Form: Dialogue

  • PROPERTARIAN POSITION ON GENETIC MODIFICATION (good read)(from elsewhere)(worth

    PROPERTARIAN POSITION ON GENETIC MODIFICATION

    (good read)(from elsewhere)(worth repeating)

    Hiroshi: We are opening Pandora’s Box.

    Curt: Or are we achieving our potential?

    Hiroshi: Yes, but potential for good or evil?

    Curt: Good and evil are technical terms in my universe. And this technology, like violence, is neutral.

    The question is whether the ends produce risk to the genome. But since at all times when we suppress the reproduction of the underclasses, or when upper classes migrate to new areas, mankind evolves rapidly; and because morality increases and impulsivity decreases and time preference lengthens with intelligence, our only choice between Brazil on one end and Star Trek on the other in a populated planet is this one.( Superior intelligence does not breed superior ambition or aggression. )

    As far as I know aggression defeats intelligence and Huntington missed that observation.

    Hegel was wrong as well – heroism and by consequence, sovereignty, jury and truth telling are the cause of western rates of development.

    Hiroshi: In my universe, good and evil are not technical terms. Imagine a universe in which no human beings exist. In that universe there is neither good nor evil: everything is technical and neutral. Good and evil can exist only when human beings exist. Good and evil become important terms when human beings decides their mode of being or make “judgment” in the sense of Hannah Arendt. (See my short essay above on Arendt’s conception of judging)

    Curt: Sorry, I meant ‘technical’ in the sense of objective. And objective in the sense of independent of introspection. I also use the term ‘decidable’, appropriated from mathematics, to avoid the loading on the term ‘judgement’. The difference being that introspection and therefore subjectivity is present in judgement, and not present in decidability. So good and evil are decidable propositions.

    In this sequence: One can be lax. One an err. One can privatize. One can engage in predation. One can engage in destruction without benefit to the self. One can engage in destruction that produces a chain of destructive externalities. The last is my definition of ‘evil’ and immoral.

    If on the other hand, one warrants defense against externalities (takes all possible known precautions), in order to create a chain of beneficial externalities – then this is ‘good’ and moral.

    The concepts of good and evil, judgement, justice, and morality, have been inherited from our ancient past and remain loaded with introspective demands, because of our failure to articulate the necessary and sufficient properties of cooperation. But the necessary and sufficient properties of cooperation are no longer unknown but trivial.

    What remains is the analysis of strategies. Western (scientific) Truth, Anglo-Jewish Political Correctness, Russian-Jewish Postmodernism, Chinese Delay-Deceit, Hindu Avoidance, and Muslim Denial and rebellion. Each is a strategy for group persistence.

    In the context of this question, the positive externalities of improving the genome, and creating supermen – or at least, highly intelligent, attractive (symmetrical) and with a moral bias, is hard to argue with.

    This technology exists already. We do it by assortative mating. We call it ‘castes’ or ‘classes’. A race to the top (selective breeding) has always produced better ends than a race to the bottom (through excess reproduction of the lower classes).

    So my question is instead the non-intuitive: we are now engaged in an experiment called ‘redistribution’ which increases the rates of the lower classes, and suppresses the rates of the middle classes, and has isolated our upper classes. This experiment has evolved (through advocacy of democracy under the ‘enlightenment’) into a dysgenic disaster that one can easily call ‘evil’, and it’s promotors ‘evil’ as well, by the very technical criterion I proposed above. Society has become ordered to value a negative by use of a ‘judgement’ that democracy is a good, when the consequences are an evil.

    So why is it not beneficial to reorder society around a judgement that improves man, rather than devolves him?

    I would much rather have a public debate, and a ‘judgement’ about how to handle the improvement of man, than the current debate about how to degenerate him.

    So in this sense, suppressing this technology is to persist an evil.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    ( Eli Harman: add this to the weapons cache)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-24 03:16:00 UTC

  • When Did They Start Teaching Us To Lie?

    Question: One thing I wonder is: How many generations ago did we sell out and start lying to our children, until the lie was forgotten? – Molly

    [I]t started fairly early. But it is largely a product of the strategic application of the Ten Planks. But, in addition world circumstances helped a great deal:

    Education evolved along with industry so education stopped being a craftsmanly product for small shops delivered by professionals, and instead became a manufacturing process delivered as were all manufactured goods. This is the heart of it.

    Soldiers in WW1 were widely distributed in ability ( the southern problem was real at that point it appears) mostly due to literacy and ignorance.

    The expansion of consumer society in tandem with first inexpensive print, then radio, then television, meant that the public was constantly hammered with sentimental nonsense at low levels of education, in order to sell new consumers newly available household goods.

    We had successfully integrated ‘the flood’ of post-civil war immigration into ‘the american way’ by 1960, but the postwar economic period, in which the world manufacturing and production system had been destroyed leaving only the USA intact, led to a class-shift as our lower classes were paid middle class wages due to temporary scarcity (which has been ending, now that the world has recovered, and former socialist and communist countries have entered the world economy). These new people now were able to exercise influence in the market and in politics, and even in the educational market because of their newly acquired wealth. And sought to rebel against previous generations – just as all generations do.

    The addition of the underclasses to the university system postwar provided great incentive, and lack of regulation of colleges and universities allowed the dilution of the meaning of education.

    The (real) problem of integrating less capable minorities into grade schools dependent upon 110 IQ’s. (yes). Then once they had been, getting them into colleges where 110iq was necessary to manage the work. This is not statistically possible since the Pareto optimum is around 115 – meaning that only about 20% of people or so actually could complete college course work (adjusting for willingness to work on the down side, and character flaws on the up side.) So education had to be dumbed down **A LOT** so that this many people could get into and graduate from college.

    The economic incentive of selling college tuition to women – which like selling representation, or ANYTHING for that matter, is more effective than selling to men (I go by the data and that’s what it says).

    The success of cosmopolitan socialism in the 1960’s because of their successful capture of media and the ‘soft disciplines’ in colleges (white collar occupational training) and universities (‘education proper’).

    Big mistakes were not having many but smaller schools, not keeping boys separate from girls, and not keeping multiple grades in the same room, low standards for teachers (still), reducing time reading, and reducing the physical education (movement) time.

    In other words we should educate our children as large families where they are subject to the same material repeated over and over, and then bring them together to play a few sports and get some exercise.

    Curt Doolittle

  • When Did They Start Teaching Us To Lie?

    Question: One thing I wonder is: How many generations ago did we sell out and start lying to our children, until the lie was forgotten? – Molly

    [I]t started fairly early. But it is largely a product of the strategic application of the Ten Planks. But, in addition world circumstances helped a great deal:

    Education evolved along with industry so education stopped being a craftsmanly product for small shops delivered by professionals, and instead became a manufacturing process delivered as were all manufactured goods. This is the heart of it.

    Soldiers in WW1 were widely distributed in ability ( the southern problem was real at that point it appears) mostly due to literacy and ignorance.

    The expansion of consumer society in tandem with first inexpensive print, then radio, then television, meant that the public was constantly hammered with sentimental nonsense at low levels of education, in order to sell new consumers newly available household goods.

    We had successfully integrated ‘the flood’ of post-civil war immigration into ‘the american way’ by 1960, but the postwar economic period, in which the world manufacturing and production system had been destroyed leaving only the USA intact, led to a class-shift as our lower classes were paid middle class wages due to temporary scarcity (which has been ending, now that the world has recovered, and former socialist and communist countries have entered the world economy). These new people now were able to exercise influence in the market and in politics, and even in the educational market because of their newly acquired wealth. And sought to rebel against previous generations – just as all generations do.

    The addition of the underclasses to the university system postwar provided great incentive, and lack of regulation of colleges and universities allowed the dilution of the meaning of education.

    The (real) problem of integrating less capable minorities into grade schools dependent upon 110 IQ’s. (yes). Then once they had been, getting them into colleges where 110iq was necessary to manage the work. This is not statistically possible since the Pareto optimum is around 115 – meaning that only about 20% of people or so actually could complete college course work (adjusting for willingness to work on the down side, and character flaws on the up side.) So education had to be dumbed down **A LOT** so that this many people could get into and graduate from college.

    The economic incentive of selling college tuition to women – which like selling representation, or ANYTHING for that matter, is more effective than selling to men (I go by the data and that’s what it says).

    The success of cosmopolitan socialism in the 1960’s because of their successful capture of media and the ‘soft disciplines’ in colleges (white collar occupational training) and universities (‘education proper’).

    Big mistakes were not having many but smaller schools, not keeping boys separate from girls, and not keeping multiple grades in the same room, low standards for teachers (still), reducing time reading, and reducing the physical education (movement) time.

    In other words we should educate our children as large families where they are subject to the same material repeated over and over, and then bring them together to play a few sports and get some exercise.

    Curt Doolittle

  • Q: “Curt, why are you trying to rile me up” (Female) A: “Well you know, it’s jus

    Q: “Curt, why are you trying to rile me up” (Female)

    A: “Well you know, it’s just a ruse to get you to think, right?” (Me)

    The point is that marriage is destructive to men as it is currently constructed and enforced by the state – resulting in suicide and poverty for older males at increasing rates.

    So the reason I say something inflammatory is to draw attention to this fact, and demonstrate that the contract is unequal, and as such should be eliminated. In other words, I think we must end common property for all property worth fighting over.

    And I operate under the assumption, demonstrated by evidence, that marriages are temporary exchanges of powers of attorney, but never of property. That children belong to their mothers and never to their fathers, unless the court deems mothers dangerous to the child (in which case it’s rare the father is any better.(

    So if we are no longer to be married for life then we are not longer able to rationally possess common property – and upon failure or bankruptcy of the partnership (not corporation) that we call “the family”, all partners depart with their proportional contributions.

    In practice this means that title to any item must be provided, and no unstated title may remain unprovided for.

    Now, I should note that I can see a post-familial society but I must work on that a bit before I’m confident that it isn’t comparatively uncompetitive. Because as far as I can tell, high time parenting isn’t replaceable.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 15:36:00 UTC

  • Q: “What is your concept of god?” A: “I am happy to rest my head on a pillow of

    Q: “What is your concept of god?”

    A: “I am happy to rest my head on a pillow of ignorance.”


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-14 09:22:00 UTC

  • (different worlds) Talking to my nephew. HIM: “I’d love to see that country” (Uk

    (different worlds)

    Talking to my nephew.

    HIM: “I’d love to see that country” (Ukraine)

    ME: “We have this whole revolution thing going on right now so it’s probably not a good idea. Shooting people with AK’s in the damned street… While they’re trying to hide… Nuts…

    HIM: “Nothing I wouldn’t be used to” *(four combat tours)*

    eek…. I like being afraid of gunfire. I’m not sure I want to be used to it. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 13:15:00 UTC

  • UKRAINIAN LOGIC Man: “He loves her more than she loves him, I think.” Woman: “Of

    UKRAINIAN LOGIC

    Man: “He loves her more than she loves him, I think.”

    Woman: “Of course. He is a man. He must worship his wife.”

    Man: “You look beautiful tonight!”

    Woman: Scowl. “Does that mean I do not always look beautiful?”

    My mom did me a great favor, which was to teach me to compliment women in particular, on something small that they had DONE (rather than their bodies obviously), and that’s turned out to be a very useful habit to get into. Guys like it a lot too. So I compliment the hell out of men on whatever I can. Because almost nobody does. It’s like throwing rose petals into the air. It just makes the world a better place.

    I really don’t notice men paying much rude attention to women here. I’m sure it happens but maybe not around the kind of people I associate with. Men and women just talk to each other. And there is a lot of glance-look-flirt subtlety (which is incomprehensible to me). And it’s all pretty honest and direct and free of all that. Women are incredibly forward. I had one woman grab my by the hair and forcibly kiss me. Another just told me her husband was out for the weekend and invited me over. (um..no thanks.) But most of the women just ask you to dance, or start pleasant conversations. Some are a little too demure. And I get in a little trouble because I’m extremely friendly and playful but really not interested in other than just fun.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-07 10:29:00 UTC

  • V: “You OK?” C: “Yeah… Dying. This cold is killing me.” V: “Use spray for your

    V: “You OK?”

    C: “Yeah… Dying. This cold is killing me.”

    V: “Use spray for your nose.”

    C: “I know what would make me feel much better.”

    V: “What?”

    C: “Hugs.”

    V: (Frowning, Skeptical) In Russian accent:”Hugs don’t helpin’.”

    C: “How do you know? What scientific evidence do you have that hugs don’t cure the common cold?”

    V: “I am living with you more than one year.”

    C: “So?”

    V: “Hugs just make you more mischievous.”

    C: “That’s good, right?”

    V: “No.”

    C: (laughter)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-15 05:55:00 UTC

  • Conversation with Libertarian Friend (LF) (happiness) LF: “Curt, that means prop

    Conversation with Libertarian Friend (LF)

    (happiness)

    LF: “Curt, that means property rights aren’t binary, but a spectrum.”

    CD: “Yes. That’s right. It means that property rights increase as we suppress increasing categories of discounts. It means that different societies can, because they are homogenous or heterogeneous, suppress different levels of discounts, and benefit from those increasing discounts – or lose if they cannot obtain discounts.”

    (Later)

    LF: “You know that, this means that libertarians can’t claim the moral universal high ground? Liberty is just something you want or don’t.”

    CD: “Yes.”

    LF: “There are a lot of moralistic libertarians that won’t like this.”

    CD: “Yeah… Well. Just how it is. I don’t get to choose whether something is true or not.”

    (Later)

    LF: “This is big. This is going to revolutionize……”

    CD: “Yeah. Maybe. I think so..”

    (Wonderful to be understood.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-05 18:47:00 UTC

  • CURT: “So, do you agree that we have the best UI in the industry?” (pause) CURT:

    CURT: “So, do you agree that we have the best UI in the industry?”

    (pause)

    CURT: “‘Come on. That is the best UI in the industry.”

    KIRILL: “Well, I am not sure that is very hard. Compared to SAP and Dynamics of course we have the best UI in the industry. It’s hard to call what they have a UI.”

    DENIS: (laughter) “Yes, it’s the best UI.”

    (laughter)

    We have killed it. Absolutely killed it.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-24 09:43:00 UTC