Sperm banks

[integral]

From Poison for the Heart:

The Christians of today speak of themselves as "vehicles for God," a selfless sacrifice . . . and then I speak of myself as a vehicle for my genes and thoughts. How disappointed they are in me!

Kevin, Dan, and David: have you guys ever thought of donating to a sperm bank to capitalize on any role your genes may have played in you becoming sages?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's of course entirely possible, although not very likely, they've already visited and impregnated a significant portion of the younger and wiser female posters here, to serve the human race and not made it public for obvious reasons ("The Boys from Austrail").

A sperm bank obviously won't work well since many women still use selection criteria not found in the biographical information of mentioned gentlemen. And are the 'wise' genes dominant or recessive? It does generate a tiny bit of income though, donating to sperm banks.

Indeed, if this eugenical idea would have any serious traction at this place it would be nothing but logical to set up a complex 'impregnation' schedule, causing as many permutations as possible. Of course the women will have to nurse the children the first years and then the kids (any gender selection applied?) will have to go to "Genius Camp" for a few years to be taught the basics after which they will get kicked out on their big solo journey through a desert or something to get rid of their huge selves.

But who will do the selection? And will the women agree with doing all the 'dirty' work? Cans of worms. Tongues in cheeks.

Big Wordly Matter topic too.

[Dan Rowden]

It's of course entirely possible, although not very likely, they've already visited and impregnated a significant portion of the younger and wiser female posters here, to serve the human race and not made it public for obvious reasons ("The Boys from Austrail").

Shhhh! Keep it quiet will ya!

A sperm bank obviously won't work well since many women still use selection criteria not found in the biographical information of mentioned gentlemen. And are the 'wise' genes dominant or recessive? It does generate a tiny bit of income though, donating to sperm banks.

Income? How much income? How often can I go?

Indeed, if this eugenical idea would have any serious traction at this place it would be nothing but logical to set up a complex 'impregnation' schedule, causing as many permutations as possible. Of course the women will have to nurse the children the first years and then the kids (any gender selection applied?) will have to go to "Genius Camp" for a few years to be taught the basics after which they will get kicked out on their big solo journey through a desert or something to get rid of their huge selves.

The only way the idea could have merit is if we could show come correlation between genetics and wisdom, but we can't and I don't really think we ever will. There are too many others factors involved. The average guy is perfectly capable of attaining wisdom if his karma is ripe for it. I'd rather concentrate of finding ways to be a good karma catalyst.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

if we could show come correlation between genetics and wisdom

Hey Freud, your slip is showing.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Income? How much income? How often can I go?

It varies each bank from 20€ -75€ for the trouble of each visit. I don't think one can do twenty times a month to generate a full income but when in need for quick cash.... Also they check for high quality sperm and want good records of mental and physical health of course. More picky than the average woman I suppose!

Participating in trial tests for new medication, supplements or some research; now that pays way better! A couple of years ago the European Space Agency was looking for people to lie down on a bed for a few months and stay there.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I’ve always thought that there is a genetic link to wise individuals. For instance: As a child, I exhibited a relatively robust emotional intelligence, and a certain mental space that is necessary for complex intellectual thought.

Mental space probably has a relationship to the complexity of the neurological network in the brain, which is probably entirely genetically controlled. Also, the more significant the mental space is, the less rigid and tightly conditioned the sense of self is.

I actually think impregnating intellectual women is a good idea, as it would increase the probability and frequency of sages in the world.

Hey ladies, any takers? We have some free sage sperm from the QRS, and company? Come on, help the world for Christ’s sakes! Do your part, make a difference!

Actually most women wouldn’t go for that now that I think about it.

Its hard to make that argument, it would go something like this, “yeah, we’re going to impregnate you now, but we’re incapable of providing financial support, and you’re child could probably grow up to have absolutely no desire for material ambition, power, and self-gratifying emotional rewards. Essentially your child will grow up to behave like a corpse. Now did you still want that sperm or not?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Well, David and Sue think their kid is on the right track, and Sue went for it, but they have both mentioned that raising a child is a great deal of work and sacrifice. Wisdom would dictate that the wise person do whatever is most likely to spread the most wisdom, and as Dan pointed out, there is plenty of unmet potential out there already. The question would have to be if the genetic contribution (which, as Dan also mentioned, is unproven) would outweigh the sacrifice of time and effort available for a broader audience. Also, with the broader audience, we can narrow down who we spend our time on to those most likely to benefit - whereas with a child, there is a random element. The offspring could be retarded. Furthermore, the QRS are past their prime reproductive years, which increases the chance of their producing defective offspring. Of course it is still possible they could produce a good lineage - my father was 50 when I was born, and my mother had gone through menopause 7 years before I was born (it was medically "impossible" for me to be born, yet here I am typing at you) - so there is a significant random element that could play in either direction.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth wrote:

Furthermore, the QRS are past their prime reproductive years, which increases the chance of their producing defective offspring.

I thought age doesn’t matter for males - A man’s sperm is healthy right up into old age because they the testes produce sperm regularly, while disposing of old sperm, whereas women’s eggs degenerate over time because they have already been manufactured in her early years.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

That used to be what they believed, and it is more probable for a male to produce healthy offspring, or even offspring at all, later in life than a female, who has a sudden and significant lowering of reproductive capability at some point in her adult years - but with advances in fertility medicine, it has been found that men also have a biological clock of sorts where the sperm become fewer and less healthy, but it is a gradual change rather than a sudden one. They have also made various discoveries about male menopause.

[keenobserver]

Better than that, all enlightened people should undergo dna testing, to locate the genius gene(s). Each may have certain genes turned on in a unique combination.
Then we could select for this and populate the world with many hopefuls.
May be the quickest way to save this messed up place.
All we need is full control of the right laboratory, not very likely.

[keenobserver]

It's of course entirely possible, although not very likely, they've already visited and impregnated a significant portion of the younger and wiser female posters here, to serve the human race and not made it public for obvious reasons ("The Boys from Austrail").

Shhhh! Keep it quiet will ya!

A sperm bank obviously won't work well since many women still use selection criteria not found in the biographical information of mentioned gentlemen. And are the 'wise' genes dominant or recessive? It does generate a tiny bit of income though, donating to sperm banks.

Income? How much income? How often can I go?

Indeed, if this eugenical idea would have any serious traction at this place it would be nothing but logical to set up a complex 'impregnation' schedule, causing as many permutations as possible. Of course the women will have to nurse the children the first years and then the kids (any gender selection applied?) will have to go to "Genius Camp" for a few years to be taught the basics after which they will get kicked out on their big solo journey through a desert or something to get rid of their huge selves.

The only way the idea could have merit is if we could show come correlation between genetics and wisdom, but we can't and I don't really think we ever will. There are too many others factors involved. The average guy is perfectly capable of attaining wisdom if his karma is ripe for it. I'd rather concentrate of finding ways to be a good karma catalyst.

Diebert, how many of the women here are Australians?
If I could say, quite stranger isnt it, that like 5 or 6 or perhaps more women contribute here, if I could be allowed an exageration - the place is being over-run by them! Just strikes me as so strange, all of them writing with such authority and purpose, yet occassionally bickering over trivialities as ordinary women so often do in the world (The View, fi). Like, who's favor are they trying to win, i wonder. I suppose it must be their male friends there down under, i cant make much other sense of it.
Its a bit troubling, though, as it might have the appearance or effect of diminishing the whole very important production, which incidentally happens quite often these days out in the real world, sort of like how the mens clubs and other things were effectively wrecked by invasion.
So I reckon credibility is important and Im having a hard time finding it whenever i read between the lines, so to speak.
A fair bit of repetition, unnecessary/counterproductive points, bravado, and colorful impressive writing at the cost of clarity and comprehension. Like, you want to say "no one cares how good you are at anything".
No offense intended, really, of course all are welcome here, but im hoping things may change for the better now.

However if you are right, that some here are carrying those precious seeds within them, what then, it all makes great sense.

Im inclined to ask Dan why he is so sure about not finding that genius/dna link. Perhaps his karma was right because his genes were also right.

And how long his fingers are.

[DHodges]

Just strikes me as so strange, all of them writing with such authority and purpose, yet occassionally bickering over trivialities as ordinary women so often do in the world (The View, fi). Like, who's favor are they trying to win, i wonder. I suppose it must be their male friends there down under, i cant make much other sense of it.

As I see it, women naturally compete with each other, but they do it in a different way then men do.

Men compete in sports, or intelligence (or business or whatever) pretty directly. Women tend to compete more indirectly, a bit more subtly, for social dominance. Part of female social dominance is getting the attention of men. It might seem like they are trying to curry favor with men - and they are - but that is (mostly) just a move in the game. Men are pawns in the dominance game women play against each other.

This is also a large part of the general misunderstanding men and women have of each other. Men tend to talk to exchange information. For women, talking is an end in itself - it means she is the object of someone's attention, and that is important in itself.

As with men, the competition between women is nearly instinctual, and they will fall into it unless they consciously avoid it.

[Pye]

Why not look at just two of the philosophical "genius-men" that flagstaff the forum - Neitzsche and Kierkegaard - to ask if your theories about genius breeding stock are true. Maybe Kevin and David's parentage, too, if'n you're wanting to give them genius status (and if you know what that is).

What you will find is that "genius" makes its appearances randomly, just as Darwin's diversity/variation strengths of a species points out ("randomness" without the intellectual pejorative). "Mother" and "Father" as manifest are not the alpha-point in themselves of the genes they carry, and clearly, the type of wisdom favored by the geniuses here is not necessary for survival or species promulgation, hence, it joins the pool of variant (random) genes.

It is no more likely that a genius-child will appear to two super-intelligent people than it is that a genius-child would appear to a religious cleric and his wife's maid. In fact, not only do the biographies of those we study as "great men" fail to support this notion of single generational breeding intelligence; it seems to show in fact the opposite: that "humble beginnings," as they say, and even unhappy childhoods, great conflicts psychic and physical - the "storms" that make the tree stand stronger - are what lay behind and with the genius. Genius is possible in a storm and it is possible from mediocrity. Even Plato had some kind of handle on this when he warned that his republic could not afford to overlook a single one of them as regards an education, for simmering within bronze loins might just as readily be the next golden child.

This is not to say that intelligent people do not produce intelligent children (or try to), but it all must be reinvented in life anyway. What measure of intelligence is there because it is actively valued and consciously pursued? I would say a great deal of it. So intelligent parents are saying to themselves, we are producing an intelligent child, and all thought and action bears the work to realize that. But too, as in the case of our opening philosophers, "genius will out" in spite of and because of, but nothing about possession of it will necessarily make it an attractive thing to operate or endure. We have a history of self-topped "geniuses" from the morose to the euphoric. The biography of the Wittgenstein family is an interesting look at how a geniusy family operates.

So in short, your discursive suggestion about cross-breeding the men of this site and the women who [have no other reason to] write intelligently here is really just a giddy little ball-lift for you. Once again, the subject not from women but from men is breeding and breeding concerns, for little else about the facts of the matter are in his control and this accounts in part for his endless obsession.

Credit might one day be given to the intuitive female for her role in tossing the dice of variation, however unconsciously performed. For every one of these breeding ideas amongst intelligent men are doomed to failure - if not in steps, in ultimate outcome, because a lack of variation would leave the species wide open to species-wide extinction.

[Leyla Shen]

It's obvious he's got cunt envy, the way he pokes that flaccid dick of his into everyone's eyes as he shimmies up to all the males on the forum. He's been feelin' a little ignored, you see. Not getting any attention. So, of course, he pulls out the Woman card and makes a fine display of its literalist misinterpretation.

[Leyla Shen]

He's just like the male belly dancer I saw the other day! (Bizarre.)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Pye, it seems you're making a few obvious errors in your argument showing you haven't thought it through seriously.

Why not look at just two of the philosophical "genius-men" that flagstaff the forum - Neitzsche and Kierkegaard - to ask if your theories about genius breeding stock are true. Maybe Kevin and David's parentage, too, if'n you're wanting to give them genius status (and if you know what that is).

The observation that wisdom can sprout unexpectantly in offspring doesn't refute the possibility of deliberate breeding or raising. Past failures do not refute it, only point to the fact it hasn't been figured out. Not a surprise since most breeders didn't have wisdom in mind anyhow.

What you will find is that "genius" makes its appearances randomly, just as Darwin's diversity/variation strengths of a species points out ("randomness" without the intellectual pejorative).

But that is not in question. What is in question is if there are elements, like a 'wisdom gene' that could be identified and spread more consciously, not leaving it to random chance.

"Mother" and "Father" as manifest are not the alpha-point in themselves of the genes they carry, and clearly, the type of wisdom favored by the geniuses here is not necessary for survival or species promulgation, hence, it joins the pool of variant (random) genes.

A gene worries about its own survival, being it a gene for wisdom or gene for foolishness. At least this is what Dawkins work is about mostly. "Screw the organism", is the message.

It is no more likely that a genius-child will appear to two super-intelligent people than it is that a genius-child would appear to a religious cleric and his wife's maid. .... Even Plato had some kind of handle on this when he warned that his republic could not afford to overlook a single one of them as regards an education, for simmering within bronze loins might just as readily be the next golden child.

All this argues is that upon till now no proven link been has been found between wisdom and gene-pool or perhaps in combination with childhood experience and education. It doesn't mean it cannot be found. There always has been a believe in 'bloodlines' that carried 'nobility' in history. The observation that it didn't work as expected is not an argument proving that it can not be done. Just that up until now people have been wrong in approach.

Once again, the subject not from women but from men is breeding and breeding concerns, for little else about the facts of the matter are in his control and this accounts in part for his endless obsession.

It's the concern also of genes and evolution. I see no difference in concern between the sexes apart from a desire to obtain more conscious understanding and some measure of control on the masculine part.

Credit might one day be given to the intuitive female for her role in tossing the dice of variation, however unconsciously performed. For every one of these breeding ideas amongst intelligent men are doomed to failure - if not in steps, in ultimate outcome, because a lack of variation would leave the species wide open to species-wide extinction.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The history of our genes is not as random or geared toward unlimited variation as you portray. Selection finds place all the time with severe restrictions in place from the perspective of unlimited possibilities. Ultimately it doesn't matter if wisdom would be defined as behaving like a gene, or a virus - airborn, just a meme or the underlying theme of the song that's being passed around. The underlying principle is the same.

[Pye]

Most of your objections and replies, Diebert, appear to be address my "but it isn't" and your "but it could be." Well granted, then, these kinds of wishful genetics; however my point was three-fold: that wisdom (the kind spoken of here) will have to become necessary to survival in order to fulfill (and certainly maintain) a dominant genetic role; that genetic engineering (for singular traits) offends the variance-health of the species, if Darwin's book is to be believed; and that this breeding interest activity is performed almost exclusively by patrician idea-men (your nazis and the like). I am thinking that Nature/love is not misfiring when the biological riot between two people begins. It never lasts, but it gets the job done. "Could" is not the concern against these points, but 'should" is. It cannot be a mistake that desire carries all life along, or will, if you prefer. Nor a mistake that genius itself seldom procreates.

[Dan Rowden]

Im inclined to ask Dan why he is so sure about not finding that genius/dna link. Perhaps his karma was right because his genes were also right.

I see no evidence for any such gene. I'm not even sure the concept of a "genius gene" is coherent. It's a nice little catch-phrase, but what is it and what does it do?

And how long his fingers are.

My hands are almost perfectly symmetrical (i.e. no difference between right and left). My fingers: Hand

Does that make me a genius-breeding-machine?

[Kelly Jones]

From Poison for the Heart:

The Christians of today speak of themselves as "vehicles for God," a selfless sacrifice . . . and then I speak of myself as a vehicle for my genes and thoughts. How disappointed they are in me!

Integral: Kevin, Dan, and David: have you guys ever thought of donating to a sperm bank to capitalize on any role your genes may have played in you becoming sages?

I'd argue that these are the most obvious causes in becoming a sage:

Before puberty, develops a love of thinking (analytical, logical, truth-oriented)
Horrified when people lie easily
Likes spending time alone
Exhausted by an emotional life
Deeply interested in the mind and nature
Luck in encountering wise truths or a wise mentor at the right time
Very high stress threshold
Absolutist values
Quickly excels the parameters of normal social activities (and so cannot last long in them)
Questions everything to get to the core truth
Expresses the conclusion of thought-processes, rather than still-incomplete thoughts
Calm, energetic, unworried

-

A virgin can genetically mutate through altering neural pathways via thinking.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Most of your objections and replies, Diebert, appear to be address my "but it isn't" and your "but it could be."

It was more like addressing fallacy and inconsistency. Nobody disputes that there is no such thing as a genius gene identified. But all of your arguments on why this gene couldn't exist or be identified or used in any way don't look well thought out at all. Perhaps you're trying to exclude yourself from the breeding program before it's even started? :)

Anyway, I'll address them yet again:

Well granted, then, these kinds of wishful genetics; however my point was three-fold: that wisdom (the kind spoken of here) will have to become necessary to survival in order to fulfill (and certainly maintain) a dominant genetic role

It's more the other way around and that's the beauty of hard-core Darwinism: the re-production of the organism is a vehicle for the survival of its genes, or its most dominant ones. This mechanism is seen more clearly in parasitic and viral organisms, in how they can destroy the host, or not if they have other uses for it. If wisdom would have a genetic origin then survival of the human species might not even be relevant as soon as it would discover a way to spread without it. It's the same with all genetically based behavioral of humans. So the only question that remains is if wisdom is something based in an isolated gene or if it's something that arises on another higher and more complex level. It still might be viral in nature though and it has been suggested by teachers that wise teachings are exactly like that.

that genetic engineering (for singular traits) offends the variance-health of the species, if Darwin's book is to be believed; and that this breeding interest activity is performed almost exclusively by patrician idea-men (your nazis and the like).

Again you're assuming the health of the species is the goal. That's only a temporary side-effect in the genetic struggle. The patrician idea-men were perhaps not patrician enough, not "Ubermench" enough. They still had this strong attachment to the more feminine impulse toward self and species-preservation.

I am thinking that Nature/love is not misfiring when the biological riot between two people begins. It never lasts, but it gets the job done. "Could" is not the concern against these points, but 'should" is. It cannot be a mistake that desire carries all life along, or will, if you prefer. Nor a mistake that genius itself seldom procreates.

But your biological riot is not that chaotic or random as you seem to suggest and that's exactly my point. We're already invoking breeding programs, it's only that the conscious attempts ('our' Nazies) went horribly wrong, bad faith in bad science. But indeed, it's a harsh truth to swallow but Nature is mis-firing and mis-taking all the time. That too is part of the willing.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Im inclined to ask Dan why he is so sure about not finding that genius/dna link. Perhaps his karma was right because his genes were also right.

I see no evidence for any such gene. I'm not even sure the concept of a "genius gene" is coherent. It's a nice little catch-phrase, but what is it and what does it do?

One gene to rule them all, one gene to find them, one gene to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them. :)

Of course the idea of the 'genius gen' is meant to sound like a nice and rather immature catch-phrase. The complexity of genetic inheritance is an evolving subject with the presence of RNA and inter-chromosome 'cooperation' going on.

A first step toward investigation should be to get closer to a scientific understanding of consciousness and its causes and if something in the human genome in particular is stimulating its rise. Then from consciousness we could define the circumstances in which it manifests as wisdom.

There's a strange coincidence however seeing the gen in genius and the gen in gene. Somehow it might relate to 'origin' or 'cause' in relation to humans or the human experience? Or life as we know it?

[keenobserver]

Im inclined to ask Dan why he is so sure about not finding that genius/dna link. Perhaps his karma was right because his genes were also right.

I see no evidence for any such gene. I'm not even sure the concept of a "genius gene" is coherent. It's a nice little catch-phrase, but what is it and what does it do?

And how long his fingers are.

My hands are almost perfectly symmetrical (i.e. no difference between right and left). My fingers: Hand

Does that make me a genius-breeding-machine?

Well that explains it!
No, please flip your hand and take a photo of the back not the palm side. Then you will notice that you immediately become more masculine.

The concept of a "genius gene" is not from me.
But the wisest people may share a group of genes (or even just one) in some combination that is very rare in the rest of the population. This fact could be the starting point for more comprehensive investigation.

[Katy]

The problem with using finger lenght is that what it actually measures is the amount of testosterone in your mother's uterus. The more older brothers you have the more you are likely to have an index finger longer than your ring finger... but it isn't genetic, it's environmental. That said, Dan has extremely masculine hands.

[Pye]

Pye wrote: I am thinking that Nature/love is not misfiring when the biological riot between two people begins.

And Diebert replied: But your biological riot is not that chaotic or random as you seem to suggest and that's exactly my point.

I suggest no such thing and this is exactly my point as well ("is not misfiring").

Diebert here: But all of your arguments on why this gene couldn't exist or be identified or used in any way don't look well thought out at all.

and Diebert there: Nobody disputes that there is no such thing as a genius gene identified.

yes, I did sort of waste my time.

Diebert: If wisdom would have a genetic origin then survival of the human species might not even be relevant as soon as it would discover a way to spread without it.

Moot point aside, what type of entity do you take these genes to be? On the one hand, you are reminding me that evolution is not always about happy endings for either genes or people, and on the other, you present a very crafty entity that knows what it wants and what it is all about - teleologically disposed for both survival and an independent existence? (Yes, we've been knee-deep in this kind of talk since Dawkins). Look, I value wisdom too, but wisdom is not an entity of any kind. It is a human experience - future non-human experiencers/carriers of it notwithstanding. Perhaps when the "love" gene is found, I might like to imagine love itself finding a way to exist without humans to experience it. How rational am I sounding about now?

Diebert: The patrician idea-men were perhaps not patrician enough, not "Ubermench" enough. They still had this strong attachment to the more feminine impulse toward self and species-preservation.

Imagine these idiots thinking that what they valued the most still needed them around to value it.

We're already invoking breeding programs, it's only that the conscious attempts ('our' Nazies) went horribly wrong, bad faith in bad science.

So then you do not recommend conscious breeding attempts? And it is good faith in good science to root for the permanent survival of a human experience (wisdom), abstracted from the human? Unless you want to tell me that wisdom is a "thing"? - a gene?

I know. I think both you and Kevin, and David for that matter have more or less stated that people only matter to you inasmuch as they are the carriers of wisdom. That if wisdom could exist without people, all the better (for - what? whom? --- wisdom itself?) I don't have a shovel big enough to dig out all the misguided thing-in-itself metaphysics lurking in there; and there's the strong smell of deeply embedded non-reconciliation with the temporal. Yes, it brings pleasure to us, thinking that something of value to us will last into eternity. But the pleasure, the value will disappear along with us.

But, sure. Fun little think project for you. Probably even titillating for a few of you fork-tongued critics of the "feminine" impulse to exist, persevere. Yes, there's nothing masculine about self-preservation . . . . and nothing feminine about extruding the singular experience of wisdom and breathing wishfully into it eternal life. [/irony].

[Pye]

In fact, it's pretty interesting that the QRS contortionism of mas/fem would include "self-preservation" as feminine. What is not [hyper-]"self-preserving" about wishing one's values to extend into eternity, as you "masculine" men are dreaming? That is the best you can do in the face of your own mortality. And what is courageous about the great haste to annihilate the significance of individual human life - yours or anyone's? Yes, that's one way to handle your fear of mortality: simply dismiss any value to temporal life at all. I call that neither masculine or feminine, but cowardice.

Cowardly men, turning your backs upon living whilst you still live. You need the comfort of your big soft beds of infinity and eternity just to get through the day.

signed, the goading Pye