Up close and proximate

Posted by JW Holliday on May 09, 2005, 04:20 PM | #

Here are some “proximate” interests at work:-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/swedenchinaresearch

... which may of course be related to “ultimate” genetic interests as well.

In any case, it would seem that these Chinese “cognitive elitists”, whether by choice or coercion or both, have their loyalty to their Chinese ethnie, not toward their Swedish “fellow cognitive elitists.”

And so it goes.

Posted by Svigor on May 09, 2005, 05:28 PM | #

I would very much like to see the CPers come and critique this essay of yours JW.

Would you mind if I put this post up at my site?

Posted by JW Holliday on May 09, 2005, 06:04 PM | #

Svigor,

OK, sure add the link or the physical essay to your site, if you wish.  Keep in mind though that both Salter and Deutsch do a better job than I in explaining the importance of genetic information.  Salter also spends a large amount of space evaluating memes as a competitor to genes, and his analysis is excellent.  I think that if one were to combine Salter’s and Deutsch’s analysis, with my humble effort as an add-on brief summary, that’ll be an effective argument to the CPers.

Please note that Deutsch approaches the topic from a purely scientific angle, his comments are devoid of political comment.  Based upon comments at the end of his book (eg, agreeing that it would be “racist” to deny humanity to bodiless human intelligences) and some of the tone of his work, I would suspect that Deutsch may be politically similar to Richard Dawkins.  I’m just speculating - who knows what his politics are.  That does not obviate the fact that his comments on genetic information are very useful, and high-light the importance of such information, even at the level of cosmology - not just our little corner of the universe.

Posted by Svigor on May 09, 2005, 06:14 PM | #

I’ll just put the link up, on my essays page.

Posted by ben tillman on May 09, 2005, 06:16 PM | #

If a meme caused the extinction of the group that believed it, then the meme disappears as well.

Exactly.  Memes are an instrument created by and used by genetic structures.

Posted by ben tillman on May 09, 2005, 06:18 PM | #

Life itself, if it can be said to have any objective purpose, concerns the replication of genetic information.

Chapter 1 of John Maynard Smith’s “The Origins of Life” is titled “Life and Information”.

Posted by JW Holliday on May 09, 2005, 07:09 PM | #

A few points:-

As Salter makes clear, an ultimate optimal strategy for defending genetic interests may not be possible in the real world. Instead, we may need to “optimize” as much as possible, without reaching “perfection”.  Part of this is an understanding that whatever can motivate for greater adaptive pursuit of genetic interests should be considered as potentially valuable, despite whatever rough edges it may have. 

Religion is one possible example.  I’m not religious myself; what I identify in this regard as more important are ethnic and meta-ethnic identities that, in some cases, may not perfectly fit with exact genetic distances.  Thus, while it is possible that some Slavs may be more genetically similar to, for example, Germans than they are to other Slavs, pan-Slavism can still be an adaptive strategy for pursuing genetic interests if it motivates Slavs to defend these genetic interests - for example, by erecting barriers to alien immigration to preserve their “Slavic identity”, social cohesion leading to organic solidarity that defends the interests of the members of the group, etc.

Two conditions are paramount here:-

1) In cases of possible kinship overlap, aggressive strategies toward closely related groups absolutely need to be avoided or greatly minimized.  Thus, pan-Slavism is OK if the groups in question are not hostile to, say, Germans.  Conversely, even if Hitler had won the war, his aggressive actions toward the French and Poles etc may well have been maladaptive for some Germans - eg, some East Germans may be more genetically similar to Poles than to, say, Bavarians; some Germans at the French border may be more similar to Frenchmen than to, say, Prussians.

2) Ethnic and meta-ethnic identities need to be based upon a large degree of genetic similarity compared to most (if not all) other peoples.  Thus, a Slavic meta-identity is OK -  even if some Slavs are slightly more similar to Germans than to other Slavs,  but providing they are more similar to the other Slavs compared to just about any other ethnic group (which they are). 

Thus, as long as #1 is held to, and ethnies with potential large kinship overlap do not engage in aggression with one another, then it can be adaptive to have identities that are somewhat modified by non-genetic factors, IF (and the “IF” is absolutely crucial), these identities have the net effect of boosting genetic interests. 

Thus, a pan-Slavism or pan-Germanisn that is aggressive toward neighboring peoples is likely to be maladaptive to many people in those groups.  A defensive identity that respects the interests of neighboring groups and that uses the identity to protect members of the group from genetic displacement is adaptive.

So, I do not think it necessary for peoples who are very closely genetically similar to re-arrange ethnic/meta-ethnic identities based upon a slight re-ordering of genetic distances.  If Czechs are more similar to Germans than they are to Serbs, this does not mean that Czechs must drop a Slavic identity in favor of a Germanic one - as long as having a Slavic identity motivates Czechs to defend their specific genetic interests, and in such a way that does not compromise the interests of neighbors.

As Salter says, Europe is the most genetically homogenous of continents, which is a good reason to eschew intra-European hostilty (and to condemn Hitler for doing that).

Please note though that if some people want to reorder their identities based upon genetic information, they should have the right to do so.  I just don’t think it is essential, IF the choice is between two groups that are 1) not in conflict and 2) are so similar compared to the rest of humanity that the differences between the two, in a relative sense, are extremely minor.  Again, we should strive for real-life optimization while avoiding manifestly maladaptive choices (eg, genetically distant immigration, mass immigration, constitutional patriotism, etc).

Posted by bbarlow on May 09, 2005, 10:59 PM | #

There seems to be an irrational attachment here to one’s genes.  The entity that is “me” is in my brain, not in my genes.  Genes in and of themselves are meaningless—the only meaningfulness of genes comes from their function, not the sequence of A’s, C’s, T’s, and G’s per se.

Posted by dlg on May 10, 2005, 01:26 AM | #

The entity that is “me” is in my brain

Are you sure about this? Scientists have been dissecting brains for some time now, and they have yet to find a ‘me’ in there.

Posted by Pericles on May 10, 2005, 02:42 AM | #

BBarlow,

There is nothing irrational about an attachment to one’s genes. My children are more important to me than your children are to me. That is because we may live in the 21st century, yet we are descended from generations of humans who did not think the same maladaptive thoughts you now seem to have.

Outcomes are what matter. Success or failure hang by a thread. Whether your genes or memes reproduce themselves and last for a significant period is in the lap of the gods. Many family lines are now extinct. You cannot please everyone so you might as well please yourself. An average life lasts 22 thousnd days. Way too short to waste a single day. We are a long time dead.

Pericles

Posted by JW Holliday on May 10, 2005, 05:34 AM | #

BB: “There seems to be an irrational attachment here to one’s genes.  The entity that is “me” is in my brain, not in my genes.  Genes in and of themselves are meaningless—the only meaningfulness of genes comes from their function, not the sequence of A’s, C’s, T’s, and G’s per se. “

This comment is fairly breathtaking in its absurdity - if this is the quality of GNXP, then my view that that blog is over-rated is wholly justified.  Brains do not replicate.  Unless Barlow is some sort of amoeba (and only he can answer that) any children he may produce will not be a result of his brain fissioning off, but as a result of the genetic information encoded in the material - you know, all those As,Ts, Cs, Gs he thinks are so meaningless - passed down to the next generation.  How can anyone separate genes from their function when the function is based upon the genes themselves and are related to the information encoded within them?

One set of genes produces a Swede, another a Nigerian.  That information is encoded in the genes.  Phenotypes do not reproduce.  Function: a person who engages in weightlifting and takes steroids will alter the function of their muscles.  If they have children, this function will not be passed down.  The baby will not be born with rippling muscles.  The “muscle baby” that Godless was so obsessed about months ago was the result of a genetic mutation, not the result of his daddy doing lots of bench-pressing.  The reason that phenotypic resemblance - including the potential for muscular development as well as any other “function” - occurs between related individuals is because of shared genes.  All life strives to reproduce, and reproduction is genetic replication.  This is basic science - not something I guess that GNXPers know anything about.

Again, fascinating.  Here we have someone from GENE expression, that site of “hapmap” discussions and so forth, coming here suggesting that genes are nothing more than meaningless (!!!!) stretches of base pairs.  GNXP is not about science, but about promoting the interests of the site’s founders.  That much is clear. If what people take away from GNXP is that genes are essentially meaningless, then that site is useless as regards basic science as well as politics.  I’d suggest that Barlow take a basic genetics course.  Once he cuts the umbilical cord with his Asiatic masters, he may actually learn something about the real world in which he lives.

Posted by David B on May 10, 2005, 07:10 AM | #

To the best of my knowledge, no-one using the name ‘BBarlow’ posts at GNXP, though he seems to be a thoughtful and sensible chap.

I *do* post at GNXP, and since I am the only GNXPer who has commented at any length on the theories of Frank Salter, I suppose I am the main target of JW Holliday’s vitriol.  But on reading his comments, I don’t see that he has really addressed, or perhaps understood, my criticisms of Salter.  For those who want to see what I actually wrote, and not JWH’s version of it, go here

www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003895.html

and follow the links.

Now I suppose I had better find out what my Asiatic masters want me to do next!

Posted by Kubilai on May 10, 2005, 08:45 AM | #

I thinks Steve Sailer summed it up best at the beginning of YOUR vitriol.

David:

Your concerns about interracial marriage are mostly a red, or at best, a pink herring that distract from the central issue.
Steve Sailer | Email | Homepage | 01.23.05 - 3:37 pm | #

and this….

I keep hearing the same tired refusals to think hard about the question over and over again with almost zero engagement with Harpending, Sarich, and Salter’s math. Maybe it’s all wrong, but all I’m hearing are debunkings of straw men.
Steve Sailer | Email | Homepage | 01.23.05 - 9:14 pm | #

and this…

When a highly original book comes along, it’s easy to explain why the glass is half empty, but that’s a fairly pointless exercise until explaining why the glass is half full. David has made little effort to fairly explain the half full aspects of the book, so his random sniping is largely a waste of time.
Steve Sailer | Email | Homepage | 01.24.05 - 10:54 pm | #

It appears that your magnum opus of Salter is fraught with inconsistencies, errata, and strawmen.  You’ve come to this board twice now, unilaterally dismissing the arguments made as too trite for you to even attempt to refute and linked to your GNXP tirade.  Yeah, we’ve READ it.  It’s wrong.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 10, 2005, 09:31 AM | #

“There seems to be an irrational attachment here to one’s genes.  The entity that is ‘me’ is in my brain, not in my genes.  Genes in and of themselves are meaningless—the only meaningfulness of genes comes from their function, not the sequence of A’s, C’s, T’s, and G’s per se.”  (—Birch Barlow)

Well, Birch, I suppose, in light of this brilliant statement (almost as brilliant as some of Randy MacDonald’s, that other star GnXp blogger), it’s OK to commit genocide against other races than the white Christian one.  Which one’s the next victim of race-replacement through excessive incompatible immigration?  Foaming-at-the-mouth anti-white Subcontinentals and Orientals like GC and “AsianDude” aren’t the only ones who can play the race-replacement game.  Two can play.  Whites can also play that game.  So, tell everyone, please—since there’s no basis for such “an irrational attachment to one’s genes”—what race is next on the list for planned extinction?  It’s like a friend of mine in college used to say about murderers who got acquitted on the insanity defense (—“they didn’t realize there was anything wrong in killing people, so they’re not guilty of a crime”), “OK, if there’s nothing wrong with killing other people, there must be nothing wrong with killing them.  Send them to the gas chamber.”  If there’s not a thing in the world wrong with race-replacing white Christians there must not be anything wrong with race-replacing tons of other races, peoples, and ethnicities.  I demand to see the list of all those races slated to undergo this process next.  Can anyone at GnXp supply it?  How about David B.?  Where is this list, David?  Speak up, man!  Let’s have it!

(I really have to say, I couldn’t believe my eyes on reading that comment by BB.  He’s supposed to be a blogger [i.e., someone who actually knows something about his subject-matter]???  That comment of his was a jaw-dropper, is all I can say.  I’m trying as hard as I can to avoid calling him just plain stupid, but I don’t know how much longer that’ll be possible, frankly ...)

“Many family lines are now extinct.”  (—Pericles)

Yes, and many races and ethnicities are too.  White Christians and their various sub-groups don’t plan on being next.  No, not a single solitary one of them.

Posted by JW Holliday on May 10, 2005, 09:49 AM | #

Birch Barlow inverts the importance of genes and gene function.  The purpose of gene function is to faciliate genetic replication.  Thus, it is gene function, not genetic information, that is “meaningless” in and of itself.  According to Barlow’s “logic”, viral genetic function is to make people sick, and salmon genetic function is to swim upstream.

Wrong.  The phenotype exists as vehicles for replication of genes.  Even the great god Richie D, Prince of Strawmen, understands that!

CP fails even on a non-genetic basis.  Proximate interests, by definition, are subjective; only ultimate interests are objective.  Bush’s definition of freedom is not mine, GNXP’s definition of quality of life is not mine.  Imposition of proximate interest values - particularly when such damages ultimate
interests - is the moral equivalent of Stalinism.  I have no problem in designating GNXP as a proto-Stalinist endeavor, for that reason.

Posted by ben tillman on May 10, 2005, 10:37 AM | #

There seems to be an irrational attachment here to one’s genes.

You could say that about an attachment to anything.  You argued previously that each human cares more for himself than he does about others because he “feels” the immediate consequences of things that happen to him.  But what’s rational about that?  Why should feelings matter? Do you not have an irrational attachment to your feelings?

You possess values that influence your analysis here—values that derive from genes.  The purpose of those values, form the gene’s-eye view, is to replicate the genes that put theme there—either your own or those of the entity that has turned you into a “pod person”, making you part of its extended phenotype. 

I understand that you may be unable to grasp these facts, but at the least you are able to grasp that the critique you level can be levelled as effectively against your own position.

Posted by ben tillman on May 10, 2005, 10:53 AM | #

David B -

Razib’s comment on the link you posted is instructive:

i think arguments about ethnic identity being important in maintaining social cohersion are fine. my problem is that using hamiltonian genetical processes to serve as the structure and glue for this seems to be extending the science farther than it currently goes….

Hamilton is irrelevant.  We are not positing the operation of Hamiltonian genetical processes; we are (1) making empirical observations (which may suggest the operation of Hamiltonian processes or something along the lines of Rushton’s genetic similarity theory) and (2) using the domain-general capacity of our intellects to decide how we should behave.

Regarding (1), we care more about the what than the why and are not arguing anything about the why.  However, we are smart enough to know that a theory that is at odds with empirical facts requires revision. 

All your discussion of Hamiltonian processes and “green beard” effects is like the analyses that “prove” that a curveball can’t curve or a bumblebee can’t fly.  Ethnic nepotism exists in the real world (both among people like us who are conscious of our genetic interests and among those who are not), no matter what your theories suggest, and it is up to you to accept the empirical data and revise your theories accordingly.

A step in the right direction would be to read David Sloan Wilson’s two books.

Posted by ben tillman on May 10, 2005, 11:02 AM | #

Let’s look at this example of the critique of Salter:

‘Life’ doesn’t have an ‘interest’, any more than water has an ‘interest’ in flowing downhill.

If life doesn’t have an interest, what does?  Nothing, of course.

Thus, the proper critique would be to say, “There is no such thing as an interest.”  But we get the half-baked critique above instead.

Posted by David B on May 10, 2005, 11:48 AM | #

Well, someone warned me that it was a waste of time commenting here, and the responses to my earlier comment (my first on this site, as far as I recall) prove them right.  Several people claim to have read my posts on GNXP, but I don’t see any sign that they have understoood them.

For example, Ben Tillman says ‘If life doesn’t have an interest, what does?  Nothing, of course.’

Well, here are some extracts from what I actually wrote:

“As Salter himself recognises, he is using the word ‘interest’ in an unfamiliar and controversial sense. In its primary, everyday sense, we use the word to designate the wants and needs of individual sentient beings (usually humans, but sometimes other animals). These may be either subjective wants (such as a desire for food or sex) or objective needs, such as survival, but in general we value the latter only as preconditions for the former. Survival is usually in our interest, but not if we are in constant pain, or being kept alive as a senseless vegetable…. Our desires have a biological foundation. In most cases they contribute in obvious ways to survival and/or reproduction, and it is easy to see that the desire may have evolved by natural selection as a motive to action…. Different desires and interests may conflict with each other, in which case we have to decide between them, based on their relative strength, persistence, etc., and our experience of previous choices and outcomes. I don’t see any basis for assuming that we should choose the interest that is biologically most ‘adaptive‘, in the sense of maximising reproductive fitness…. In a metaphorical sense we often extend the concept of interests to entities other than individual sentient beings. For example we might talk about the interests of a corporation or a nation. But these interests are usually derivative, in the sense that they can be reduced to the average or aggregate interests of individuals. More doubtfully, we can extend the concept of interest to entities such as genes or molecules, and say that it is in their ’interest’ to survive or reproduce. This is a risky straining of terminology… Salter’s concept of ‘genetic interests’ is an attempt to base individual interests on the metaphorical ‘interest’ of genes. I am unable to attach any intelligible meaning to most of what he says about it. No doubt he is right to say that ‘the process of genetic evolution is certainly the ultimate cause of our existence’, but to leap from this (which is a statement of fact) to the claim that ‘genetic continuity is the ultimate interest of all life’ seems to me mere gibberish. ‘Life’ doesn’t have an ‘interest’, any more than water has an ‘interest’ in flowing downhill. And even if ‘life’ or ‘genes’ did have an ‘interest’, so what? Why should we as individuals put the interest of our genes before our personal wants and needs, or even give it any weight at all? Salter does recognise the ‘so what?’ objection, but his answer to it is just the same old flapdoodle about genes as ‘fundamental’ to our existence. Ultimately, Salter’s attitude towards the genes is more mystical than scientific.”

That really is the heart of the issue, and I don’t see any comment here that even begins to address the point. Until I do, I see no point in commenting again.

Posted by ben tillman on May 10, 2005, 11:58 AM | #

If Salter’s attitude is “more mystical than scientific”, why are you wasting your time with it?  Aren’t you supposed to be doing science rather than mysticism?

But in responding to my ill-advised reference to a silly statement you made (that is, as you note, surrounded by a less-silly discussion of the topic), you ignore the important point made in my prior point:  your Hamiltonian framework is irrelevant.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 10, 2005, 12:57 PM | #

As for David B.‘s last comment, above: 

A big yaawwnnnn….....Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….......

I mean, did anyone actually READ that convoluted collection of the most clumsy, self-serving sophistries???  Could anyone actually plow THROUGH that hypnotic partisan screed masquerading as neutral, disinterested thinking???  It’s exactly like the race-denial crap in that Scientific American article a few log entries back:  pure self-serving sophistry of the most laughably transparent kind.

“Ultimately, Salter’s attitude towards the genes is more mystical than scientific.” 

OK, I see now.  Hey, let’s go with that. .... So, since white-race haplotypes can’t be the only colletions of genes whose importance is merely “mystical” rather than “scientific,” I’d like to know which other races are going to subjected to what white Christians and their various sub-divisions are expected now to undergo?  When are the Negroes, Chinese, Mexicans, Hispanics generally, Japanese, Vietnamese, Bushmen, Eskimos, Jews, Burmese, Hindus, Pakistanis, and all the others, getting replaced with different races?  I mean ... isn’t that the plan? ...

... It isn’t the plan? ...

But ... but ... didn’t David B. just finish telling us that genes in the Salterian sense (i.e., it’s OK to want to preserve your ethnicity and race intact) have no scientific importance?  The whole idea of racial self-preservation is mystical nonsense?  Well—all right then, it’s mystical nonsense.  So ... when do we start erasing all the other races in the world, David?  How come you never answer that question?  Answer it, please, you pathetic, brazen race-replacer, or shut up. 

“Well, someone warned me that it was a waste of time commenting here”

Yes, when you come here it wastes everyone’s time at this site.  Your race-erasing sophistries might be more welcome elsewhere.  At GnXp, for example.

Posted by JW Holliday on May 10, 2005, 01:25 PM | #

David B’s strategy is to say that we haven’t answered his points, even though we do.  The entire proximate post that these comments are a thread to is an explanation of the importance of life and hence, genes.  All the proximate interests that GNXPers value have as a cause and a consequence living human beings.  As such, life is predominant.  Ben Tillman’s point strikes home.  If life has no “interest” (then, David B has no interest in being alive?  Perhaps in the next UK race riot, nothing will be lost if Dave B is struck down by a white-hating South Asian?), then what does?  Is stamp collecting an interest, or “eating toffee”, but not existence and reproduction?  Either there are interests or there are not.  If interests exist, then certainly existence is an interest for life. Life has an interest in not being dead.  The existence of ethnic groups is an interest.  All else being equal (putting aside Terry Schiavo situations), existence is better than non-existence. living things are encoded by genes, life is based upon genetic information.  If life has a “purpose” it is reproduction, not “eating toffee.”  David Deutsch makes an effective argument of the absolute importance of life and genetic information as one of the strands of reality. That is worth reading.

Let us back up a bit.  What is important or not important?  A subjective question, in one sense.  But can we not note grade levels of importance, levels of preferences?  If someone is starving, access to food is more important than “Mahler.”  Basic biological needs take precedence.  A man dying of thirst will prefer a drink of water to a Mozart CD. 

Why?

Existence takes precedence over all else.  Biological continuity of self takes precedence.  Life is fundamental.  The most ardent hedonist could not “enjoy life” if they were dead.  If, David B ceased to exist, no more toffee, Mahler, or stamp collecting.  If interests exist, then the ultimate interest is existence.  If a living organism were immortal, its ultimate interest would merely be its self-survival.  Since we are mortal, our long range interests are the replication of our genetic material.  Phenotypes die and turn into dust, but the genetic information encoded in our genes survive.  Which seems to me to be more important than a temporary thrill coming from stamp collecting or toffee. 

Like Salter, I will not commit the naturalistic fallacy.  The existence of genetic interests does not mean that a person *must* pursue these.  One could choose to be foolish like the two extended phenotypes, Barlow and B.  Very well.  But let us not obfuscate.  If interests exist, then the fundamental interest for life is existence, and existence for mortal organisms is ultimately predicated on genetic continuity.  The world will be populated by those that, if by instinct if for no other reason, value their continuity.

Posted by David B on May 10, 2005, 02:00 PM | #

Sorry, JWH, but unless you plan on cloning yourself you (i.e. your distinctive combination of genes) will have no genetic continuity beyond one or two generations.  Your genes themselves may, but they are shared by people of all races, usually in quite similar proportions, so you really need not worry about their survival (except in so far as the human species as a whole is at risk).

Beyond that, I have nothing to add.  In so far as any of the comments above go beyond personal abuse and false attribution of motives (what the devil is ‘constitutional patriotism’?), they all seem to rest on the same loose and metaphorical use of the word ‘interest’ which I have criticised in the work of Salter himself.  You may find my criticisms ‘boring’, but it is better to talk boring sense than exciting (and dangerous) nonsense.

Posted by Kubilai on May 10, 2005, 02:07 PM | #

Ultimately, Salter’s attitude towards the genes is more mystical than scientific. - David B

As much as I had the displeasure of reading through your multi-post tripe, or as Fred eloquently calls it a “hypnotic partisan screed”, the first time and now your abridged, meaty version, my answer to you is unchanged.  It and you are wrong.

A few glaringly wrong points…

Survival is usually in our interest, but not if we are in constant pain, or being kept alive as a senseless vegetable….

This is wrong.  Survival is in our interests even to our very last dying day.  This “enlightened” attitude of being allowed to die instead of fighting to the very end is a modern construct that has taken a life of its own (no pun intended) for a multitude of reasons.  A few are strictly embedded in the way health care is administered today and the role of cost containment has forced its head into patient/doctor decision making processes.  I can 100% assure you that patients want to live, no matter what the outlook is and no matter what the cost.

I don’t see any basis for assuming that we should choose the interest that is biologically most ‘adaptive‘, in the sense of maximising reproductive fitness….

Another modern leftist social construct that we need to fulfill our most selfish desires AS LONG AS those desires do not coincide with what is our natural instinct, healthy reproduction and genetic propagation.

Salter’s concept of ‘genetic interests’ is an attempt to base individual interests on the metaphorical ‘interest’ of genes. I am unable to attach any intelligible meaning to most of what he says about it. No doubt he is right to say that ‘the process of genetic evolution is certainly the ultimate cause of our existence’, but to leap from this (which is a statement of fact) to the claim that ‘genetic continuity is the ultimate interest of all life’ seems to me mere gibberish.

This goes along the lines of what Sailer was trying to get you to understand.  His “political” view aside, his treatment of the math is spot on and even you do not refute it.  It shows our genetic interests lie further out than our immediate family tree and into our ethnic groups.  I am also of the belief that our genetic interests DO encompass genetic continuity which is our basic goal.  If it were not for this most basic drive, we would not have been here as long as we have been. 

And even if ‘life’ or ‘genes’ did have an ‘interest’, so what? Why should we as individuals put the interest of our genes before our personal wants and needs, or even give it any weight at all?

Now here is the real crux of your argument.  The leftist mantra of “if it feels good, just do it”.  You simply do not agree that genetic interests are important and put more weight on the leftist mantra du jour.  The leftist mantra is anti-family, anti-decency, anti-morals, anti-common sense, anti-genetic interests, and anti-EVolution.  It is counter evolutionary though.  Again, if we abide by extreme leftist ideology, YOUR ideology, we wouldn’t have made it this far.

All this aside, how about responding to Fred, that being when are you planning your racial extinction ideology on these other races?

Posted by Kubilai on May 10, 2005, 02:21 PM | #

Sorry, JWH, but unless you plan on cloning yourself you (i.e. your distinctive combination of genes) will have no genetic continuity beyond one or two generations.  Your genes themselves may, but they are shared by people of all races, usually in quite similar proportions, so you really need not worry about their survival (except in so far as the human species as a whole is at risk). - David B

This is pure bull.  Are you telling us you cannot understand the concept of “breeding”?  Something so relatively simple that any dog or horse breeder knows the concept quite well?  David, you are being quite obtuse or purposefully mendacious.  Take your pick.  What YOU propose, simply how we should treat our genetic material (ie reproduction) will lead us exactly to what you state, that being an eventual extinction of said genetic material.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 10, 2005, 02:27 PM | #

And even if ‘life’ or ‘genes’ did have an ‘interest’, so what? Why should we as individuals put the interest of our genes before our personal wants and needs, or even give it any weight at all?

Why should we as individuals put raising a family above watching Porno and playing with ourselves for a lifetime?

Posted by ben tillman on May 10, 2005, 03:13 PM | #

Why should we as individuals put the interest of our genes before our personal wants and needs, or even give it any weight at all?

Why should we give any weight to “our personal wants and needs”?  I can’t think of any reason why one should do so without recognizing the more fundamental interest of which these wants and needs are supposed to be a (perhaps imperfect) reflection. 

The ethical system you advocate boils down to hedonism.  But why should we seek pleasure?  Whatever the answer, is it not true that the answer must come from your (or an interloper’s) genetic structures?  Is hedonism adaptive?  Does a hedonistic ethic tend to further the coalescence of “individual” humans into a cohesive organismic unit?  Is it possible that your genetic interests are served by advocating the adoption of a maladaptive ideology?

But, then again, what is pleasure?  Is it the recognition of the fulfillment of proximate goals (which exist as a result of genetic structures’ efforts to achieve ultimate goals)?  Is it the result of the recognition of the achievement of ultimate goals?  If one knows what one’s ultimate goal is (i.e., maximizing one’s inclusive fitness), is it possible for a sane person to experience conscious pleasure in anything other than the latter recognition?

Knowing that “I” am the product of genetic structures that want to reproduce, how can I conclude that I should act to thwart their desires?  Only one way I can think of:  through the intervention of the genetic structures of competing organisms that manipulate me to do otherwise. 

Of course, what makes natural selection possible is differences among organisms; else there would be nothing to select among.  One category of such differences is differences in domain-specific mechanisms designed to achieve ultimate goals that produce “pleasure” at the achievement of proximate goals.  Even without the intervention of parasites, a human’s conception of its “interest” will diverge to a greater or lesser degree from its “true” interest—because our genetic structures continue to make technological advances and must face an ever-changing environment.  Our genetic structures are playing technological catch-up, trying to “build a better mousetrap” to catch a mouse that has already evolved into something else.  Though they are working on perfecting things, our genetic structures have not perfected things so that our reflexive “pleasure” coincides precisely with our genetic interest.  Such a circumstance, however, is not the same as rejecting our interest at a conscious level. 

Since all our motivations ultimately have a genetic foundation, how can we humans consciously choose to ignore our genetic interests after we have become aware of them?  If the genetic foundation of the choice is not in our own genetic structures, it must have its foundations in the genetic structures of another organism.

Posted by David B on May 10, 2005, 03:48 PM | #

Ben:  if you don’t want to give any weight to your personal wants and needs, I’m not going to force you to.

I must ruefully retire from this discussion, chastened by experience.

Scanning through the above comments again, the only point I think is worth picking up is the reference to Steve Sailer’s cheeky suggestion that I should ‘do the math’.  As I pointed out to Steve at the time, I have no problem with Salter’s (or rather Harpending’s) math - indeed, as I showed in my post on ‘Interracial marriage - Salter’s Fallacy’, I understand it rather better than Salter himself.  But in any case, the math is largely irrelevant.  Once it is conceded that ‘ethnic genetic interests’ have nothing to do with Hamilton’s Rule (and Salter himself concedes this), it becomes a question of values rather than facts.  And I don’t share the values of most of the commentators here.

Posted by ben tillman on May 10, 2005, 03:57 PM | #

Once it is conceded that ‘ethnic genetic interests’ have nothing to do with Hamilton’s Rule (and Salter himself concedes this), it becomes a question of values rather than facts.

Unbelievable.  Salter writes a book on ethics, and Boxenhorn complains that he’s discussing values!

Posted by ben tillman on May 10, 2005, 04:10 PM | #

Ben:  if you don’t want to give any weight to your personal wants and needs, I’m not going to force you to.

So, you’re not seeking to commit aggression; you’re not going to impose your values on me; I shouldn’t impose mine on you (or others).

Wrong.  In attempting, however feebly, to provide an intellectual justification for the atomisation of competing organisms (or potential organisms), you indeed attempt to commit aggression every bit as much as if you took a saw to me and started severing my extremities.  You need not convince me; merely convincing anyone connected to me to sever his conections to me is an act of aggression against me.

Posted by JW Holliday on May 10, 2005, 04:17 PM | #

To go back to the topic of the post: what is the utility of cognitive elitism?  Is high-IQ an end to itself?  That makes no sense.  Then perhaps we can paraphrase Barlow and say that it is the function of high IQ that is important, not the mere existence of high IQ, independent of its effects.  To hear those who value high-IQ (including myself), the benefits revolve around effects that can be summarized as “improving the quality of life.”  Is that wrong?  I do not think so.  If we agree that cognitive elitism has as a benefit improving the quality of life (presumably the GNXP position, unless they propose that intelligence is an “interest” without regard to utility), then we have a problem.  David B tells us that life has no interests. 

That being so, then life can have no interest in its quality, no?  Who then cares about high-IQ?  What good is it for?  Someone can say that they value facial appearance more than IQ.  Why not? If eating toffee is as relevant as genetic reproduction, then certainly physical appearance is as important than IQ.  If every person’s subjective proximate interests are important, then person A’s dislike for South Asian physical
appearance is as important as whatever putative benefits to be brought by South Asian cognitive elitism.  Why value one more than the other?  Who is to judge utility, and if life indeed has no interests, what utility does a high-IQ have anyway?  The “who cares” argument cuts in all directions.  High-IQ?  Who cares?  Technology?  Who cares?  Medical advances?  Why? - life has no interests, let’s just get sick and die.  Who cares?

Posted by JW Holliday on May 10, 2005, 04:22 PM | #

David B: “Sorry, JWH, but unless you plan on cloning yourself you (i.e. your distinctive combination of genes) will have no genetic continuity beyond one or two generations.  Your genes themselves may, but they are shared by people of all races, usually in quite similar proportions, so you really need not worry about their survival (except in so far as the human species as a whole is at risk).”

Quite similar proportions.  I see. Obviously not too similar, or else there would be no genetic variation between ethnies and no differences in phenotypes either.  Unfortunately for these Venterian arguments, human genetic variation does exist, and gene sharing greater or less than the average does exist.  Co-ethnics are more similar in gene frequencies and, perhaps more importantly, in patterns of gene frequencies, than are those of different ethnies.  Hence *relative* genetic continuity can continue as long as the species exists.  If Joe is Irish, then he would tend to have gene frequencies and patterns of these frequencies more similar to Irishmen than, say, Nigerians.  The obvious phenotypic differences between these sets of populations, and Joe’s similarity to the Irish in this regard, are just the tip of the iceberg of the underlying genetic realities.  Thus, from the perspective of the continuity of Joe’s distinctive genetic structure, it sure does make a difference whether or not Irishmen exist 300 years hence, or, for example, Ireland is populated instead by Nigerians and mulattoes. 

My previous post on patterns of gene frequencies makes quite clear that what is the overall genetic interest is the range of the patterns of gene frequencies.  Not any one specific pattern that does not exist past genetic recombination. True enough, without cloning, the exact distinctive pattern is lost.  That occurs in one generation, with children. But that a range of patterns exists within unmixed families over generations (hence, “family resemblance”) as well as the persistance of ethnic phenotypes in undisturbed
populations over millenia as well as the fact that racial identification can be stably performed by looking at the correlation of gene frequency data, all clearly show that, in undisturbed populations, a particular broad suite of genetic combinations characteristic of the population is stable over time.  As sexually reproducing organisms, that’s all we can ask for.  And since, genetic interest is relative, and not absolute, a concept that seems hard for some to grasp, any differences in genetic variation, multiplied over the number of cases, represents genetic interest.

“Quite similar”, indeed!  Hydrogen peroxide is “quite similar” to water, but I doubt you’d like to slake your thirst with it.  Oh, wait, you believe life has no interests - so maybe you would.

As far as the individual genes themselves, yes, they would exist in the human population, but in altered frequency given the loss of particular ethnies.  Well, then, if humans became extinct, not to worry, the genes are still there, in “quite similar proportions” in other organisms, right?  GNXP’s credibility continues to fade.

And David, if you do not know what “constitutional patriotism” is, after Salter discussed its implications in detail, I guess you really didn’t read his book all that carefully - as is painfully apparent from your “critiques.”

Posted by JW Holliday on May 10, 2005, 04:23 PM | #

Kubilai answered David far more concisely than I, re: breeding.  The unique gene frequencies and combination of gene frequencies that separate Bulldogs from Great Danes is a perfect example of genetic continuity over time.

Assuming that these breeds continue into the future (and are not mongrelized out of existence as some human breeds may be), then a genetic sample from a Bulldog of today can be compared to that of a Bulldog 300 years from now, and the relative similarity in distinctive genetics vs. other dog breeds can be observed.  Since we are talking about relative distinctions, “cloning” is not needed, absolute similarity is not required.  Relative genetic distance is the point.

Posted by ben tillman on May 10, 2005, 04:39 PM | #

To go back to the topic of the post: what is the utility of cognitive elitism?  Is high-IQ an end to itself?

It is tempting to answer these questions, but I’ll leave it to the GNXPers to figure this stuff out.  It seems likely to take them quite a while, and if they ever do so we will then consider why, ultimately, cognitive elitism fails where eugenics does not.

Posted by Svigor on May 10, 2005, 04:42 PM | #

Well, someone warned me that it was a waste of time commenting here

Yeah, performing without a net can be intimidating.

Posted by Kubilai on May 10, 2005, 04:42 PM | #

As I pointed out to Steve at the time, I have no problem with Salter’s (or rather Harpending’s) math - indeed, as I showed in my post on ‘Interracial marriage - Salter’s Fallacy’, I understand it rather better than Salter himself. - David B

Right.  Here is your “understanding” of the math on GnXp…

The fallacy is that the argument considers only the offspring of the man, and not the other people affected by his choice. Let us assume for simplicity that there are equal numbers of English and Bantus, that all people marry, that all marriages are strictly monogamous, and that all couples have two children. (Relaxing these assumptions would just introduce irrelevant complications - the outcome would be the same, unless we introduce arbitrary assumptions about differential mating success of English and Bantus, or differential fitness of different mating combinations.)

In each case the number of ’English’ genes transmitted per English person is the same. The number and frequency of English (and for that matter Bantu) genes in the population is therefore unaffected by the marital choices of the parents. Indeed, it hardly needs any examples to prove the point, since this is just a case of assortative mating, and assortative mating does not in itself affect gene frequencies in the population [Note 1].

To me, what is crystal clear is your inability to comprehend that we do NOT live in your petri dish example, i.e. a VACUUM.  You ignore the dysgenic effect of these English/Bantu combinations on the English and of course it would be eugenic for the Bantus.  You ignore that these English genes would be lost in the Bantu milieu because what is obvious is that no English, aside from brainwashed leftists, would even contemplate further contact with the “1 English/1Bantu” offspring. What would be the final analysis to this?  It would be what you so aptly state, our genes “would no longer exist after one or two generations”.

Congratulations David, you clearly state what we should NOT be doing and that is listening to your ignorant, biased, leftist, egalitarian mental masturbations. 

And I don’t share the values of most of the commentators here.

Finally, some honesty.  Tell me something I didn’t know, David.  Though next time, don’t wrap it up with some sort of twisted “scientific” explanation.

Posted by John S Bolton on May 10, 2005, 05:57 PM | #

One way to characterize the issue here, might be to contrast the individual interest with that of humanity in general, not to have valuable coadapted complexes of genes which inhere in longterm breeding pools, be randomized. If aggression is used to promote such and such randomization, all individuals have an interest in seeing an end to that prorandomization of genetic information. Salterian genetic interests are more inclusive than those just mentioned, since the Salterian interests are not limited to valuable coadapted complexes of genetic information accumulated over ages in particular breeding pools.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 10, 2005, 06:03 PM | #

“Sorry, JWH, but unless you plan on cloning yourself you (i.e. your distinctive combination of genes) will have no genetic continuity beyond one or two generations.  Your genes themselves may, but they are shared by people of all races, usually in quite similar proportions, so you really need not worry about their survival (except in so far as the human species as a whole is at risk).”  (—David B., 5/10, 6 PM)

To those who replied to this astounding comment—I think there were two or three counting JWH—I assume everyone realizes (I know JWH does) that this is nothing other than blatant race-denial.  Does everyone here realize that?  Everyone got that?  (Just checking—this is important ...)  What you’ve got here is one of the main bloggers at GnXp engaging in race-denial when he feels cornered. 

Here, let’s take that again:  ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL BLOGGERS AT GNXP.COM IS DEEP-DOWN A RACE-DENIER WHO USUALLY MANAGES TO CAMOUFLAGE THAT FACT BUT CAN’T HELP LETTING IT COME OUT WHEN HE FEELS EXASPERATED.

Can anyone BELIEVE IT?  The guy’s a race-denier!  AT GENE EXPRESSION!

I’ll let that sink in ...

Did everyone see what JWH did in response to THAT INCREDIBLE STATEMENT by this “star GnXp blogger,” David B.?  In his reply of 8:22 PM, beginning with “Quite similar proportions.  I see. Obviously not too similar, or else there would be no genetic variation between ethnies and no differences in phenotypes either.,” JWH is telling the guy ... wait for it ... he actually has to tell the guy, this blogger on the subject of genetics, that THERE ARE INDEED RACES in the world.  Everyone with me so far?  No one’s fallen off his chair yet?  THIS GUY, DEEP-DOWN, DOESN’T THINK THERE ARE RACES!

JWH then explains to David B. how it is that there are races in the world, using that entire reply to do it.  IS EVERYONE STILL IN HIS CHAIR?  SHOULD I STOP A MINUTE WHILE EVERYONE GRASPS WHAT JUST HAPPENED RIGHT BEFORE THE EYES OF THE RACE-REALIST BLOGOSPHERE?

OK, moving on ...

“it is better to talk boring sense than exciting (and dangerous) nonsense.”  (—David B., GnXp’s resident race denier)

The dangerous nonsense is forcing race-replacement on populations that don’t want it, David.  Of course, you don’t think races exist, so you won’t be able to comprehend that.

“To go back to the topic of the post: what is the utility of cognitive elitism?  Is high-IQ an end to itself?  That makes no sense.”  (—JW Holliday, 5/10, 8:17 PM)

It makes sense to a Hindu Brahmin like GC, a member of a group detached from the other classes and peoples in its country because it has no other “nation” than its social/genetic class.  Its only interests are class interests, and specifically, the interests of a class which considers itself a cognitive élite and prides itself on so being.  Would it be surprising if someone whose family, relatives, and forebears in India have never in two or three thousand years thought of themselves as part of a nation, but only as part of a cognitive-élite class, tends to so think of himself (not as a member of a nation but as a member of a cognitive-élite class)?  These people belonging to this class, many of them, may actually have trouble merely conceiving of nations, national interests, and nation-state patriotism as opposed to strictly class interests and class loyalty—interests of and loyalty to the class smugly considering itself to be a cognitive élite, separate from the rest of the people of the country.  (Their class is their “nation.”)  In fact, this trouble they may have conceiving of those other things may actually be inherited in their genes.  Yes, you read that right—in fact I’d say there’s every reason to believe it’s inherited to some extent in their genes.

Also, this business of considering a nation’s “high-IQ” layer separately from the nation’s other layers—separately from the nation as a whole—is unwise and very probably ill-conceived.  European-peopled nations have their own organic structures including whatever “cognitive” layers characterize them, upper, middle, and lower, and there may be a sense in which they evolve as national units.  Until things are better understood it would seem wise to leave these biological national units alone and not tamper with their inner demographic structures.  Leave things in the hands of some of these Hindus and they’ll give us a nation just like India with detached classes seeking their own continuity as classes separate from anything one would call a nation.

Posted by John S Bolton on May 10, 2005, 06:46 PM | #

The use of ad hominem is deleterious to the cause of egi’s. When the left says that everyone to their right is violently racist and concerned only for the prestige of their race, they damn their cause as incapable of presenting socialism as something attractive. The left often dismisses all opposition as bourgeois in origin, the right has arguments which are sensible, and should not start saying that leftism is wrong because it is nonwhite or promiscegenationist, or cosmopolitan elitist, for that matter. Who says, is not a rational argument.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 10, 2005, 06:54 PM | #

Which comment in the thread are you referring to here, John B.?

Posted by John S Bolton on May 10, 2005, 06:59 PM | #

In terms of constitutional and other patriotism, why do EGI defenders not bring out the natural law position that it is indeed Treason for officials to divert public funds to the foreigner? Why also is it not mentioned that the foreigner who receives such public funds here is accessory to treason? These are potentially capital offenses, and outrageously common. Such principles are perhaps the strongest defenders of such genetic interests as can be conceived, and no rational refutation of them is possible. Why use the weakest arguments, such as that diasporic minorities have a fear of nationalism, patriotism and allied loyalties, when irrefutable arguments are so easily come by?

Posted by John S Bolton on May 10, 2005, 07:02 PM | #

I was above referring to several comments which seemed to be using an ad hominem approach.

Posted by Svigor on May 12, 2005, 03:26 PM | #

Even in the absence of all the data on IQ (and other myriad racial differences) and the suggestions that flow from it, it makes more sense to support EGI than to oppose it.  Given evolution, it simply makes more sense to err on the side of caution.  What nature separated (races) can be mixed within even a single generation, but there is no turning back.

This is why every thinking Conservative should oppose anti-racism.

This is why every Liberalist supports miscegenation.

There is no need to “prove” any of this scientifically, the burden for that rests on the Liberalists, and they can’t shoulder it.

Posted by John S Bolton on May 12, 2005, 07:02 PM | #

Is Salter of the EGI’s an extended phenotype of some Brahmins, for having used the example of whites in zimbabwe, with 30 points higher iq, building up the carrying capacity of that country for its genetically distant natives? The liberalist has the burden to prove why aggression by officials may be used to promote racial interbreeding: but if they even so much as admit that aggression is being used thus, they concede the debate. Not only every conservative, but everyone who is enthusiastic about inceasing the level of aggression in society should be flatly against aggressive antiracism.

Posted by John S Bolton on May 13, 2005, 03:44 PM | #

Correction: the above last sentence should read ‘everyone who is not enthusiastic about increasing the level of aggression’

Posted by ben tillman on February 09, 2006, 09:01 AM | #

What a rout!