believe for one moment that the same guys who did mkultra aren’t going to be messing with this stuff in secret?), only restrictions for consumer development.

    [Reply]

    Xopher Halftongue Reply:

    Those same guys who did mkultra have been replaced by affirmative action diversity hires. See how easily the Russian hackers penetrated Democrat databases…

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2016 at 10:58 am Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    Gene editing is very progressive. Progressives flip from black to white based on fashion and needs, not out of consistent policy. One can imagine a goal of progressive gene editing would be to create “black people” in skin color only, effectively exterminating blacks, a more efficient version of early 20th Century progressives.

    [Reply]

    Untrue Neutral Reply:

    The trick is, how does your ideology get you to WANT to do what you absolutely needed to do anyways.

    I think there’s obvious space for progressivism to “evolve” philosophically on the point of gene editing. Its not like the directing of human nature is outside of their wheelhouse, historically

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Progressives warned against it, already in 60s pop-culture.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2016 at 1:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Uriel Alexis Says:

    already checking here how to go to China.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    What survived of Greek culture went to Rome, to work as teachers and doctors. Roughly same prospects for Westerners in the Chinese Century, on current trends.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2016 at 1:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation Says:

    Might like:

    https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838

    China. Eugenics. Chinese culture. Competitive edge. Threat to the West….

    “My real worry is the Western response. The most likely response, given Euro-American ideological biases, would be a bioethical panic that leads to criticism of Chinese population policy with the same self-righteous hypocrisy that we have shown in criticizing various Chinese socio-cultural policies. But the global stakes are too high for us to act that stupidly and short-sightedly. A more mature response would be based on mutual civilizational respect, asking—what can we learn from what the Chinese are doing, how can we help them, and how can they help us to keep up as they create their brave.”

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    First I think the christian political machine got crushed about a year ago and i think deep USG is all over this and wont let the snake handlers near it. They will continue to shepherd it in the controlled way they have been since stemcell.Im not sure such enthusiasm is warranted this is bound to be a war that makes nuclear look like childs as opposed to gods play Youre talking about a species who hasnt a clue how heal 90% of illness or how or what most of its drugs do opening up the black box and fucking around in a race with each other. I cant wait.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2016 at 8:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    Its been obvious for almost a decade china will force us to confront not only HBD but just how arbitrary our morality is, and its genealogy. puns intended. As tempting as the tech is nothing i have ever seen about mankind including niggers like chinese makes me think we ought to fuck with it, but we will and i will cheer it on like i cheer on trump.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2016 at 9:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Apatheos Says:

    Occultruism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2016 at 3:39 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment