62 Comments
Dec 23, 2022Liked by Ives Parr

I don’t consider myself of the right, but I agree with all ten tenets. Indeed, I would love to see a genuine attempt at refuting any of them.

Expand full comment

This feels...off. Maybe I don't get the core audience you're appealing to.

But when I contrast it to another "manifesto" I'm struck by the difference in priority. Comparing them, it's clear where one focuses on friends and relationships where your proposed core tenants are... correctly modeling human intelligence? Not specifically making one common mainstream mistake. I mean, I don't think the author I linked would disagree with 80% of what you've written here, and I don't think you'd disagree with what he wrote, but these generate very different outcomes.

I get old rationalism's core appeal: you're irrational, here's how to train yourself to be more rational. I get EA's core appeal: better charity saves more lives. I get the AI alignment thing: save the world. I'm not sure what this is, who this appeals to, unless you're full bore pro-eugenics.

Which...could actually be quite appealing. A basic pitch of "Actually, most of our social issues are caused by underlying genetic issues, therefore we should fix those" is actually kind of appealing but I'd want to be very explicit about that.

(1) https://twitter.com/GreeneMan6/status/1581362989311348738?cxt=HHwWhMDS7dTQkPIrAAAA

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for the comment WoolyAI. That's an interesting point. I suppose I would say that I'm "fullbore pro-eugenics." I think this is probably one of the most under-discussed issues that is really important among rationalists. I felt that this was rather explicit:

"I am most enthusiastic about the potential of genetic enhancement technology like polygenic embryo screening, iterated embryo selection, cloning, and gene editing, which merely facilitate the creation of healthy and happy people. The consequences of this technology will transform the world for the better (Parrhesia, 2022). It is imperative that we protect this technology from being banned."

I also think it shhould be subsidized, research should be subsidized, and we should push hard for global adoption.

Expand full comment

I don't think it's whether it's explicit, I think about how much focus there is on it. For example, your first six points are really focused on pro-eugenic arguments for IQ. The last four get off onto, I don't want to say distractions, but disconnected arguments. I'm not sure why a pro-eugenics community cares about economic systems anymore than why it would have a stance on tax policy. It feels like CW seeping in.

Maybe it's a difference in style but I think the core argument is pretty simple for, let's call it, non-coercive IQ eugenics (NCIE).

#1 We're at the edge of a revolution where genetic engineering will become practical for the first time through preimplantation screening.

#2 The primary focus of genetic engineering should be to boost intelligence/IQ/g. This is the most important single attribute to improve in human beings. It has the biggest impact and no negative side effects.

#3 By impact, we mean the ability to change the world. A world in which we eliminate cancer and several genetic disorders over 3 generations is better but it does not change the world the way a 30 IQ gain would. IQ/g has the most impact of any facet of human genetics.

#4 It has no negative side effects. Personality, for example, is heavily influenced by genetics but a lot of winning personality traits are zero-sum, as are physical beauty traits like height. These things are powerful but very, very difficult to get right. IQ, by contrast, is simple. Everyone should be smarter and there's no downside to any or all people getting smarter.

#5 This has immediate impacts on every living person and ideology. If you're worried about AI alignment, you want smarter people to solve it. If you want to solve death a la Bostrom, you definitely want smarter people. Even if I disagree with you and you're trying to shore up the Chinese Communist Party or institute better censorship regimes in the West, you should still want smarter people to enact those goals. Everyone, for their own selfish and/or ideological reasons, should support this.

#6 Therefore, right-rationalists/NCIE people should develop practical plans for members to be able to implement embryo selection for IQ/g for their own children in the next few years. As these children prove healthy and intelligent, these techniques should be popularized for the entire global population.

I'm not saying this is your thing, I kind of went of on a tangent there, but there's a dramatic difference in focus and discussion. Talk about the core important thing, in great depth, and don't get sidetracked. As a...persuasive manner, it's not what you say so much as how often you say it.

And let me say, if this is something you really want to dive in to, you're absolutely in the right spot. Embryo selection for IQ/g has been discussed for awhile but at some point, someone actually has to do it. If you can lay out reasonable steps for someone to actually do this, even at a cost of $20k-$50k/kid, I absolutely think you could find 20-50 people in the rationalist/post-rationalist world who would do it. I certainly would.

Expand full comment
author

I included the other issues because I think they were relevant right-wing views. I could've added more on eugenics. Eugenics (especially for IQ) is very important, and I have focused on it in other articles. I think it's extremely important. I consider it one of the focuses of this blog:

1. https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/harmless-eugenics

2. https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/population-ethics-meets-genetic-enhancement

3. https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/america-in-2072-a-society-stratified

4. https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/dont-ban-embryo-selection-because

5. https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/recent-advances-and-ethical-considerations

People are doing it now. And I know people who read this blog that can get you in touch with someone to do it. Just let me know.

Expand full comment
Dec 26, 2022·edited Dec 26, 2022Liked by Ives Parr

I would like to be in touch with someone to do it? Are you taking about the Collins family?

Expand full comment

Did they put you into touch?

Expand full comment

Nope. They asked me to dox myself.

Expand full comment
Dec 23, 2022Liked by Ives Parr

I’ve got to say I hate the label right wing. I’ve never been a leftie in the political sense but I would have lumped myself in with them because I was a cultural liberal. A freedom loving liberal. I still support access to abortion and gay marriage, although the push to deny biology has been a bridge too far. I’m suddenly right wing without having changed my views. Do I fit into some category or do I make up a new category? It all seems so beside the point.

Expand full comment

I think a primary source of this dysphoria is the abandonment of principled philosophy and ideology by political parties in favor of expedient choices. By that I mean that the platforms of political parties are not based on rational collections of beliefs and their conclusions about what should be done in reality, but collections of what people want to do with justifications created in an ad hoc manner, if at all. As Parrhesia points out, the American left holds that some things are absolutely genetic, but only those things, and considering otherwise is anathema. Why? Because many of their preferred policies look like a bad idea, even a counter productive idea, if they accept the possibility. The American right is just as bad, being often quite ok with e.g. government intrusion into private matters, just so long as it is their preferred intrusion, never mind that the other side will have those powers in a few years; adhering to the principle that government shouldn't have that power is too much for them, apparently.

I wonder sometimes if that is just the way of things, or it there will be a break down and realignment of the dominant political coalitions in my lifetime.

Expand full comment

“never mind that the other side will have those powers in a few years” seems to apply. What powers are you willing to see your opponents hold? I’m on the libertarian spectrum. Don’t want to let of the bastards have any more power than necessary to do strictly defined agreed upon things

Expand full comment
Dec 31, 2022·edited Jan 2, 2023Liked by Ives Parr

I would imagine education skepticism would be an extremely common belief on the "rationalist right" also. Caplan and Hanson pretty much convinced me that formal education was overwhelmingly extremely wasteful signaling, and that the "human capital" explanation was bunk.

Expand full comment

This is great. It distills a rationalist-worldview that I also share, but I've never seen articulated so clearly.

I think you nailed it on the head by focusing so heavily on genetics. Neither the mainstream left nor the mainstream right have even begun to grapple with what we've learned about genetics, and how that *must* alter our beliefs of what it means to be a fair and just society.

It also reflects my own personal political journey quite closely. Growing up, I held the same bog-standard liberal views as those around me. They weren't deeply considered beliefs, mind you, but just the water I swam in. Of course everyone has equal potential to succeed academically! Of course acheivement gaps are due to sexism/racism/Xism!

But when I discovered rationalism, everything changed. I can actually pick out the exact moment it happened: it was after reading Scott's infamous piece "The Atomic Bomb Considered As Hungarian High School Project". It had a tremendous impact on me. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't shake this feeling in the back of my head that there was something fundamentally wrong with my view of the world. I started devouring everything I could find on the topics of evolutionary psychology, behavioural genetics, psychometrics--and yes--even genetic group differences. I had a "Come to Jesus" moment: I realized that I couldn't reconcile left-wing views and my newfound understanding of human nature. So I moved to the right.

Expand full comment
Jan 3, 2023·edited Jan 3, 2023Liked by Ives Parr

I completely agree with all of this. For those who are confused by 9, how an evolutionary worldview can lead to views on relationships and "gender roles" that are often considered "traditional"... Yes, it is true that monogamous marriage hasn't been a human universal; polygamy has been practiced by most cultures throughout most of history. Understanding EP doesn't lead to direct prescriptions or beliefs in what is inherently right or wrong, but it helps us understand the consequences of different things.

For example, it helps us understand that men have two possible mating strategies that can employ at different times or with different women: they can impregnate and abandon (cads) or commit and invest in offspring (dads). While women are attracted to mostly the same qualities in a man for short-term or long-term mating, but men tend to see women as belonging to one of two types. It helps us understand why men value chastity in potential wives, but not hookups. It helps us understand why a woman who is 30~40, who has been with many partners and has one or more kids is as attractive as a potential wife as an unemployed man who lives in his parents' basement is attractive to women. It helps us understand why a woman being independent, successful, accomplished, etc makes no more difference on the mating market than a man having a great shoe collection, and yet those things tend to make a woman feel she needs and is entitled to a man who is even more of those things...which is like an undesirable man feeling he needs and is entitled to a Victoria's secret model.

I recommend the book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution by Louise Perry. She makes many of the same points often made in the "manosphere", although there it's often tinged with male bitterness. And fair enough, lots of men have plenty to be bitter about (as do many women). But she still considers herself a feminist, in that she in concerned about the wellbeing of women in general (while attacking what she calls "liberal feminism", which promotes blank slatism, and paradoxically at the same time arguing that women should be more like men), and argues that hookup culture is bad for women. And it is. Only a minority of women at best can actually commitment-free sex the way most men do. Most end up feeling degraded and used. Most women want sex in the context of a loving and committed relationship. Sexual liberation gives license to the darker sides of male sexuality, at least for the few who can get away with it. It promotes hypergamy. It is also bad for most men, who end up alone. And that is bad for society, as young men are the most violent demographic, especially when they are unable to have sex. Polygamous societies often needed wars to get rid of the excess male population. The only people who benefit are the most desirable men.

These and other facts help us understand why married people are much happier, and why more monogamous societies tend to be more stable and prosperous.

I completely agree with all the other points, but I think this is a really crucial one where people make seriously bad choices with major consequences for their own lives on the basis on ideologically fashionable lies.

Expand full comment
author

Great comment!

Expand full comment
Dec 27, 2022Liked by Ives Parr

Is there anything anyone can do that's more effective than having kids with PGT-P, and doing public splashy interviews like the Collins family did?

Expand full comment
author

Good to hear from you.

Expand full comment
author

I think it would depend on someone's resources and time. I think writing about it and trying to influence others is good. If someone were incredibly wealthy, they could invest in GWAS for intelligence, start a company, or provide funding for a company. Research into in vitro gametogenesis and this [1] is also very important.

Anything else you have in mind?

[1] https://denovo.substack.com/p/meiosis-is-all-you-need

Expand full comment
Dec 27, 2022Liked by Ives Parr

Yes, there is also interviewing PGT-P patients! 5 hours on getting a baby pic and just talking to Rafal or Simone could do a lot. Low effort, high impact.

Expand full comment
author

There’s a very nice feature of Rafal in a documentary that was on National Geographic. You can find it on YouTube. It’s great.

Expand full comment

Has anyone on this blog ever reached out to the Collins family?

Expand full comment
author

I have, but I haven't done an interview or anything like that. I was considering doing interviews in 2023.

Expand full comment
author

I have

Expand full comment

I am a bit late to the party, but having finished reading this, I think it is pretty much spot on. There probably could be another 20-30 tenets, but those base 10 are a really good start, and are definitely where the mismatch in the EA/Rationalist community seem to be with reality. (EA has a few other problems that I think warp their ability to focus on their apparent core purpose.) I think the Blank Slate model of humanity is probably the biggest wrong turn philosophy has created in the modern world, effectively starting everyone off on the wrong principle such that it is practically impossible to get back on the right track once it is accepted. Genetics isn't destiny, but that is closer to the truth than humans being infinitely malleable.

Expand full comment

What country gets the level of inequality of outcomes best, in your mind? I did door to door sales in poor parts of the USA for a couple years and don't think children should grow up the way that I saw. Leads to both left and right wing views (more conservative beliefs about family, more support for health care for kids).

I'm also struck that technology changes the outcomes quite a bit. As things get more efficient there are more power laws. Think, for example, musicians now vs 100 years ago. So one could accept that inequalities are primarily the result of talent and still want to change the distribution of money. If AGI comes and most people can be replaced should those resources be funneled to the few financiers and programmers?

Expand full comment
author

I was just reading your blog!

That's a difficult question. I think that resources can be moved across borders and which country you are in is also largely just how lucky you are. I don't see a particularly good reason why the poor in America should be privileged over the poor in South Sudan, Yemen, etc., if we are worried about inequality. If I wanted to lessen inequality, I think it would be moving money to the poorest regions of the world.

Although, I'm not sure how ethical I think this is because I think coercion is bad. If I disagreed and thought coercion was appropriate to redistribute money, then I would think it would be my moral obligation to give away my money until I was poor. I don't think that's right though. The distribution doesn't matter as much to me as the level of freedom. Some countries could have equal freedom and different levels of inequality. I think that AGI benefits will be spread around. If we become abundantly wealthy and there are still people in poverty, I would support some level of coercion though.

I want to write an article about what I would believe if I was on the left and had these same views. I think that I would support a lot of redistribution and especially support subsidizing polygenic screening through IVF.

Expand full comment

Yeah, I had thought of this comment and your comment there reminded me to mention this here :)

I'm living in Mexico right now and so I also am not super sympathetic to the plight of "poor" people in the USA. But one compelling reason to care about inequality is that democracy essentially requires it. If everyone votes about services, then the difference between top and bottom cannot be arbitrarily big. Even if the bottom is still much higher than Yemen.

"support subsidizing polygenic screening through IVF"? You mean state-sponsored eugenics? Yikes.

I jest, of course. It is funny that those two phrases mean the same thing! Shows how morally disconnected it is to try and lump polygenic screening with eugenics proper.

Expand full comment
author

Your research on personality is also pretty important because it makes for a better selection if we get personality figured out better.

Expand full comment

That was one of the things I was thinking about, actually! I do think we should select for the GFP more than any of the Big Five. I am not super optimistic for technical reasons. If a trait has been heavily selected for recently, then the genetic architecture is likely non-linear, as in each gene does not contribute independently. Because GWAS is simply regression, it can't handle nonlinear effects. Keep in mind there are similar problems for IQ if there is recent selection. (Though I'm not sure the "dominance" value for IQ, which comes from twin studies and indicates nonlinearity.)

Expand full comment
Dec 28, 2022Liked by Ives Parr

You should select for GFP and GFH.

In other words, rank for GF. This general factor of everything can also be called a "genetic index". The older term from the literature is "breeding value". But for obvious reasons, that term should not be used here, in part because that one is typically used when selecting among potential parents for whether they should be permitted to breed in the first place.

Expand full comment
author

That's really cool. You should write an article about Mexico. Another one of the bloggers I follow - Chris from Karlstack - is in Mexico now. What drew you to Mexico?

I don't think Democracy is the ideal system, but I see what you're saying.

Yep! Great point. People have trouble "decoupling" with eugenics. I've written about this elsewhere (https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/harmless-eugenics)

Expand full comment

My wife is from Mexico, and she always wanted to live in Playa del Carmen. It's a beautiful resort town and when the pandemic hit we moved here. It was basically empty so we got a year of the beaches to ourselves. Word got out though and now we have to share 🤷

> don't think Democracy is the ideal system, but I see what you're saying.

Seems like that should be part of the manifesto! Or maybe just bill it as a manifesto for right wing rationalists who are in the ruling party of non-democratic states.

Expand full comment
author

Very cool. Chris is there too if you ever want a blogger friend. Anyway, it was a pleasure talking to you. Merry Christmas!

Expand full comment

Likewise, Merry Christmas!

Expand full comment
Dec 24, 2022Liked by Ives Parr

Why the enthusiasm for immigration?

Expand full comment
author

Caplan persuaded me.

Expand full comment

About what exactly? I find his arguments ridicoulusly bad.

Expand full comment

I get the value of increased immigration, especially to the immigrants and their families, but I just don’t grok the concept of "open borders" at all. I would be fine with some developed country or state trying it somewhere, mainly so we can all observe how spectacularly it fails. If I am wrong and it works well, I will gladly change my opinion on the matter. Reality is complex, I prefer someone show me rather than present rational arguments.

Expand full comment
Dec 25, 2022·edited Dec 25, 2022

The reason whether you people believe it or not is not that hard to understand. I'll share the reasoning process of the elites since they have basically quoted their intentions time and time again, but this seems to be fallen on deaf ears.

(a) Humans are bio-algos, very complex ones.

(b) Good bio-algos, create high-order societies, create new technologies, and are cooperative. (i.e. don't poison their own Children, don't create environmental wastelands, like Japan).

(c) Elites see themselves as the ultimate arbiters, undergoing many millennia of tribulations of civilization, with factional wars and disputes, overturning various industries, banking dynasties, and whatnot. They are fit to rule because they have maintained said power to rule.

(d) Elites want good and obedient bio-algos.

(e) Certain groups are not obedient and efficient bio-algos. They get fat. They retaliate a lot. They consume more resources than other bio-algos.

(f) Humans when left on their own, reproduce infinitely if given infinite resources and energy. Hence energy and resources must be controlled and properly administered by privileged right according to the value of bio-algos.

(g) Displacing, and removing certain bio-algos with other bio-algos, whether by means of famine, energy limitation policies, information-control policies, wars or whatever means is all necessary since humans won't accept open eugenics, since as Dawkins said people are fighting for their genetic interests. Religious people citing 'sacred spirit', men fighting over 'sexual infidelity', women wooing the best mate...

(h) Thus, trust the science climate change (even though ppm of CO2 was much higher in the past, and 99% of the atmosphere is mostly water vapour, and methane gas from many millenia of cows has not permanently altered the atmosphere) propaganda or soon-to-be climate cooling 'arctic' extreme winds, or https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf '99 covid strains require untested mRNA injections which localize in the sex gonads and induce myocardia' and many other politi-scientific funding is needed to coerce humans into a new Net-Zero 15-minute city agenda with UBI lifestyle-concessions https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2022e3.pdf. Also see Kalergi-plan (very obvious in video games that are westernized and medias and films, and all the photos being serendipitously edited out with more people of Black African descent or Middle-Eastern). Gaia worship and DEI + collectivist politics are one way of globalizing the world. China is the intention (technocratic neo-feudalism) model for the rest of the world, which is being panned out by a test-and-see approach which can span several decades of planning and actions.

i) also since humans are just bio-algos, reducing the population is the first goal, reducing the standard of living is the second goal until sufficient energetic needs can be sustained, creating a new order of better bio-algos, first by life-extension, then genetic designer babies/mixed cyberborg-brain-interface chipped humans, then digital immortality-recreated bodies, and potentially alternative synthetic life not derived from carbon - basically anything goes. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/DARPA/06-F-2005_Adv_Neural_Implants_and_Control_DARPA_Bio_Info_Micro_Annual_PI_Meeting_November_5-6_2003.pdf

that's basically elite logic. Also the universe if up for exploitation, the creation of many life, of civilization, of Godhood is up there too. High-skill immigration is a non-sequitur talking point. Most of these people come from destitute countries of lower living standards, so they are also willing to consume less resources to do same amount of work.

https://futurescape.chathamhouse.org

Also since all slaves will be equal and obedient, having them fight over other people for more resources is stupid. Thus everyone will love each other, mongrelize with each other and see each other as genetically identical. Or at least that is the theory.

You can every sci-fi film is the same thing. The populations will be controlled or sterilized, or selected for by intelligence and economic value, and the natural order of society will be remade anew. Or some special AI/government entity gets to control everything. It's telegraphed. Repeatedly. (even check Youtube thrillers/made-films... I don't comprehend why people can't understand the logic. If Yaha from WEF and Prince Phillip saying they want to reincarnate as a virus, and past politicians from the global shapers/young leaders program had their fathers/mothers from Eugenics Societies/UNICEF/Club of Rome all stating similar intentions then it's pretty obvious. I myself am not against any of intended plans other than the fact that I rather not be forced to be relocated to a Megatropolis because of the importation of less-than-non-violent individuals.

Expand full comment

>(g) Displacing, and removing certain bio-algos with other bio-algos, whether by means of famine, energy limitation policies, information-control policies, wars or whatever means is all necessary since humans won't accept open eugenics, since as Dawkins said people are fighting for their genetic interests. Religious people citing 'sacred spirit', men fighting over 'sexual infidelity', women wooing the best mate...

Unsubstantiated.

Expand full comment

What is a bio-algo? Did you make this term up, or is it something we should all know?

Expand full comment
Dec 23, 2022Liked by Ives Parr

Brilliant stuff.

Expand full comment

Excellent

Expand full comment

I think it's important to reiterate my disagreement with Richard (and it looks like with you) on calling this Right-wing. Except for the markets point, none of this is a moral claim. None of it is about what is good, beautiful, or right. They're simply factual claims that everyone who has enough experience in either the real world experience or with scientific paper-reading should agree with. Even the markets claim is not too far from this, if we shift it from "markets are good" to "markets historically give people things they consider good".

It also reveals some asymmetries about the current regime. No one is making "left-wing rationalism" with the tenets that:

- Covid vaccines reduce severe illness and death

- Immigration on average raises per capita GDP

- The Earth is more than 5000 years old

- Evolution is true

- Some women are able to competently work in technical areas

It's difficult even to speculate what parts of reality a right-wing regime would deny. That's how asymmetric the warfare is right now. Consequently I think branding reality as "right wing" is not beneficial either to reality or to the right, whatever that is. It's just painting a target on important truths that, if recognized, would benefit everyone, not just right wingers.

Expand full comment

Where's the evidence that immigrations raises per capita GDP?

Expand full comment

The average estimate among economists in the empirical literature is that open borders would double GDP.

Expand full comment

That doesn't tell you what happens to per capita GDP.

Expand full comment

> We are in an evolutionary mismatch: Since we recognize we are not blank slates, we should also recognize that our brains evolved to be adaptive to specific environments. The present environment is very different from our ancestors, and it may make us happier to embrace more traditional lifestyles. On the rationalist right, there is more skepticism around the practicality and utility of polyamory, promiscuity, substance use, and atheism. There is more sympathy for Christianity, having children, and the genders adopting their respective gender roles. The right also seems to like older and more traditional aesthetics in architecture, artwork, clothing, etc.

It would seem like the traditional lifestyle you have in mind is one of the relatively recent past. While we are not evolutionarily matched to modernity, neither are we evolutionarily matched to those traditions.

Expand full comment
Jan 1, 2023·edited Jan 1, 2023

Why do you favor mass immigration? Most immigration to high IQ countries is from low IQ countries and leads to a lowering of living standards in high IQ countries, to say nothing of the problems associated with ethnic diversity in itself.

Expand full comment