Zacked Future



The Industrial Revolution had the effect of allowing many billions of people who would have died to stay alive — this meant that genetic mutations which would have been eliminated by death during childhood instead accumulated. […] … on the one hand mutations have been accumulating, generation upon generation, with (approx) one or two deleterious mutations being added to each lineage with each generation; on the other hand, people who exhibited traits caused by deleterious mutations — such as lowered intelligence and impaired long-termist conscientiousness, or higher impulsivity, aggression and criminality — were positively selected, were genetically favoured — simply because their pathologies meant they were either unable or unwilling to use fertility-regulating technologies. […] In other words, accumulating mutations which damaged functionality actually amplify reproductive success under present conditions and for the past several generations.

At some point, the proportion of mutants — who are on average significantly damaged in functionality — will become so great that the Industrial Revolution will fall-apart, collapse; the 6-7 million excess population will be unsupportable; there will be a Giga-death (i.e. billions of deaths) scale of mortality over some period … […] A population of mutants whose intelligence has been dragged-down to a certain level will be much less functional than a population where selection has kept it in equilibrium at that level — the mutants will be carrying multiple pathologies in addition to their impaired intelligence. […]

This world of mass dying will provide a new kind of selective environment — some mutants may reproduce vary rapidly under these strange (and temporary) conditions by evolving to exploit unusual resources which are (temporarily) abundant in a Giga-death world …

And if the dying-off lasts a few generations, some weird mutant ‘scavengers’ may come to dominate in some places.

It’s possible that this passage isn’t drawing us into a Zack or “African Rabies” scenario of cannibalistic Zombie Apocalypse — just about — but the final paragraphs aren’t easy to interpret in any other way. If I was a Hollywood script writer, I’d be onto this speculative narrative like a carrion-eating mutant on a mountain of corpses.

June 29, 2014admin 19 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

19 Responses to this entry

  • Puzzle Privateer (@PuzzlePrivateer) Says:

    Have you seen this nightmare post over at Roissy’s?

    “criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy”


    Posted on June 29th, 2014 at 5:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    Indeed, it’s ironic that our species, after coming out of a phase of extremely rapid evolution in several traits, we have achieved the highest offspring survival rate in our history—we, particularly in the West, must therefore be exhibiting the greatest rate of survival of maladaptive individuals. How long can it last?

    Ain’t “overshoot” a bitch?!


    Posted on June 29th, 2014 at 5:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    I didn’t read the entire post, just the opening quote. Do they mention whether criminality shows a decent correlation with ethnicity?—or is it a shotgun blast? If there is a correlation then these instincts/behaviors must be far more primordial than a recent adaptation to industrial civilization—K vs. r reproductive strategies—hence another argument against diversity.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Tracking dark triad traits would yield more accurate results than criminality, high IQ don’t get caught, higher IQ make their crimes legal. It has been noted that IQ in the 80’s sees a jump in criminality, I wonder if there are other IQ cohorts at the other end of the spectrum that see similar jumps. However it’s very difficult to get statistically relevant data for 130+ IQ.

    r selection need not necessarily be criminal and some forms of K selection may correlate higher with criminality. The largest problems associated with those born as a part of the mutant boom in the short term are going to be traits that aren’t reproductively successful. Hyper allergies, degenerative illnesses, weakened immune systems, these will be the most common types of mutation.

    The old progs of the 20’s who weren’t afraid of eugenics, they would have at least sterilized people as a precondition for their welfare. The financial collapse will be recoverable relatively quickly, but a r selection induced collapse, that’s a dark age, it’s the left singularity. Whatever we hope to setup/accomplish, it must be done before that point.


    Posted on June 29th, 2014 at 5:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Zacked Future | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on June 29th, 2014 at 7:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    One of the things I notice more and more is that women in particular look markedly less intelligent than they did 1, 2 and 3 generations ago. I walk down the street and even the supposedly higher class women look proletarian. If you just take some basic phrenologic principles and apply them to magazine covers I’d venture the average female IQ has dropped 15 points since the 1950s.


    Posted on June 29th, 2014 at 10:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    but a r selection induced collapse, that’s a dark age, it’s the left singularity. Whatever we hope to setup/accomplish, it must be done before that point.

    After the collapse—the bottleneck/impending impasse we’re hurtling toward—intelligence may not necessarily be an adaptive trait. It could be hardcore elements, like the Los Zetas, that reign supreme.


    Posted on June 29th, 2014 at 10:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    The question is mostly which groups will come out of this scenario a winner. I bet the Chinese and Russians will kick everyone’s butt. High intelligence, collectivist/clannish, willing to impose strict order. That’s assuming a few nukes aren’t thrown in for fun, in which case the Africans will probably stand the best chance simply because no one will think to bomb them to oblivion.


    Scharlach Reply:

    Lol. How funny would it be if terrorism and/or nuclear war obliterated Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Australia, and North America, leaving only the teeming masses of Africa and South America to rebuild civilization.


    Handle Reply:

    Don’t count on it. They’re as reliant on synthetic fertilizers to grow enough of their post-green-revolution hybrid staples, but probably not able to maintain the supply chain for efficient catalysts like the ruthenium them use in the KAAP process in almost all modern fixation facilities.

    Remember all that recurrent ‘microcredit’ hype? In Africa, one of the big ‘success stories’ I once read about was providing loans for the importation of nitrates and phosphorus, but it turned out it wasn’t a good controlled experiment, because they also simultaneously got the country to drop the hefty tariffs. That made a big difference, because they don’t make the stuff locally.

    Industrial, Chemically Intensive agriculture is truly global, and if you can’t get the pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, seed supplies, and energy for irrigation, well … as the man said … things fall apart.


    Posted on June 30th, 2014 at 5:07 am Reply | Quote
  • The Word Says:



    Posted on June 30th, 2014 at 5:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Paul Says:

    How sure are you of this? My understanding is that high-input agriculture in many parts of Africa tends towards export commodities which don’t have so much to do with feeding local populations, whereas peasant and non-certified organic agriculture, as well as systems using relatively very-low inputs still play very strong roles in food production for local consumption. @


    Posted on July 1st, 2014 at 11:56 am Reply | Quote
  • Paul Says:

    That comment was in reply to Handle: “Don’t count on it. They’re as reliant on synthetic fertilizers”.

    Which raises the persisten question which occurs to me when reading this blog and which I’ve never seen adequately dealt with by NRx: sure you say there is a dysgenic trend in the industrialised nations, but you also claim that black people are intellectually inferior to “white” and asian people, and seem to imply (or claim explicitly) that the suffering of poor black people is a result of their own ignorance and intellectual inferiority. NRx’s depiction of “The Cathedral’s” ethnomasochistic tendencies may be in some ways an accurate description, however is this sufficient to refute the proposition that Western nations, populations and corporations in many cases exploit and cause the suffering of the poorest people on the globe?

    The link to Handle’s comment being the sweep of industrial agriculture (driven by Western nations and businesses) across the African continent, and the concomitant impoverishment, displacement and famine that often accompanies this process. Industrial agriculture is geared towards export, displacing farmers producing for local consumption and subjecting producers to the vicissitudes and machinations of international commodity markets and traders; pesticide, fertilizer and hybrid-seed companies (headquartered in and sending profits to the post-industrial nations) lock farmers into monocultures and debt, and reliance on foreign inputs and technology, destroying resilience afforded by traditional techniques, diversification and independence, while at the same time farmers from the poor nations, often pushed into production for export, are exposed to tariffs 5x higher than those between OECD nations and are forced to compete with enormously subsidised Western industries (eg cotton and maize in the US), while their own domestic subsidies have been dismantled by the, again Western-dominated, international financial institutions. Some examples: places I lived and travelled in east Africa included the magnificently fertile Rift Valley, in which small farmers had been displaced by Dutch flower-growing companies which exported their commodities via jumbo jet to Europe, further north biofuel plantations (for export) are displacing local agriculture, to the west in Uganda villagers were being ‘resettled’ to make way for tree plantations for a German airline’s carbon offsets.

    The fact that the kinds of changes described above are precisely what is foisted upon the “developing world” by what NRx terms “the Cathedral” is not lost on me. In fact this might be the most profoundly important aspect of this situation: that it is the supposedly humanitarian, politically-correct liberal-Left which facilitates the most manifest kinds of suffering inflicted upon the poor. What I’m asking NRx to acknowledge is that, yes, sometimes (often) Western, developed nations and corporations and white people do exploit and cause the suffering of poorer populations and nations.

    The first photo Nick posted from the Dunhuang caves was of a painting of thousand-armed Avolkitesvara, Buddha of compassion. I suspect that Nick and Moldbug are in fact more compassionate towards those who experience the most manifest forms of suffering – physical deprivations, famine, starvation – under current conditions, than those of the supposedly humanitarian liberal-Left “Cathedral”.


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    China will and already is stepping in fill the void—with China at the helm things will probably be much worse for Africans. At the end of the day, because of their genetic diversity, Africans are most likely better prepared be the last ones standing.


    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    RE: the benefits of genetic diversity, read this:


    NRx_N00B Reply:

    Thanks, interesting post.

    The impression I’ve always had is that Europeans, East Asians and Amerindians in particular, carry proportionately more deleterious mutations than Africans because they emerged from less diverse and smaller populations—where human genetic diversity decreases as distance from Africa increases. Statistically then, Africans may carry more preadaptations for what nature may throw at us—in a post collapse setting, where we can’t rely on prosthetics/mechanization.


    Steve Johnson Reply:


    You didn’t read the link.

    Key paragraphs:

    “Of course, most genetic variation is neutral, having no significant effect on phenotypes, so the numbers they use are totally irrelevant to the question they’re addressing. One could imagine that it might be better to have more (or less) genetic variation in cognitive or personality traits, but we don’t know enough about the genetic architecture of those traits to say diddly about who has more or less.

    Lots of people – not just Ashraf and Galor – seem to think that having more overall neutral variation implies more trait variation. That isn’t the case.

    A population with more total (mostly neutral) variation can easily have less variation in a particular trait. For example, hair color and eye color ( both genetically controlled) are more variable in Europeans than in sub-Saharan Africa, even though African populations have more overall genetic variation.”

    1) Trait variation is the important factor
    2) Africans don’t have more trait variation – in fact in several areas we know they have less

    Posted on July 1st, 2014 at 12:53 pm Reply | Quote

    […] It only takes people to start feasting directly in the same way they vote, and we’re Zacked. The entire culture is saying — and by now practically screaming — that this is the way […]

    Posted on October 20th, 2014 at 10:49 am Reply | Quote
  • Futuro Zackado – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on January 25th, 2017 at 11:16 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment