Тег: eugenics

Do you not want gene therapy against violence to ever be developed at all? It is not at all necessary for our success. Only I fear these scenarios will personally be very displeasing to you!

Bitarch in response to article Ancap-tyan

Some people say they are ready to personally hinder the development of gene therapy against violence (to strengthen Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism, also known as VIM in English-language research). Well, that is their right. We will not remind them that they are unlikely to succeed in hindering development in the real world, as most scientists ideologically oppose violence. But let us imagine that they did succeed, or that the development of this gene therapy proved too complex for the current technological level and, within our lifetime, gene therapy against violence was never created.

First, let us note that the absence of gene therapy in no way denies the fact of the existence of ML/VIM in the species Homo sapiens and its varying strength in different people. This has already been proven by authoritative scientists and will undoubtedly become a generally recognized fact sooner or later. As will the path by which ML/VIM is strengthened under the pressure of natural selection. Consequently, without the development of corrective gene therapy, the fate of people prone to violence will be extremely dismal. They will find themselves in a situation where they will literally pray to God for this gene therapy to appear as soon as possible!

1) The mildest, libertarian scenario. When the understanding of ML/VIM enters the mainstream and begins to be covered in the media, activists will immediately appear who will intentionally provoke everyone with words, clothing, and gestures, and immediately destroy those who succumb to provocation within the framework of self-defense. In essence, they will repeat the “Masquerade,” which, without even knowing the theory of Lorenz on which we base ourselves, was successfully conducted by Marshal Zhukov in post-war Odessa to “eradicate crime.” Why is this approach libertarian? Because according to the non-aggression principle (NAP), “one can offend, but one cannot be offended,” i.e., provocation is entirely permissible, as is self-defense, but the use of physical violence in response to provocation is a violation of the NAP. As a result, natural selection pressure is created to strengthen ML/VIM. If you, as a specific opponent of gene therapy, are prone to violence in deed rather than just in words, you will inevitably be removed from the population.

2) The moderately statist scenario. This is very likely in developed countries where the level of violence is already low, and humanism and human rights are more or less recognized as values. The propensity for violence is recognized as a socially dangerous pathology, like, for example, incurable infectious diseases. Even a hundred years ago, even in the USA, it was the norm to send carriers of dangerous infections such as leprosy and typhus into lifelong quarantine. Similarly, it will be with violent people — a reservation will be created on an island or in some remote wilderness, where all those prone to violence will be exiled as socially dangerous elements. Inside, they will live quite freely, roughly as they do now in some places of deprivation of liberty in Norway for not very dangerous criminals. But they will never be able to leave this reservation (at least until the creation of gene therapy or another method of strengthening ML/VIM).

3) The authoritarian scenario. Unlikely in developed countries, but who knows where the stars will turn… It is as simple as can be — mass genetic testing and forced euthanasia or sterilization followed by the exile of all carriers of weak ML/VIM variants (i.e., those prone to violence). Personally, as a libertarian/voluntarist, I naturally do not approve of this scenario, but I would like to warn opponents of gene therapy that society can turn toward totalitarianism at any moment and you personally will be subject to destruction. There have been enough examples in history!

So remember this well — when the existence of a violence-inhibiting mechanism in the species Homo sapiens and the variability of its strength in different people becomes a well-known fact, violence will be eradicated regardless of the successes in developing gene therapy. Only the methods by which this happens will now depend personally on you!


Until quite recently, the forced sterilization of the “unfit” was a reality even in the seemingly “free” USA

In whose interests, besides the parents’, is it to conduct research on the genetic modification of humans to increase their abilities?

After all, these investments might not pay off by providing a skilled workforce in the future—if the person does not want to work for the company that “created” them.

анонимный вопрос

Indeed, an interesting topic. One entity invests funds and effort to create another entity, while the created entity has no debt to the creator, except perhaps a moral one. The question arises: what would compel the creator to invest resources into their creation?

At the same time, for some reason, you have no doubt that there won’t be a problem with parents; they will certainly be interested in investing in the creation of children who are more advanced from their point of view. But why, exactly?

For example, I am thinking about having a child and reading the price list for genetic modifications that can be made. Remove the predisposition to cancer and AIDS? Of course, I’ll take it; it’s much more reliable than health insurance and, if spread over a lifetime, far cheaper. We clean out hereditary diseases. Is it necessary? Of course. Tendency toward obesity? I’ll probably correct that; it will also pay off. Height? Eye color? Why bother? Well, only if these settings come in a general package, as not every parent will buy these modifications separately.

In other words, parents will primarily be interested in those modifications that save them—the parents’—expenses on raising the child. Secondly, those that in the long run could increase the child’s chances of success in life, although you can never guess what will be in market demand. Lastly, any matter of personal taste.

Why does a parent have a child and invest in them at all? For the joy of the upbringing process and satisfaction from the results of that upbringing. A child is a creative project that, if the devil doesn’t joke, might even bring commercial success.

Could such a creative project be undertaken, for example, not by a parent, but by a large company? Why not, but the motivation for the company’s founders would be the same: to get maximum satisfaction from the results of the upbringing. At the same time, in order for the free people produced by this company to also bring it some monetary profit, they must do so voluntarily. This means loyalty must be cultivated in them.

If a gene for blind love can be found, then perhaps the loyalty problem can be solved this way. But for some reason, I have a strong suspicion that this gene will turn out to be linked to genes responsible for intellectual development, meaning the overall life success of such a child would be small (especially since a child-production plant is unlikely to provide every graduate with significant starting capital).

Please leave the fantasies about growing competent specialists and subsequently keeping them in forced slavery to the communists; we are considering ancap here, and ancap is self-ownership.

So, if we are talking about market models for such enterprises, I would rather suggest looking toward existing private schools and universities. There, likewise, a gifted student can enter a school for free and even have a scholarship, while the institution is funded by an endowment fund. Former students who have succeeded in life contribute to the fund entirely voluntarily. The only difference in our case would be that gifted children are not sought out initially, but produced.

It seems to me that this is a quite pleasant future in which children are predominantly wanted, and they will be far less likely to disappoint those who invested in them.

Sweet children, but that’s not how it works under ancap