Chaos Patch (#87)

(Open thread + links)

What is neoreaction? (An instant classic.) Plus, order and freedom. The new god. False positives. Inventing the State. Meme wars. Magic dirt theory. The weekly round, in doom, and Cathedral round-up.

Chinese fertility policy. India and Pakistan at the brink. Goodbye Sweden. Crashing the gates. Open borders under stress.

Die off (1, 2, 3, 4). Secession for London (and beyond)? Liberal self-destruction. “I doubt the liberal view will prevail.” “I have no faith at all in liberalism.” Limits of satire.

Antarctic uncertainties. Why distrust of science makes sense. Urban Madness.

The problem with pagans. Brands of Satanism. Why Christians go left. Virtue signaling.

Dim war, and dimming Deutschland. The Iron Law of Intelligence. High IQ genetics (with comment). A schizophrenia spectrum? Nature > nurture, and other signs of narrative collapse.

Submission commentary from Van Creveld, Sailer, Knausgaard, Douthat (and relevant). NPI commentary (1, 2, 3, 4).

Star Trek and scarcity.

RIP René Girard (plus). What Huxley saw.

Automobile obsolescence. Computer blood. CRISPR for humans by 2017.

Coywolves. Zombie physics. Viral dark matter. Where Mars’ water went.

November 8, 2015admin 30 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , , ,

30 Responses to this entry

  • Chaos Patch (#87) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on November 8th, 2015 at 7:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    Thanks for the linkage, Nick


    Posted on November 8th, 2015 at 9:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    It should have been obvious that Star Trek was not really a ‘post-scarcity economy’ (not enough of a autistic nerd to have ever watched ST, sorry, so not sure if it was explicitly addressed in the series) because ‘post-scarcity economy’ is a contradiction in terms. Economy presupposes scarcity.


    stranger danger Reply:

    @Economy presupposes scarcity.

    economy growing *IS* post-scarcity. nothing can grow forever in a finite world. including economies. gnon is the exponential function.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Growth doesn’t eliminate scarcity, it just rearranges it.


    Posted on November 8th, 2015 at 10:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • xheimlichkeit Says:

    “Formalism is the essentialist notion that the symbolic and the real should align”

    Uh. I have some Borromean rings to sell you…


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Ie rectification of names. NRx confirmed for just rehashed Confucianism/PRC sleeper cell psy-ops.


    haishan Reply:

    The funny thing is, the Qin dynasty was openly and proudly Legalist; Legalism, as a political philosophy, is barely distinguishable from Moldbug’s formalism. The Qin lasted a decade and a half.

    The Han and Tang dynasties were also basically Legalists, but they pretended to be Confucian and Buddhist. They were way, way more successful.

    Can you build a successful state on formalism? Yes, apparently. But it’s not sufficient.


    admin Reply:

    Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
    Cannot bear very much reality.

    Exfernal Reply:

    Align the symbolic to to real, or the other way around?

    If the former, my applause,
    if the latter, mocking laughter.


    Posted on November 8th, 2015 at 11:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Courtesy of SSC, seems like Michigan has decided to start practicing real austerity.

    I was expecting it to take longer. Specifically, I was expecting it not to happen until a government cheque bounced, or they sought credit and failed.


    Posted on November 8th, 2015 at 11:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#87) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on November 8th, 2015 at 11:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • xheimlichkeit Says:

    More seriously: what’s with the Lacanian undertones in so much alt-right bloggery lately?


    Posted on November 9th, 2015 at 12:49 am Reply | Quote
  • freihals Says:

    More contribution from the geek and nerd squad:

    Star Trek Is Wrong: There Will Always Be Scarcity

    courtesy of the rat-slicers at LvMI…..surprised you missed this one.

    RPM is a nerd’s nerd.


    Posted on November 9th, 2015 at 1:54 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Great to see Amerika here among such interesting articles. From the Huxley piece:

    Huxley thought it more likely that in the long run, despots would find it efficient to coddle rather than coerce humans into conformity.

    Huxley was more widely studied in ancient history than Orwell, who wanted to critique method instead of quality of thinking and moral character. It is typical of a Leftist to make such a distinction, as it allows him to ignore the real issue and replace it with a substitute that debates the finer details of the State but never questions its necessity.


    michael Reply:

    Huxley and Orwell ancient history? This is the problem.


    Posted on November 9th, 2015 at 9:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Quint Essential Says:

    I don’t know, maybe I’m being unnecessarily fearful, but a car you cannot control yourself sounds pretty exploitable. Coddle vs Coerce. Seems to be the way the Frankfurt school decided (Cultural Marxism (Coddling) vs actual Marxism (Coercing)). I get bored not driving too. Though maybe it would give me more time to read. Regardless of whether CM is coddling, there are people being coerced (fall into line or else). It’s not quite lack of control. It’s giving up control of something you could have controlled. Most of the times that has been done it was to the detriment of the person giving up the power to control.


    Exfernal Reply:

    If I was using public transportation, I used the time for reading. I’m on board with this development.


    Posted on November 9th, 2015 at 9:32 am Reply | Quote
  • AD Says:

    2017?? your are going to be scooped


    Erebus Reply:

    The article refers to a US company that hopes to start legitimate clinical trials in 2017. If anything, given the pre-clinical and bureaucratic hurdles ahead of them, they’re being extremely optimistic and ambitious. 2017 is probably a best-case scenario.

    I’d add that the patent situation is extremely complicated — which could spell trouble for Editas. The short version: The Broad Institute at MIT currently owns the most relevant and broadest patents & has licensed them to Editas, but UC Berkely has a decent claim, and could pull the rug right out from under ’em!

    What the MIT Technology Review article I linked to above doesn’t mention is that there may even be another research team with a halfway decent claim to some of the relevant technologies. Gasiunas, who published in PNAS in 2012, actually seems to have submitted the first paper on the subject.

    …But, although the commercial development of CRISPR as an FDA-regulated therapeutic might be fraught with various bureaucratic and commercial/IP issues, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there have already been CRISPR experiments in humans in China. It’s not an expensive or overly-complicated technique. We’ll probably see black market CRISPR clinics in countries where the technology is unregulated — or the regulations are not well enforced — by 2017 if not sooner. (A prospect which keeps pathetic, cowardly bioethicists up at night!)


    AD Reply:

    Agreed, my response was kneejerk for which I apologise, as an early adopter (bench monkey) and hands on user of CRISPR in hES (HDR not NHEJ) where it essentially worked first time I was ignoring the legalistic practicalities – tho these are likely to be much reduced in somatic cell applications (although the standing of patents is interesting – there does seem the potential for endless tinkering like variant nucleases etc. that may evade patent descriptions? or is that my naive understanding of IP?) – somatic is just not as cool though…

    I would also agree that it is neither expensive or overly complicated to target changes when the required changes are known and clear – and screening approaches are feasible and available. There is certainly no shortage of technically proficient under/un – employed RA’s around.

    I guess your aware of the 2015 paper where various off-target effects were observed in human triploid zygotes that were targeted?

    – there are now several approaches which could minimize some of these problems. I would also be surprised if this work were not proceeding somewhere.


    Erebus Reply:

    MIT holds about 10 CRISPR patents. There is some redundancy there, but, between the lot, they seem to cover every possible angle which might be relevant. I don’t think that there are any loopholes per se — anything which might circumvent their claims would probably qualify as a new invention!

    See, for instance:
    …I think that’s the first nonprovisional CRISPR patent that Zhang/MIT filed, and seems to have been the first they were granted. All of their patents have the same priority date, which is likely because they’re all associated with each other, and because they filed their first provisional patent on Dec 12, 2012. (12/12/12?)

    Unusually, the MIT patents are quite clear and intelligible. Most biotech patents are unreadable — intentionally obfuscated, loaded with red herrings, and so forth…

    I don’t know what to make of that Chinese study. I’d note a few things, though:
    – “>Received 2015 Mar 30; Accepted 2015 Apr 1.” — so the paper went through a one-day or two-day peer review process? That’s really unusual. It seems like peer review is becoming a mere formality, at least in some cases…

    -Polyspermic zygotes are defective — fatally so. They cannot develop normally because they were fertilized by two sperm, and they normally terminate rather rapidly. It could be that the use of these defective embryos led to the off-target effects noted by the authors of the paper. These were not genetically normal embryos. (The paper’s authors likely had to use this sort of defective embryo — which can never be born and is thus only nominally “human” — in order to get past the ethics review board. Ah, bureaucracy…)

    -If the goal is to prevent disease in embryos, and not to knock-out myostatin or PCSK9 or anything like that, then there are much better methods available than CRISPR. Where CRISPR excels, however, is as a potential genetic treatment for children and adults, and here the Chinese study is not particularly relevant.

    Unemployed RA’s? They should move to Kenya and set-up a black market myostatin-knockout clinic. Hah.

    Posted on November 9th, 2015 at 10:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Aristocles_Inv Says:

    Great distribution of links, thanks!


    Posted on November 9th, 2015 at 12:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    That Sailer Dim War link deserves an answer. The thrust is we lost Vietnam because of low IQ draftees. It is a proven maxim of war that if you blame your troops your a loser . It’s never the troops and always the leaders.

    “Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. Keep it up, America, keep telling your youth that mud and danger are fit only for intellectual pigs. Keep on saying that only the stupid are fit to sacrifice, that America must be defended by the low-brow and enjoyed by the high-brow. Keep vaunting head over heart, and soon the head will arrive at the complete folly of any kind of fight and meekly surrender the treasure to the first bandit with enough heart to demand it.”

    If meek doesn’t describe the problem with Western men [or more accurately quasi males] then nothing does.

    Intellectuals are the Hedge Fund Traders of Western Civilization. Mere con artist looters. Intelligence is not virtue.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Thucydides said it better: “Any nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.”

    It is not one-sidedly the fault of the low-IQ conscript, NOR that of the intellectuals alone, but the faults of both within an economic system that selects for ever-increasing specialisation. As long as we adhere to comparative advantage within domestic economies, it seems like the fighting will be done by fools and the thinking by cowards for the forseeable future.

    I see no more virtue in prizing heart over head than in head over heart. One wonders how much envy and ressentiment Robert Leckie felt towards intellectuals to have felt the need to attack them so viciously.


    Posted on November 11th, 2015 at 3:30 am Reply | Quote
  • AD Says:

    Crispr could still be a goer to prevent disease in embryos… How about generate iPS cells from prospective parents with a known genetic problem – carriers or otherwise… then correct the problem in these cells via CRISPR – screening them comprehensively for the correct change and testing the twenty most likely predicted off-targets – then differentiate them to gametes via the primordial germ cells (we are almost there – Suran’s papers for instance – but not quite) then cross fertilise and re-introduce to mother – I think the gametogenesis is out of reach at the moment – but only just… (caveat – I haven’t given this a huge amount of thought yet – there are likely to be problems beyond my pay-grade)


    Erebus Reply:

    That sounds like an interesting and potentially valuable procedure.

    …But I think that it’s actually rather similar, in many respects, to PGD. And PGD is the easiest technique out there, carries near-zero risk, and it should even be more useful as it can detect and correct unexpected, random genetic issues. CRISPR is likely only preferable in a rare subset of cases, where PGD (& similar) wouldn’t be able to get the job done.

    Don’t get me wrong, I do agree that CRISPR-based procedures are likely useful and valuable for corrective purposes in embryos, and something along the lines of what you’ve suggested may be a fine starting point. It’s just that PGD and similar screening techniques are likely the better option in most cases — those common, easy-to-fix, tractable cases. 😉

    I think that, fundamentally, CRISPR’s abilities for enhancement are where its true potential lies. I wouldn’t be surprised if I had modified my own genome within the next 12 years. I’d also do whatever I could, within reason, to enhance the physical and mental abilities of my descendants… and there are millions of people around the world who feel the same way (if only in a vague, general sense,) and who have the resources to make it happen. Once the human-enhancement genie is out of its bottle, there’ll be no stopping it. The human race will branch into two distinct species, the demigods and the wretched underclass, and the hateful notion of “equality” will finally be laid to rest. I eagerly anticipate this future. Despite the pathetic bleating of ethicists, and the hand-wringing of governments, I don’t think that anything can be done to prevent it.


    Posted on November 11th, 2015 at 8:51 am Reply | Quote
  • AD Says:

    I think that, fundamentally, CRISPR’s abilities for enhancement are where its true potential lies.

    Yes, to be honest simple IVF screening would achieve a lot of what my outlined approach would, much more simply for single mutation diseases …altering multiple loci with small additive effect to boost G/IQ though – CRISPR


    Posted on November 11th, 2015 at 10:48 am Reply | Quote
  • haishan Says:

    The latest insanity at American universities: putting up tents on the quad and sleeping there turns that quad into a “black space” that protesters “created.” The tweets have been deleted, but they’re referenced in this Vox piece.


    Posted on November 11th, 2015 at 5:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • AD Says:


    you would WGS the line before re-introducing of couse – slow slow portia brain, sorry


    Posted on December 4th, 2015 at 10:14 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment