Based Camp 17: "Scientific" Racism is for Midwits (as is Ethno-Nationalism)

Based Camp 17:

Show Video

Would you like to know more? Hello Malcolm. Hello Simone. I see you have changed up your outfit. One of my favorite accusations, cuz you know people always make fun of our looks, is that you look like a villain from an Indiana Jones movie.

And I'm like, point, yeah, those villains are hot. Unfortunately, they're also often racist. And so this is gonna be a suff spicy episode because, We are gonna talk about racism, specifically scientific racism, which I think is a scientific racism, which I think is a more common topic these days and why it is such midwit perspective. If not actively stupid, if you're actually looking at the data.

So first I'm going to define what specifically we're arguing against here, or what we're saying is pretty midway is people who. Argue for there being persistent genetic differences in competence, sociological profiles or IQ between ethnic groups and that social or personal decisions should be based on these. So it's similar to what we would consider like evil eugenics, which is that it makes a judgment call about certain traits being good or bad, and it also makes a judgment call about society. On a broad level needing to do something about that, right? No. Very specifically, it doesn't.

I think that makes it too narrow and too easy to argue against if you take those positions. It just argues that there are persistent differences. Okay.

And policies should take these persistent differences into account Because I wanna argue on harder mode, right? I want to I don't wanna take such an easy perspective with that one. Okay? So where this really came up is you were doing a podcast. And people kept trying to find out if you were Jewish and they kept tweeting, like Jew knows and stuff like that. I'm grouping anti-Semitism in wiz racism here.

Because when you're talking about scientific racism, these groups are often very aligned. And first I, I think it is very weird that these groups get grouped together by people in scientific, racist communities because like presumably these communities also believes that Jews are like smarter than other groups. So why would they be making fun of me for marrying someone if she might be Jewish? Which by the way, Simone is not genetically Jewish, but I am genetically Jewish, culturally Jewish.

What I mean is your Jewish genes might make up like one eighth of your genes, but they are matrilineal, so they are culturally Jewish. But if being Jewish gave you some sort of genetic advantage, you wouldn't have that. So let's talk about the manifold of reasons why this form of racism is so dumb. So first, is it comes from the groups that primarily hold this form of racism, right? So they're like, okay, IQ is hereditary, which it is like the data just says IQ is hereditary. The thing that they miss is how hereditary IQ is, which is extremely hereditary, and there's high differentiation between people. Within ethnic groups, why this matters is you get really fast drift to the extent that you can't make meaningful judgments around this.

So for example, you look at like first generation Nigerians in the us, right? Like they have higher IQ than the white population. Why is it, why are they out economically performing the white population, right? It's because there is huge variation within any sort of ethnic group. And if you're just saying, oh we'll look at averages and then we'll apply these averages across large populations, you don't get really meaningful information. Worse. If you actually look at the rate at which IQ is changing in the developed world right now, and this is specific to the developed world, so you can look at the amount to which IQ is hereditary and you can look at how quickly this is changing. So you can look at the polygenic markers associated with IQ and not only see that people who have these polygenic markers are having less kids.

But you can look in biobank of samples taken from different times and seen that these polygenic markers are appearing at lower rates. You can also look at iqa as in developed countries and see that it's also declining. And if you look across these metrics, so just basically however you measure this, you see this decline. You're looking at about one standard deviation decline in IQ in the developed world was in about 75 years. So that means if there are going to be persistent, like really meaningful ethnic differences in iq. All of the geniuses are gonna be in Africa in a hundred years.

Like they're going to be weighted towards Africa. Assuming the developed world doesn't get this under control somehow, given their broad resistance to like polygenic risk or screening they're not going to, so what's interesting is there are going to be really big IQ differences between ethnic groups. They just don't exist right now. They're going to occur and they're going to be predominantly weighted towards the African groups.

And again, this is again why I say like the. Recent stuff, like the reason I use the Nigerian population is the African American group and the white American group are both equally at risk or whatever word you wanna use from this rapid IQ decline in developed countries. You're seeing it at equal rates across all ethnic groups in these countries. It just so happens that the way we have set up the world, whether it's due to, colonialism or whatever reason you think it's due to The poorest countries in the world, the few countries that aren't dealing with rapid decline due to demographic collapse. Are predominantly in Africa. Meaning that the people who are in these environments where you don't have these selective pressures against IQ are gonna be predominantly black in ethnicity.

Even if you're looking at this from like a geneticist perspective, if you look within Africa, The genetic differences in groups are just so much bigger. , they're so different that they dwarf any genetic difference you're talking about of all other people across the world. So you're looking at more differences within African groups. So one. Group in Africa versus another group in Africa, they will typically, like on average, have more genetic difference than your average European and Asian or Native American. In other words, if you were making ethnic groups from the world's population, based on how genetically different groups were, and you broke down the world into 10 ethnic groups.

One of those groups would include Europeans, Asians, Jews, and native Americans. And the other nine would all be different African groups. The way, even quote unquote scientific racists, often talk about race, divides, ethnic groups by their recent historical context, not their actual genetic difference and distance, which is what you would be doing. If this was all about genes to you. so it's hard to group these populations in any way that you can meaningfully make decisions around. But here's the real big point here and this is unfortunately why racism is so stupid today.

Oh, then you're gonna talk about repo repro tech, right? Repro tech, right? Yes. You wanna talk about it? No you go ahead. I like watching you rant on this. Okay. You like watching me rant? Okay.

So this is where you get into Tex. Okay. You believe all of this stuff is genetically linked and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Unfortunately, you would then would also know how close we are to human crispr.

You would know that we can genetically select among embryos and how quickly that will change the genetic IQ of a certain subgroup of the population. And unfortunately what all of this shows is that, and we go into the math of this in the pragmatist guided crafting religion is that if you were to do CRISPR with a knowledge of where IQ is on the human genome , within one generation, you could get IQ up eight standard deviations. I have mentioned this in another podcast, but I just think this is just such a stunning statistic. IQ in the future will be predominantly a differentiation of the people who chose to engage in the cultures that chose to engage with rete and ones that didn't.

To the extent that even if there were differences in IQ between ethnic groups, it will be completely irrelevant within two or three generations. To those who are technophilic , no, because those technophilic will be the ones who, are competing in the economy at higher rates and everything like that. And they will be from all ethnic groups. At least if our foundation has anything to say about it. The one of the core things that our foundation is doing is trying to make this technology so cheap that anyone can access it. Or.

If it's not so cheap that anyone can access it to ensure that there are people who will fund it so that anyone can access it. Because, then you have the problem of only the rich people are using this tech and that causes other problems in terms of the lack of diversity in the future. But the point being is that you have these people like, these white supremacists and stuff like that.

And it's and they're like, look at history, so what? All of these differences are gonna be irrelevant in three generations if they exist at all. So why would you take any prod in your ethnic group? Have in a few different generations that ethnic group is going to be virtually the same as all other ethnic groups when contrasted with humans who are engaging with repro tech technology. And you can say we'll ban this technology. No, what you'll do is you'll ban it for poor people. Rich people will travel to other countries and have it done, and that's. Freaking evil.

And then you'll be like no, we'll find a super special way where like my country will ban it for both the poor and the Yeah. Good luck with that. But okay.

Even if you do that, then what? Then some other countries won't ban it and they'll get the genetic advantage over you. And you can look at the countries. We can already tell from the statistics, the countries that won't ban it. I can say right now there'll be India that won't panic. Which is really, they're super pro.

Yeah. They're even pro Christopher in humans. Like on national polls and stuff like that.

It's wild. And it makes sense. So in India, within dating markets, they actually often ask not just about the person that they are choosing to marry, but also they look at the income of like their brothers and sisters, the jobs of their brothers and sisters, which shows that they're looking at the person's genes. And this then comes to something we've tweeted about, which is something that a lot of people get wrong, is they think that they are taking an anti-racist position, and they will argue for this because they think it's anti-racist. That IQ isn't edible in a way where it can change really quickly. In the human population, they're like, don't say that IQ can change quickly.

That can lead to people thinking racist things. And it's no, the opposite leads to people thinking racist things. If IQ can only change over the periods of a hundred thousand years, If sociological profiles can only change over the period of a hundred thousand years, which is not what the science says, but people like will ignore the science if they think it supports, I don't know, like a political position they have. So if that was true, what it would mean is that things like sociological profiles at the genetic level, or IQ at the genetic level, which is like highly genetically, this is just a mass agreed upon thing by science.

And I don't just look at the Wikipedia at a hall on this That it would be tied to ethnic groups in a persistent way. If, however, it changes at the level of two to three generations because ethnic groups don't change over two to three generations, then it's meaninglessly tied to ethnic groups. Meaninglessly in any sort of persistent format.

And where you do see it end up maybe in the future being really tied to ethnic groups. It's not due to any virtu or vice of those ethnic groups. It's just due to those ethnic groups being in certain countries during the certain pressure periods. So in the future, when most of the world's geniuses are African it won't be anything about Africans. As a final, quick point.

If our species is successful, we're going to become an interplanetary species. If we end up locked on earth. Almost certainly it's a, it's an end case scenario for our species and there's just few good scenarios in which we end up blocked on earth. If we become an interstellar species, given what we understand about physics now, we're probably not going to be able to travel faster than the speed of light.

And that means we will almost certainly end up speciated between planet. That being the case. When we look forwards into what humanity becomes, the current differences between ethnic groups are next to irrelevant.

No matter how big you conceivably argue, they are. That's that's the differences really don't matter in any. Outcome in which our species survives. Thus, why would you consider your ethnicity when thinking about yourself identity? It's just not that important. Do you have any thoughts on this, Simone? A lot of this just feels so. So arbitrary to me.

But there's groups that make major decisions around this, like people. And during that entire chat they were just like, racist, racist, racist thing. Then it makes no sense to me. And then major racist policy positions. You can look at the what is a major racist policy position that's out there? So I think if you look at Catholic Integralists, like you wanna talk about something that makes no sense to me. Nick Florence Catholic Integralist.

Ok. He was talking about our positions before. Okay. And.

He, I don't think he believes any of this gene. He actually said one of the funniest thing though. He's oh, all of this genetic stuff, they think they can raise IQ really quickly was like genetic testing and stuff like that.

If that was the case, like somebody would've done it already. It's bro, this technology like, Just became accessible. The idea that traditionalism fixes things when our society is so different from what it's ever been. Debt at the nation state level, that's like an invention, massive level. Less like an invention of the 1970s, like college debt. When did that start? Like seventies, eighties.

It definitely wasn't true in like the twenties and thirties. This is a new invention. Women working. That's totally new at a nation state, like worldwide civilizational level. So many aspects of how our economy and our society works are just totally different. It's not just the internet.

Yeah. This entire structure is new. Yeah. And then that a tradition that was optimized for an older structure would work in. This just baffles me.

I do not see why anyone would think that is the case, but I can see why it's better. Then traditions that are just created to maximize in the moment hedonism, which I think most progressive traditions are, they're just like what can I believe that will cause me to accept the most other people to make the fewest hard choices in life? And that's what I'm going to believe. And, but don't, hold on.

Don't you think this maybe has more to do with the fear of outgroups? So when you did research on. The tendencies of groups that are, that have higher fertility rates. One of the characteristics that you found the most was a tendency toward fear ofout groups in addition to authoritarianism.

Yeah. Toward societies. So I think, is scientific racism? Maybe it's a just so attempt at justifying fear of outgroups and not so much any genuine Yeah, no, logical. This is where it gets interesting and I'm so glad you brought this up. Now before I finish my point on the Catholicism. Okay, so people who don't know what Catholic Integral is, it's a belief it's a Catholic caliphate, right? That's Yeah.

It's a Catholic caliphate. Yeah. They believe that the world should exist under a single Catholic monarchy.

And Nick Fuentes is an example of one of these, but they're actually pretty common among traditionalist conservatives in the us in the Catholic group. And a lot of them have converted to this. And it's an interesting ideological perspective. Like I actually don't hold anything against this ideological perspective. What is insane to me. This perspective in this group has a really high overlap with the anti-immigration group.

With the, one ethnicity, one culture, one country group, and it's what? The immigrants are almost all Catholic. Like we have a huge disproportion, not almost all at Catholics, but disproportionately immigrant groups are Catholic, and if you believe in a. What is a world under one monarchy? It is a borderless society, so borders shouldn't really matter to you.

Your entire objective is about expanding our borders to be as broad as possible, because eventually the world will be under a single monarchy. So wh why? Could it be maybe it's that the sort of desired caliphate of these different factions of Catholicism is different. That the kind of all-encompassing governing structure that would come from like a Latin American derived caliphate is different from the ideal governing structure. Of a United States derived caliphate and that the, it's a problem of cultural differences between North American, south American, and European Catholics. What do you think, I think you could be right, but I think in showing that Catholicism takes pride in being one of the least derived religious traditions. By the Yes.

The older Catholic traditions were the most inclusive. Of different ethnic groups of all religious traditions in the name of growth, right? In the, not just in the name of growth, in the name of ideology. When they would often go to new places they would bring in saints from these new ethnic and cultural groups so that they could feel more included.

You are taking people from this new ousted economic group, ethnic group, and saying that they are literally like the next thing down from like Jesus and God, they are literally deified. That means they're above all of the other people in Rome. Above the Pope. I think Saints are above the Pope.

Yeah, saints are above the Pope. And yet they are the, they're of like a indigenous Mexican group or something like that, right? This was something that the Catholics did. So historically, the Catholics were very much about this lack of and you could say it was in the name of growth, but what do the Integralists want, if not growth? They I think what it comes down to is and this is obviously a whole different kind of worms that we will open in another podcast, but it comes down to how truth is defined and. How whether people can be saved and whether everyone needs to be saved.

So the reason why a caliphate or a, whatever a theocracy is desired is because the understanding is that you can save people, you should save as many people as you can, and therefore, having your entire society governed by a religious institution is desirable. And I, no, I agree with that. I just don't understand why a group that had that perspective, Would also be against immigration of people of their own cultural group, unless they think that they're like genuinely less similar to them than like American Protestants, which I think that may be the case. I think that's stupid and it shows, this is something I see across the conservative tradition now is people don't fully internalize how culturally different Protestant and Catholic groups are because they're on this, or different Protestant groups are from each other because they're all on the same side of the cultural divide from the supervisors now. But I, but I think you're missing a beat with modern American Catholicism, which now has this alt-right, dime square faction, like it's, a lot of people are like, converting to Catholicism from a very different.

It's like a, it's no you're right about this. A popsicle that's been dipped in like a strawberry, like ganache. Yeah. Before being redded in the Catholic chocolate ganache. So it is a different treat, oh, word what you're saying differently.

They are Protestants, they're culturally Protestant. They have recently converted to Cism and they are cosplaying as Catholics because they think it's like an older, less drive person or even atheists. Or atheist. Yeah.

Yeah. And they think that it gives them some sort of mandate to some sort of universalism that they were unable to get with their previous tradition, but they're not adopting all of the historic aspects of Catholicism that made it so successful, which was its inclusiveness. Yeah.

Yeah, I hear you on that. It's, but it's just, that's because it's not Catholicism as it was historically. It's an, it is a new thing. Yeah.

And a new ideology. But I, back to the point that I was making about Maybe scientific racism, not really being about racism, it being about fear of outgroups. And in our modern society, there needs to be some narrative reason as to why we fear Outgroups, aside from the fact that fearing Outgroups correlates with higher fertility and helps with reducing attrition, which I think is, why that persist.

And I should be clear, she doesn't mean that these are good things, but what is true is if you look at current fertility rates, fear of outgroups will increase in the population because people who fear outgroups more have more kids. Both you see this because pluralistic cultures and pluralistic countries, more kids. So like Israel and the US have had the highest resistance to prosperity induced fertility collapse for countries like Korea where there's no real outgroups within their country to be afraid of. Have some of the lowest fertility rates.

So mono, don't I say cultures? But you also see, and you see this across, like if you look about wealthiest countries with low fertility rates are often very like monocultural mono-ethnic. But also you see this within groups where people who are more xenophobic, are more racist, typically have more kids. And you see this across cultural traditions. It's not You see this, Muslims who are more xenophobic, have more kids. Christians who are more xenophobic, have more kids.

Jews who are more xenophobic, have more kids. And this just means that across the world we are going to see an increase in fear about groups, which yeah, touche, it is a successful strategy in that regards. So I guess you could say that is why it's increasing, but it like, and logically doesn't make sense. And that's why I say it's AWI perspective is that a lot of people pretend like they're arguing from it, from like a logical perspective, like a historical or genetic perspective.

When it's just, even if currently there were like genetic differences in sociological or IQs between ethnic groups, it would be meaningless in the hundred year time span. And that's the thing that's really pointless about it. It's just doesn't matter anymore.

And so I think that what we need to do is begin to, as a culture, You can still have outgroups, like outgroups, you can have ideological outgroups. You can hate and fear the people who are ideologically different from you who are trying to take your kids and convert them to their way of seeing the world. Because you know what, I promise you if I, we have Europeans, I, again, we sometimes talk to conservative Europeans. And they're like, oh, but you don't understand, like the situation we have with Muslims is very different than the situation you have in the us. You can't be as, Promus as you are or whatever. And it's bro, the Muslims aren't the ones who are trying to take your kids from you, okay? They're not the ones trying to convert your kids to hate you, okay? Your kids are not gonna, they are just as afraid of the people who are being predatory on your group.

As you are, because those groups, the reason they're accepting them as immigrants is cuz they don't have kids. And so they replace their ranks with immigrant kids just as much as they do of kids, of people who are born in the country. You guys have a common enemy and that enemy is equally preying on both of you.

We can come together in people who understand that our core goal is ideologically continuing into the future, are diverse cultural groups and who have the same problem, which is these groups that don't have kids that can only survive by praying on our kids. And this isn't an ethnic thing. This is an ideological thing. . If we actually do what we're trying or what are the things that we're trying to do in the pragmatist guided crafting religion. Is to help people understand that it is much more healthy and much more accurate to take pride in your religious traditions and in your recent cultural groups instead of seeing the world in terms of ethnic cultural groups, because religious traditions have often derived much more recently from each other.

And therefore with sociological profiles concentrating over very short periods of time what is much more interesting and meaningful differentiation between things like Quaker groups and Calvinist groups and Catholic groups and evangelical groups, regardless of ethnic tradition. If you're talking about these sort of genetic selection events and I think that's really interesting in that one, it more aligns with the evidence, but then two, it also says, Th these are things that are constantly in flux and constantly changing. And that's why, one of the things that people kept trying to get you to say on this podcast that you are on is that you're against race mixing.

And it's no, we're very pro race mixing. Why would we go? Do you wanna go into your stance on race mixing? I I just don't have, I, I don't see why it would matter. What matters is cultural compatibility and it, I don't even have a sense. What matters is that you're then creating a new group. You're increasing diversity. If you're doing that, you're creating a new social experiment.

And if that social experiment doesn't work, then that person won't end up having kids, but. If it does work well, then you have a cultural group that might be more resistant to the super virus. Totally.

It might be a better ally of all of us in the future, all of us who have kids and want to continue our cultures into the future against those groups that survive entirely by being parasitic. But we argue, even more more important by that argument than. Racial or ethnic mixing is his cultural mixing. Yeah. That's where you really get innovation. And so for me I don't know, there they're probably like if we're talking about different genetic traits coming together, like maybe if one collection of genetic traits mixes with a different gene collection of genetic traits, you end up, combining everyone's worst heritable factors and it's not good.

Or maybe you get all the best ones and it is good. I don't know, like I'm not. In a position to say which broad collections of heritable traits are well paired. But I, it, I just don't really think it matters again, in the face of things like embryo selection and in the face of things like crispr.

Yeah. And in how quickly all of these things change Totally. Yeah. That they shift over. Just that you could get a standard deviation shift in IQ in 75 years. Yeah.

That is mental. Yeah, it seems all pretty pointless. Yeah. But yeah I think, I do think it's interesting that, the, what most people think they see, I think especially those who are race realists, is that like at the very bottom of the smart spectrum are like just the racists who are like, I guess old-fashioned racists, like we just hate them cuz they're an outgroup. Which actually I think we've just argued is the real reason why the scientific racists hate.

Or are scientific racists. And then you have this like group that really is anti-racism and they're apparently Midwest. And then, the very smart people are scientific racists because, they understand like the real differences. And I don't I, again, I still really struggle to, they can see through the programming.

They can. Yes. But then I think what we're trying to argue is no. It's actually like a full circle and you actually just. Have problems without groups.

So stop trying to justify your future. Yeah. The current understanding of genetics doesn't back that.

Another thing I wanna say, and this helps understand why I'm so antagonistic to progressives. That say because we, we do believe that between families, not between ESC groups, but between families, there are genetic differences and things that can give you an advantage in the workplace, like height IQ for stuff like that, yeah. Anxiety, depression. So with that being the case, when people are like, oh, we can't allow for genetic screening. Of embryos and stuff like that. We can't allow for you to make this cheaper.

We can't allow for you to make this affordable because it could be if, like the genetic purity of humanity was interrupted with your weird science, first of all, and this is a view that progressives always take. You're arguing for like maintaining genetic purity of humans that are like you. Yeah. You're the bad guy also.

You, because science like brought height. Is edible. Like we know this, right? IQ is herital. We know this. This is like something that is just not really disagreed upon that being the case.

If you don't allow us to make this technology affordable, then what you are doing is baking in the existing systemic inequalities of our society. Yeah. You're saying this works for me, but at a family level, like, why are you doing that? Why do you think that makes you the good guy? Oh, I know it's because you've benefited from them. Because you are at the top of your local social hierarchies. You've gotten your fancy degree because you happen to get the right roll of the dice at the right time, and you wanna preserve that for people who are like you. And that's the end of the real game, and I see it.

Everyone sees it. You are also racist, you progressive turd who says that we shouldn't make this technology more accessible, which actually democratizes the field of the most persistent form of genuine inequality in our society, which is genetic differences that families didn't choose for their kids. But you might be saying, but some groups will still choose not to have access to this even if you make this cheap I don't see you complaining about the kids of Jehovah's witnesses dying more because they're Luddites about technology and they don't give their kids like blood transfusions or something. That's the way that all of the groups are that just choose not to engage with technology, but we should at least give everyone the shot of a blood transfusion if it can be made cheapened for everyone, which is the crazy thing about these genetic technologies is they intrinsically are so easy to make cheap because you're just comparing things to spreadsheets. And this is where it gets really interesting for me is that we are entering.

A new world where there are groups of people who want to maintain the systemic advantages that they've gotten. And this is something I really believe, I think that right now, the people who go out there and because you can look at the advantage and you know that a large portion of IQ is edible. Okay. And these people who have achieved success in our society. And they go and they try to look so cool by being like IQ is incredible.

Everyone has an equal playing field. I don't, these will be seen the same way that we today see people who in the past were saying, Oh, I don't see race. The, a white person who's become successful, in part because they're white, because they had an easier time with fewer systemic discrimination against them. No pretending you don't see the advantages that you've had over other people, whether it's height or iq.

Now again, none of this is ethnically linked in any sort of a meaningful way, but it's the same and that it is not virtuous to pretend you don't see the advantages you have over other people. And it is definitely not virtuous to prevent people like us who are trying to narrow the playing field, who are trying to allow for some sort of true equality in our society who are trying to allow for families to make these reproductive choices for themselves. That is not a virtuous position, that is not a progressive position, what it is or position towards preserving the existing power hierarchy of which you are a beneficiary and pretending like you don't see all the advantages you've had in life. I'm gonna push back and I will say I don't think the people, neither those who said, I don't see race, nor those who say things aren't heritable. Yesterday and today do so with a desire to keep things the way that they are. I think they do so out of performative virtue signaling just trying to show how very enlightened they are.

So a culture can do something for a reason even if individuals don't do something for a reason. And so I will be generous to you. Most of these people are too stupid to think about the implications of what they're actually doing. While they may be smarter than the general population and have some. Ability that got them into their PhD at Harvard. They're dumb enough or they are narrow-minded enough, or maybe even worse than being stupid.

They've never genuinely thought through the implications of their actions. They're just following orders from the existing hierarchy. The existing, society has gone through many different groups that have maintained control, different religious traditions, et cetera, that they've maintained control of society, and there's a group of smart. Sort of whatever, people who just pathologically obey the order and they go and they kill Galileo because he's saying, oh thing, look at what the data actually says. And then there's some people who just will for fun try to do things that are against the orthodoxy.

When the church controlled everything, these were the people who were like into. Black magic and the occult and stuff like that, where it was like a form of pseudoscience that gained traction just because it was anti orthodoxy. But then there were other people who were like, Hey, you should really take a look at this evolution thing. You should really take a look at this, helio centrism thing. And.

They were persecuted because they were going against the orthodoxy because there is a certain mindset and so you're trying to get me to say it's not really their fault, it is their fault. They have sublimated the long-term, even from their own perspective, benefit of society. Which is from their perspective, often increasing equality, lowering emotional pain, which by the way is something we can select against whi crispr.

But the very things that they claim to be against where we can at a genetic level make people less susceptible to things like uh, major depressive disorder. So it de it. That they are willing to ignore those long-term benefits to society, even from their own perspective, just so that they can maintain their position within the existing hierarchy just so that they don't rock the boat. And this, there's this guy, Adam.

Rutherford. he's some famous geneticist who is always attacking us on Twitter. Not a real geneticist, a pseudo geneticist, but he just is so interested in supporting the orthodoxy and you can see it in his hypocrisy. He is against us. Genetically selecting against are embryos that may have things like cancer and stuff like that, right? That have a higher probability of that.

But he absolutely supports and would fight to his dying breath, the right of a woman to abort a baby that was found to have something wrong with it in the womb. So, Why does he hold these two obviously insanely contradictory views because one of them is progressive orthodoxy and gets him little points with the minions, and the other is some new idea that people haven't adapted to yet. So he's gonna fight it because he doesn't actually care about anything he says he cares about. He cares about power. And that is it. And that is what these people who have gained power within the academic institutions care about.

They care about power and nothing else. Not about the suffering, not about the systemic inequality, not about any of the long-term damage they're doing to society. Am I being too spicy? I think passion is very welcome in this household, so you're not gonna get me complaining. But it's yeah, I don't disagree with you.

I uh, I, I like to think that everyone is acting in well-intentioned ways that they're doing the best they can with the information they have. And that culture, like you say, is more at fault here. Yeah. And I disagree with you. I think that everyone wants to believe they're acting in well-intentioned ways, but some people are willing to peer through. The societal punishment they get for going, for saying things that aren't mainstream.

The emotional pain that's required to admit that the world isn't fair as it's structured now, to get to the other side and say, okay, if it turns out that different families have different levels of like genetic iq, how can we make this better? Instead of saying, I won't accept that because that would mean the world is unfair, and then I had to deal with something hard. Yes, in a way they are trying to be the good guys, but they are trying to be the good guys so they can see themselves as the good guys, not because they're actually trying to optimize for a better world. They believe they're trying to optimize for a better world, but it's because they stop at every single idea that may cause them to have to give up any of the societal power they've accumulated or face any emotional pain. You're probably not.

Not wrong. But I appreciate that you always try to see the best in people. You are such a kindhearted person and this is why you tolerate a beast like me.

No. I think it's that I can't read other people, so I dunno what they're doing, but I love these conversations. I love talking with you so much. So thanks. This was fun.

Definitely clarified some of my views on. The new sort of scientific racism movement that seems to be boiling up. So interesting. Thanks for that. So the, here's the thing about scientific racists, again, they're just as bad as the other group because if they stopped their ridiculous team politics and actually looked at the data, they keep banding around, around polygenic markers for iq, how quickly those things can change, how quickly they're being selected for in society, they would realize how pointless thinking about any of this in terms of ethnic groups is it literally doesn't align with their own data.

Things change too fast for there to be persistent, meaningful differences in ethnic groups. There you have it. People don't think through things very well, but that's a pervasive problem and a fault of humanity. At least we'll be, at least we'll be skewered by both the left and the right for this take. Thank goodness.

I'll see you later. Gorgeous. See ya. This was fun.

2023-06-05 23:19

Show Video

Other news