I’m back from a week of acting like an European public servant. It’s a tough life.
Richard Hoste reviews Richard Lynn’s new book. The review concludes:
So how will this nation of a billion people [i.e. China] treat the rest of the world after it’s raised its IQ to 150+? Lynn might be too optimistic here. He believes the Chinese will colonize the world and try to improve the IQs and living standards of their subjects. The Europeans will be kept around for their biological uniqueness and admired for their cultural accomplishments, the way that the Romans subjugated the Greeks but appreciated their philosophy and art. If the Chinese decide that the Europeans should be preserved they’d be doing more for them than whites are currently doing for themselves. A global eugenic superstate led by by the Chinese will be the “end of history.”
Lynn’s forecasts the next 100 years with a stone-cold detachment. The first government to utilize the power of biotechnology will take over the world. Thanks to third world immigration and egalitarianism, the decline of the West seems inevitable and eugenic policies unlikely. The future of humanity being in the hands of the dictators in Beijing may not be the most comforting idea in the world, but at least the reader of Eugenics may be convinced that intelligence and civilization will continue somewhere.
I’ve argued before that the free trade types radically underestimate the costs of unemployment (i.e. assume that it’s basically zero). Science begs to differ, it has found "that unemployment increases the risk of premature mortality by 63 per cent." But if we have lots of immigration, the chalupas will be really cheap, so we’ve got that going for us. Also, apparently high IQ immigrants are better than low IQ ones.
In the comments, Handle has some more thoughts on Charles Murray’s lecture, which he believes make "an interesting case for ‘The Full Moldbug’ Reactionary Argument."
It would be really fun to get Sonic Charmer and me in a room together to talk about this stuff.
Vladimir took some heat after for his post on passivity. He responds here. First, when I read his post, I was reminded of Moldbug’s suggestion that you vote for whoever the newspaper tells you to vote for. That still seems like a decent idea, if for some reason you decide to vote. Second, though I’m not religious, I’m not anti-religious. Those of us that are not religious need to find our own ways to read writings by religious people. After all, until about 50 years ago, they were the only ones writing – if you can’t read their writing, you’re missing out on the last couple thousand years of human history.
Aretae summarizes his blog in one post.
Vladimir on modern policing.
Instead of getting arrested for protesting in favor of DC statehood, DC’s elected officials would make a better case if they spent their time not being corrupt. Just sayin’
OneSTDV notes that liberals are blind to conservative opinion. It’s particularly true with respect to abortion.
Kemba Walker has read one book in his life, and guess what sort of book it is.
About three years after a housing crisis caused by excessive borrowing due to ridiculously low interest rates, Matthew Yglesias believes that the US government should borrow more because the rates are really low. Occasionally, one can’t help but conclude that people deserve all the bad things they get.
Don’t miss this informercial.
In practice—and, increasingly, in legal theory—government officials have been given unprecedented ability to make exceptions to the law, both in enforcing it and in respecting the rights granted under it. Indeed, the past year has seen two of the most enormous pieces of legislation in U.S. history—the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act—make the imbalance far worse. Both laws seek to dramatically transform vast swaths of the American economy; both give enormous power to the government to bring about these transformations. And yet both laws are stunningly silent on exactly how these overhauls are to take place. The vague language of these statutes delegates much blanket authority to government officials who will, effectively, make the rules up as they go along.