You would think of course that towns need to be located near bodies of water where hydroelectric power can be produced.  Of course only a small fraction of the power that could be produced would be produced using only hydroelectric power plants, however, this would all seem perfectly normal to you.

As odd as this world might seem to you this is exactly the present situation without human cloning.  Dr. Teller was our Hoover dam.  Dr. Einstein our Tennessee Valley Authority, and you and  I , one of those little streams in the desert that flow only when it is raining.

Technically human cloning is not genetic engineering nor is it even human engineering.  It is I suppose a form of social engineering. It astounds me that we should even consider throwing away valuable genetic material that has already been proven and tested. For it can be seen that even if we limit ourselves to only one clone per individual per generation, of our few, woefully few, outstanding individuals,  we would very quickly double then triple and then quadruple etc., the number of outstanding individuals in each generation.  The number of proven intellects available in each generation would rise from the current less than three percent to six percent in just the first generation, etc.

If we are dependent on only nature for our outstanding individuals then they will be as artificially limited as electrical power would be if we only allowed electrical power to be produced “naturally,” as in our analogy,  where we only produce power at certain geological formations.

It is a common view, and wrong, that Nature is democratic.  As in the movie Gattaca, the common view is that cloning must lead to a dystopia future which produces only a few “leaders” with the larger mass condemned to lower worker orders.  However, it seems to me that the falsity of this thesis is so obvious that it does not deserve refutation.  Is it not obvious to you that this is the dystopia of Nature?  This criticism is of not the future but the present.

 

Mother Nature has little use for these extremes of intelligence.  It is only because of our ‘unnatural’ development of the knowledge economy that such importance is now placed on this particular feature of our genetic inheritance.   Mother Nature celebrated a much wider range of the genome than our singular focus on the genes associated with a perfect SAT score.  (And for proof  that our focus is against Nature we may be able to point to the increase in autism.  One current theory is that as communities of extreme genetic selection are created, (universities and research parks), the offspring of these colonies of ‘unnatural’ genetic selection are at greater risk of autism.)  Our entire society is increasingly characterized by the anaphase of cell division.  Anaphase is the stage when the genetic material, chromosomes, move to the opposite poles of the dividing cell.

Indeed if I were given to the same incivility as my political opponents I might become vexed with the readers hypocrisy in condemning so vigorously in my arguments what is actually practiced in fact in real life right here and now.  Already in these few paragraphs for example how many times has the reader made private assessments of the author’s I.Q.?  How many times a day does the reader scoff at the hardships being endured by his fellows with lower I.Q.s in Africa, or Asia, or just down the street?  The reader may think his apportionment of intelligence was fair, may even over the course of years have come to think of it as his due, something that was deserved.  Really?  You deserve, you merit, your I.Q.? 

In fact my political opponents will not only speak uncivilly in response to these arguments,  now they will justify their further misconduct by referencing these arguments.  ‘You see?’ they will say. ‘We are right to destroy his life, ruin his chances for employment, harass, and abuse,  why you see?  He is a NAZI!’ they will exclaim.  Indeed Dr. Teller was vilified his entire life by the leftists because they were against the “bomb.”  (Of course they very much appreciated the peace the bomb made possible.)

In reading the obituaries of Dr. Stephen J. Gould I took a strange delight in noting how completely the leftist have taken control of the mass media.  The controversy of Sociobiology had disappeared from our social reality on order of the commissars of  the People’s Media.  Had not Dr. Gould accused Dr. E. O. Wilson of being a NAZI?  And hadn’t Dr. Gould been shown by the success of Sociobiology  to be a demagogue, a partisan,  who sought to politicize Biology? 

 

Was this omission from the obituaries to protect Dr. Gould’s reputation or the reputation of his leftist partisans who control the media as well as the academy? 

 

They have engaged in a decades long fight to suppress Sociobiology, the Bell Curve, I. Q. tests, all standardized testing, research in Genetics, they have vandalized experiments, trashed reputations, sought to remove faculty and students who pursued politically “incorrect” research;  and yet here, upon the death of one of their leading torches, silence.  Why?  Did he go too far in labeling Dr. E. O. Wilson a “NAZI?” Are they ashamed? Regret?  

 

I doubt it.  They know no shame.  They continue to advocate racial quotas long after it has been proven that the standardized tests are not “racially” biased.  Race quotas are still in use even after the People of California have prohibited them for State activities.  I believe that they omitted Dr. Gould’s misconduct from his obituary to hide their own misconduct. 

 

Are they to admit Sociobiology has been proven?  Are they then to admit the genetic basis of our humanity?  Then will they not have to admit that this genetic basis can be measured?  Then what of all that they have built on these decade long denials?  What of their administered race law “solution”:  race quotas?   What would follow from all of these admissions?  Better to depress the delete key and cut all references to Dr. Gould’s “politics.”   

 

 

Compared to all of this; what was the reputation of Dr. Wilson?  And as far as Sociobiology?  Most readers are proles who cares if they understand it?  Better that they should not even know about it.  That way it can not be used by the NAZIS.  And was this not also the attitude towards the Bell Curve?  And what do they have in common?  Genetics.    (It is not random chance that Stalin banned the study of Genetics.  For the left also believes in an “objective” world view.  In their view Genetics was a capitalist trick. It contradicted their “scientific socialist”  “objective”  “reality.”)

 

The Soviets purged all references to Genetics just as the mass media to day in America suppresses the Bell Curve and any reference to the genetic basis of our individual and social organization.  For example, Bill O’Reilly simply says he is going to lie about the Bell Curve.  “We can not say that a whole group of people can not compete because of race.”  (This is O’Reilly’s interpretation of I.Q. and race, not that of the Bell Curve.)  He tells you right up front.  Like an old Commissar he simply will not accept the evidence for “political” reasons, i.e. for reasons of social control.  He does not care how well researched the studies, he has decided the conclusion in advance. 

 

This is why he regularly tells his audience to “work hard” and be “disciplined” and they will achieve their goals.  He says this not necessarily because he believes it, but because he feels he has to speak this way in order to maintain control.   If he were forced to admit to preexisting genetic conditions he does not know how we would be able to maintain control.  (Answer:  Society would just go on as it has --- with the preexisting genetic conditions. Some people have superior abilities.  Some people do not.  Rich man. Poor man. )

 

O’Reilly’s concern for maintaining social control extends to the ecclesiastical as well.  He has dragooned God into the effort of social control.  He explains his philosophy of God, (without crediting Descartes) and then, again straight up without apology, that even if there is no God we need to say there is one because it is important for social control.  I can not imagine a means of destroying religion more efficiently than having O’Reilly becoming his prophet.  O’Reilly, God is manifest.  Open your eyes you prick.

 

Counselor:  Oh, well that’s nice.  So you are God’s champion also?

 

But notice that if it should turn out that we can make O’Reilly see the truth of the Bell Curve and genetics, (or anyway make him admit it publicly, as he has said only that he does not want to admit it publicly), O’Reilly would think that God had let us down.  Why did God make us all different?  Now, recall Allan Watts’ point about the disappointed Americans.  O’Reilly thinks God’s handy work substandard.  Why I.Q.s of 100 (mean, mode, medium) or 85 (one standard deviation below the mean)?  Why did God do that?  Bill O’Reilly wants to know.

 

Allan Watts would say that this is Bill O’Reilly’s problem not God’s.   God is in people with I.Q.s of 85 even if they can not pass the standardized tests for what ever. God does not care about your standardized tests anymore than, as we have explained, does Mother Nature.  Dr. Gould’s objections we have explained. He is a partisan.  But O’Reilly?  Is it because he has such concern for the  sensitivities of those whose I.Q. is less than 125?  Sensitivity from a man who shouts “pin head,” “loon,” “idiot,” “mall people,” etc., etc., at his callers and anyone who disagrees with him?  I don’t think so.  He is the first one to heap scorn and abuse. 

 

The Bell Curve does not say race determines I.Q. but it does allow that there might not be uniformity of “historically underrepresented minorities.”  Allowing “disparate impact” is not the same thing as saying to “a whole group of people that they can not compete because of race.”  And the Harvard trained O’Reilly should know this, certainly does know it, as did the late Dr. Gould. 

 

Then too there is the more personal factor.  If Mr. O’Reilly had to admit that his own success was in part ( Murray and Herrnstein estimate it at 60% )  due to his unearned, undisciplined, unmerited, genetic inheritance, his ego might not be supportable. His egotism of the “self made man” finds genetic inheritance embarrassing.

 

(For readers who are not sure about the science of the  Bell Curve, and have heard some say it is wrong and only a few say it is right, and do not know if it is “the truth” or not, I can offer a simple test.   The entire controversy can be resolved with one question.  Of the two contending groups, one wants to be given access to more data to do more research, and the other group seeks to prevent such access to the data, and wants to prohibit testing etc.   Which group do you trust?  Obviously it is the opponents of the Bell Curve who seek to prevent further investigations.  Just like Stalin they want to ban the subject.  This tells you everything you need to know about the controversy. Currently the academics are preventing scientists from gaining access to college records.  Certainly this data, decades long, and for millions of students would allow for very accurate research.)   

 

What you see in the Bell Curve, in all bell curve distributions of genetic traits; what these distributions are showing you, are outcomes of zillions of possible outcomes.  Three billion base pairs factored.  Not quite factored.  Not every possible combination will live.  Mother Nature has lots of abortions.  Abortions, strange to say, are “natural.”  But still lots of combinations are possible.  Some combinations are “good,” these offset others that are “not so good.”  The combinations cluster around the mean.  A little over half the population is on either side of the mean.  (One standard deviation north and south.)  68% clustered together, straddle the middle. Mother Nature considers this a fine bit of work --- to keep so many of her children all together, see?  All most the same.   

 

The others the rest of the population?  They spread out a little. On the tail ends, north and south.  That is, 16% have "good" combinations that have paired with other "good" combinations.  That is north.  South?   That tail end is not so “good.”  Not so good to the likes of Bill O’Reilly.  God and Mother Nature do not understand this attitude. 

 

They think they have done very well thank you to keep so many together there in the middle like that, thank you very much.  For billions of years they have had no complaints until the likes of Bill O’Reilly came along. Mother Nature does not understand why you think so much in the first place, and place such importance on your little brains.  To her your thoughts are but flashes.  Mother Nature thinks thoughts that take millions of years to play out.  She began the thought “human beings” millions of years ago.  She is still thinking.  What are your puny thoughts by comparison?   

 

Probably we will not find a single smart gene.  Cognitive functioning, like good health, is the result of zillions of base pair combinations, which in a resulting individual results in billions of interactions in the body.  Just your neural networks exchange billions of molecules every second of the day. Hormones, proteins, down to individual electrons, all influenced somewhere in every cell of your body. All influenced by your genetic inheritance.  Under their influence thoughts come and go.  In some individuals  deep richly complex neural networks flow into richer and more complex networks.  From the perfect balance of molecules an idea.  Which leads to another.  Learning is fun immensely rewarding.  More molecules are released by the act of cognition alone, stimulating the development of more complex networks, reinforcing the learning process.

 

A self reinforcing process.  Deeper and deeper in to more complete understanding.  The warm glow of . . . Isn’t this how it is for you darling?  No?   Well, life isn’t fair is it?  No, not fair.  But tell me where in the above paragraph does merit come in?   Again, I ask, I challenge you, from where did you “earn” your I.Q.?  

 

When Human Engineering begins certain sequences of base pairs, in certain groups of individuals, will have been identified.  These sequences will be spliced into the cells of an individual.  Some bodily functions will be improved.  Perhaps oxygen uptake will be increased, or molecules that exist for a instant in time during a synaptic connection will be increased.  Cognition will improve.

 

We do not yet know the immediate social effects.  Will it be easier to raise the I.Q.s of the top 16% because they need only a little cut and pasting to top out?  Or will it be easier to improve the bottom 16% because any corrections will have profound effects?  The answers are not yet clear.  Either way will result in  different social consequences but this is only short term. Long term, the Bell Curve sets out what just a 3% improvement in the average would have on society.  With Recombinant Genetics there may be no limits.  Evolution.

Take note conservatives how easy it is for you to see the hypocrisy of the left but see here in the cloning question that your own hypocrisy, your claim that your own superior intelligence was “deserved,” goes unnoticed, or anyway unaccepted.  You will continue to defend the “free enterprise” system etc., etc., with the idiotic assertion that “All Men are Created Equal,”  despite all evidence to the contrary.  And please let us have no “endowed by their Creator” nonsense.  In this debate you must discuss science or shut up.   It was pure chance that the top 3%, or 16%, or 25% got to be "top."  Certainly Mother Nature does not regard them as eing on top, much less good.  She was trying to put all her children together there in the middle, but, well, some get a bit further away on the ends like, don't you know, isn't that the way with these little creatures?  But don't tell her that those ones are better.  

 

Conservatives;  admission of human inequality does not necessarily lead to world socialism. But it might lead you to some new insights.  Consider, for example, as Murray and Herrnstein pointed out, was our tax code written for people with I.Q.s of 100?  Instead of facing the fact that our government is monopolized by freaks of  Nature who use there unmerited intelligence to exploit the rest of us, conservatives stubbornly and stupidly insist on mankind’s equality. 

 

The truth is that accountants in Connecticut and Washington D.C. screw the rest of us churning the tax code every year so that even people with 150 I. Q. points can not keep up with it unless they too are willing to hire a team of elite school graduates working 60 hours a week reading tax code.  Murray and Herrnstein asked if we could not make society just a little simpler?

 Yes, we could.  But the cognitive elite will not.  Cloning and then Human and then Genetic Engineering are another way of balancing the scales that Mother Nature in her indifference allowed to become so uneven.  And the beauty part is that with cloning we do not have to argue with the cognitive elite.  We just have to do it.  It is doubtful that they would ever agree that a wider distribution of genetic material is a good thing.   

No elite ever willingly gives up its unjust control on power.   Because they know it is unjust they will not relinquish their grasp.  This is why it is unjust, because not merited.  It is only by injustice that control can be maintained. 

I am convinced that the treatment Murray and Herrnstein and their book The Bell Curve received was simply because it was realized that they were pulling back the curtain and exposing the true nature of the hidden power structure.  A small group, the second standard deviation above the mean, 16% of the population, has been placed at the top of the power pyramid not by “merit” but by unfair undemocratic Mother Nature, and they do not appreciate having their secret exposed.  ( Even among the top 25% the pyramid is much flatter than the ones at Keops.  I.Q. Test: Which percentile among the top 25% is the most populous?  Answer:  The 25^th.  Which percentile is the next most populous?  Answer: The 24^th.  Next? Answer:  The 23^rd.  Are you starting to see a pattern? 

For example, most of the students admitted to the University of California, which used to accept the top 12%,  are in the bottom percentile,  the 12^th percentile.  The next largest group?  The 11^th percentile and so on.  The explanation is that after the 2^nd standard deviation the bell curve distribution curve is almost straight down.   The UC system takes in the top 12 percent for purely political reasons.   Most of the students are in the bottom of the class.  However, most of the funding goes to research not education.  The students are political cover for this funding.  The truth is most of them are not going to be going on to their PhDs,  conducting research,  which is the center of a research university.  The truth is most of the students have more in common with the larger society than they do with the productive 3% at the top of the UC pyramid.  But note the prestige conveyed – the power.  The top 25% hold sway over the bottom 75% but do not assume that the top 25% is democratic or uniform.  The distribution of cognitive ability is even more skewed among this group than the population as a whole.)

 

I mean to say dear readers, (those of you who disagree with cloning), you are mostly hypocrites.  You in particular benefit from Nature's mal distribution of genetic material associated with intelligence and you block our attempts to use our technology to change our circumstances.  Thank goodness cloning, and later human engineering, and then still later, (a decade or two, . . . or three from now), full genetic engineering, will not be dependant on the reader’s good opinion, or hypocrisy, as the case may be.  This is not really open to debate.

 

And this is the most important point.  You and your hypocrisy, your viciousness, are irrelevant.   Your silly opinions, full of contradictions and vanity, deliberate delusions, will not stop the movement to genetic engineering, which is to say evolution.  For genetic engineering, of which cloning is but a small first step, is a continuation of 4 billion years of evolution.  You are by comparison a nonentity.  

 

Though cloning is not technically genetic engineering it offers the initial advantage of pre testing.   As I write we do not yet know what exact base pairs in the DNA of Doctor Teller predisposes him to mathematics and  physics.  I do not doubt that with in just a few decades we will be writing our own DNA base pair code.  However, in Doctor Teller’s case I think Nature has done a perfectly acceptable job and there is no reason why we should refrain from copying Nature, as it is the sincerest form of flattery. 

Could we improve on Dr. Teller?  But I can foresee a time when mothers choose their children the “old fashion way,” by cloning, saying, “At least this way you know what you’re getting. Who knows what the genetic engineers will come up with next!"

It is not certain that Dr. Teller’s clone would be as interested in science and mathematics as the original or whether the clone would prefer poetry or architecture. 

Obviously there would be a keen interest in studying the clones.   For this and other reasons I don’t see any reason why several clones could not be introduced in each generation from the same individual.   This would allow for a much faster growth of the population of individuals with special talent.  To prevent the clones meeting one another, at least too early in life during their formative years, they could be distributed to several continents. Later I am sure they would very much enjoy meeting their brothers or sisters and comparing notes on life. 

Michael Krasney:   “What is it with these Gentiles?   They hate us but they love our women?”

Answer:  Because they spoil one.

“My mother told me not to think of myself as being any better than the other students simply because I was good in math and sciences.”  --- Doctor Teller

Well Doctor Teller  .. . ah . . .you understand we were just joking around,  I certainly did not have in mind your dear mother,  I,  ah,  I didn’t mean to say all of  them spoiled  . . . ah,  I was only joking with the boys you understand.  It was those socialists over at KQED, Michael Krasney,   that started it on  . . .  those lines.   Ah, God bless your dear mother sir.

Dr. Teller:   “When I first met Niels Bohr I said, ‘How lucky we are to live at a time when Quantum Mechanics will allow us to understand all paradoxes.’  Niels Bohr responded, ‘Young man I doubt all paradoxes will be resolved.’”

 

 

From the New Ruskin College Project:

“The most recondite problem in Quantum Mechanics is but simple arithmetic when compared to the matchless complexity of even the simplest human interactions.”

Charles Krauthammer:  “Oh, yeah, Molecular Chemistry is easy, Poetry is hard.  Yeah, sure.”

Counselor:  What was that?  Irony?

No, I think that was sarcasm.

Counselor:  Well he needs to talk to some one. 

Well, yeah, obviously, but he is a Harvard trained psychiatrist. 

Counselor:  Oh dear.

Yeah, they think they know everything.