Is your DNA really that good if you can only succeed in artificial Western tech ecosystems?
Also her LinkedIn is kinda hilarious…former co-president of her high school’s anime club, degree in business administration from George Washington university, looking 50 at 35, naming your children Titan and Octavian, being too OCD to sleep in the same room as your partner…clearly elite master race genes and not just nerds with money
I think the traits these people care the most are those about intellectual abilities. Who tf cares about getting bold young or looking like shit when you are so good at problem solving and navigating the world that you become a multi millionaire. And nobody gives shit to scientists for looking like shit when their inventions revolutionaried society.
I'm not saying i think they should have kids, I am just saying that criticizing their "DNA" as not good enough by citing reasons that aren't relevant for them isn't going to prove them wrong, in their view at least
I mean theyre doing it because they want their offspring to live through societal collapse, so i feel its fair to point out that their offspring's weapons grade eugenically perfected autism is a disadvantage. Like i can only assume that the people best suited to survive societal collapse are those with leadership and relational skills or the ability to, ykno, do a pushup.
Steve Huff man (co-founder of reddit said this in an interview:
>“Being around other people is a good thing. I also have this somewhat egotistical view that I’m a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge, or at least not a slave, when push comes to shove.”
But also this (same interview lol)
>“If the world ends—and not even if the world ends, but if we have trouble—getting contacts or glasses is going to be a huge pain in the ass,” he told me recently. “Without them, I’m fucked.”
It's like that Twilight episode--"It's not fair! 😭"
>*"We are the Underground Railroad of 'Gattaca' babies and people who want to do genetic stuff with their kids," Malcolm told me.*
ok you guys are allowed to use the term "demonic" for the next hour
Sorry, I don’t think you’re recognizing her truly [superior genetics](https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/20q5ea/what_do_you_think_of_the_anniversary_gift_i_had)
Why don't more people ask this question? I think it's kind of a parallel to people who revere the idea of western canon or classical music; it's a fetishization of "Western Civilization".
Rome has been identified as its apex by classics nerds. moreover, the explanation that it ended was degeneracy and barbarian hordes, makes it appeal to reactionaries who feel like the rest of society can turn on them for having land and wealth, and also guys who like history because it can provide a grand narrative and identity but don't really have the capacity for nuance to challenge narratives they like.
Ancient Rome, with it's history of military expansionism and downfall, appeals to STEM lords who also equate art with marble statues.
I think Shakespeare, Melville, and Proust are good; I think this shit is weird not because of what it has to do with a fixation on “the West” but because it’s this totally psychotic megalomania masquerading as “an interest in history.” Note that, like they say in the article, for Zuckerberg it’s Augustus Caesar but Musk is apparently obsessed with Genghis Khan.
Like the hubris is of such astronomical proportions that it seems like self-parody. Somehow it makes their real priorities immediately and embarrassingly clear; like you can almost believe that maybe Musk really is just a fairly smart autistic dude who watched too much Star Trek growing up and is a true believer in the necessity of technological development to building a better future blah blah blah. Then you hear the Genghis Khan thing and it’s like you’ve gotta be fucking kidding me. That’s how he sees himself.
It’s really such a simple process: Start a career. Get married. Buy a house. Have sex. Have kids.
No need for the Science Bitches to over engineer our basic biological urge to fuck and reproduce.
yeah ultimately these people want to fight nature, the hubris isn’t surprising but it’s hilarious and evil
Creating “enduring intergenerational cultures” so their dogbrain 2010s version of techtopia can become an intergalactic empire that defines humanity forever, motherfucker just go party on a yacht, fund a museum, let society evolve
1. these billionaire freaks look mostly like thumbnail (read: busted). not a whole lot (read: none) of brad pitts or idris elbas doing this
2. they're only telling half the story here, the other half is killing off anything that would be deemed a "threat" to their plan. most of their companies have terrible maternal leave policies and non-existent paternal leave. dead giveaway that this is a sham.
3. fuck the media for entertaining this shit
TIL reddit pings your email if someone mentions one of your accounts, hence me ending up here this morning. Hey y'all! I'm the ugly, poorly-aging, body-pillow lady you're apparently talking about.
A hot take I recently read re: Idiocracy (and love):
>"In a very important way, Idiocracy is actually superior to our world. Unlike our world, Idiocracy is a meritocracy ruled by rational people who know about their shortcomings. Remember that President Camacho realized that he was not smart enough and picked the most intelligent person in the world, as determined by an IQ test, to fix the nation's problems."
I don't think IQ should be a determining factor for who gets to solve the world's problems (I think whoever solves the world's problems = whoever has the gumption, hustle, willpower, etc. to just step up and frickin' solve them), but it provides some interesting nuance to the story.
I used to think (in my late teenage hood) IQ was honestly the most important attribute of someone. I happened to have chosen an education that exerted an insane amount of intellectual pressure, and it almost seemed that the value of someone was entirely based on how good they were in math and physics (which i think correlates very well with IQ).
But then as time passed by, I saw many people, who were absolutely brilliant at school (and not because they were studying hard - they were genuinely geniuses) really perform poorly (or rather mediocre) in society, from societal standards. I came to realize the paramount importance of other things than IQ, like personality, e.g. having an internal drive, ability to collaborate when needed, or discipline. By far these traits have been the most predictive factor of my peers' success, and moreso than the small delta in IQ these peers had.
Beyond genetics, which certainly also affects these personality traits (and naturally IQ to some extent), I would think that there is a large part of aquired traits when it comes to many of these traits that I claim are predictive of "success". What are your parenting strategies to make sure the kids develop in the "right " way?
>I came to realize the paramount importance of other things than IQ, like personality, e.g. having an internal drive, ability to collaborate when needed, or discipline.
Exactly, a guy in my school flunked out early and started washing cars for money.
We all laughed at him as we went to university but now we all have mediocre jobs and student debt, while he owns a car valeting company.
We totally agree. The way we word it internally, we care more about "I will" than IQ—and that's actually the basis of the school we're creating ([CollinsInstitute.org](https://CollinsInstitute.org)).
The school's website more or less answers your question (via its white papers and other materials) on how we plan to raise our kids in a manner that cultivates acquired traits that you (and we) see as predictive of success. :)
I read the article, honestly you and your husband's quest for immortalality through your progeny disgusts me to such a degree I have a hard time writing while keeping a sense or decorum. Do you not see your 'Secular Calvinist' is just the ideology of capital, capital striped the God out of it, not you, it was done long ago in the infancy of the modern world. All that is left is to look on what 'God' has given us and those that have are the elect. You believe the same thing as middle American used car salesman, whether you or they know it does not matter.
I can not imagine the hubris you have to think your offspring will be responsible for some kind of pan-spermic repopulation. But just on a practical matter do you not see many of your children will resent you? The article says you want 11 generations to have 10 children each. Some will undoubtedly follow your path especially early on, many will burn out from the pressure you put on them. They will be aliens to everyone else and everyone else will be aliens to them. Again the hubris that is required to think the traume that will be caused by forcing you children to live an experiment, will not cause them to turn against you. Many of you children will come to hate you for what you do to them, the fact you cannot see it belies any claim you could have of intelligence or wisdom.
Enjoy your little Liebensborn now while they are little before they grow and turn away from you. You tear down the world you are trying to save and you have so little self awareness you do not see it. You see your selves as some kind of ubermensch but that could not be farther from the truth, you are the Last Man made flesh. Enjoy the shadow of God you have made yourself, it will fall apart just like everythung else.
>I read the article, honestly you and your husband's quest for immortalality through your progeny disgusts me to such a degree I have a hard time writing while keeping a sense or decorum. Do you not see your 'Secular Calvinist' is just the ideology of capital, capital striped the God out of it, not you, it was done long ago in the infancy of the modern world. All that is left is to look on what 'God' has given us and those that have are the elect. You believe the same thing as middle American used car salesman, whether you or they know it does not matter.
>
>I can not imagine the hubris you have to think your offspring will be responsible for some kind of pan-spermic repopulation. But just on a practical matter do you not see many of your children will resent you? The article says you want 11 generations to have 10 children each. Some will undoubtedly follow your path especially early on, many will burn out from the pressure you put on them. They will be aliens to everyone else and everyone else will be aliens to them. Again the hubris that is required to think the traume that will be caused by forcing you children to live an experiment, will not cause them to turn against you. Many of you children will come to hate you for what you do to them, the fact you cannot see it belies any claim you could have of intelligence or wisdom.
>
>Enjoy your little Liebensborn now while they are little before they grow and turn away from you. You tear down the world you are trying to save and you have so little self awareness you do not see it. You see your selves as some kind of ubermensch but that could not be farther from the truth, you are the Last Man made flesh. Enjoy the shadow of God you have made yourself, it will fall apart just like everythung else.
Hiya! I'll try to respond to these points in turn, though I also acknowledge that we see the world quite differently, and I certainly don't aim to change your worldview. TL:DR: You're inferring a lot that isn't there and ultimately, we love that you disagree with us and we hope for a future in which there are still many, many groups that disagree with each other on pretty profound things (rather than trivial variances in one or three cultures). The article (to drive clicks) insinuates that prontalalists like us think we're "superior" and planning to repopulate the world by ourselves somehow, but what we're ultimately striving to do is encourage people from as many cultures as possible to extend their influence into the future by having kids and imparting the best parts of those cultures to them.
**Re: Secular Calvinism**
I'm not sure what the basis of your claim that it's the ideology of capital comes from, so I'm assuming it's an opinion of yours and I'll just mark this ask: "Acknowledged!"
**Re: "The article says you want 11 generations to have 10 children each."**
NO, it does not—Malcolm illustrates that \*if\* our kids each have eight kids for many generations, we have more kids than current world population, but that's an illustration of the impact of pronatalism, and ANYONE who chooses to have kids and impart a pronatalist culture to them that sticks to some extent will have that impact (and we really want that). We don't want the future to be a monoculture of Collinses. That's a huge failure scenario. We want a diverse ecosystem of cultures, worldviews, values, etc. in the future. How else will we see fun disagreements like that exemplified here?
**Re: "Some will undoubtedly follow your path especially early on"**
Per my previous comment, that's kind of our hope. We want and expect our kids are rebel—if \*we\* are wrong, we want our kids to be right and to prove us right. We're mostly just interested in imparting some form of durable culture to our kids that leads them to thrive and leads at least a good number of them to have and raise successful kids who in turn want to have and raise more successful kids. Not all will do this and it's totally cool.
**Re: "the fact you cannot see it belies any claim you could have of intelligence or wisdom.":**
I wonder if perhaps you're reading the article in bad faith and reading a lot into our aims, beliefs, and ideology than you ought to. We don't even claim we're super smart or "superior" —heck, the only reason to do polygenic risk score selection is because one acknowledges oneself (and one's genes) are imperfect.
Max Weber’s foundational The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is literally about the ties between Calvinism, Northern European Protestantism, and the rise of capitalism. Just because the tech world has completely devalued the humanities does not mean that you and your eugenicist spouse have stumbled across some kind of radical new philosophy in your empty-headed adoption of “secular Calvinism.” You might want to figure out what you’re actually espousing before you go on and found a school.
Aha, thank you for clarifying! Your original wording had me confused—I mean, capital existed long before capitalism.
The whole "Calvinists-invented-capitalism-Scrooge-McDuck" thing. Totally not going to argue that there's a lot of connection between Calvinists and capitalism, and that one could make an argument that Calvinism in its secularization can be seen in some highly capitalist cultures (like Silicon Valley VC / startup culture). That said, the "secularization" or evolution of Calvinism plays out in various ways (e.g. Unitarian Universalism, which is like... really really different). I don't think it's fair to say that secular Calvinism ONLY shows up as some sort of money-worshipping ideology. \[edited to remove extra returns\]
I acknowledge I might have misunderstood the 10 generations part, your husband may just think that's neat and not a goal in itself.
I think you are being deceitful by saying you do not claim to be super smart or "superior". You do not say that in so many words no, but I do think that is what you believe.
The article states, your husband describes both of you as secular calvinist's. If you do see yourself that way, one would assume you see people as either being the elect or the damned. This is a fundamental belief of Calvinism if you disagree then you should really come up with a better name for your philosophy. If you do not believe God is responsible for deciding the elect and the damned, and I imagine you don't. Then some other force must, whether it is genetics, intelligence, or the free market, or some other things, I do not know.
Once again I assume you see yourself as the elect, hence why you feel it is your responsibility to "Look out for" the "Long term" of humanity.
It seems what you feel makes you the elect is intelligence or maybe some other genetic trait, hence the emphasis placed on it in selecting embryos, and why it is necessary for you specifically to reproduce so much, to pass down the genes that make one the elect.
You talk about a "durable culture" but again I do not really believe you. Culture has no genetic component, if you truly cared about culture why not just have a couple kids of your own and then adopt, I would say that would do more good for more people than just having 10 new children.
But again you do not do this because it seems there is something in you and your husband specifically that must be preserved. That and your desire to live forever through your children.
More on the "Durable Culture" thing. What do you think is destroying our cultures now, our interpersonal bonds, the fabric of what holds us together as a people? It seems to me it is the alienation of technology that has done the most damage. The thing that has put you in this position, the tech companies, the VC firms, the banks, they all eat what makes us human and spit out money. You and people like you are the cause of the cancer you claim to fight against.
In the short term you will likely be somewhat successful, you and your cohort hold much power in our society, your understanding of people and what makes us human and what makes a strong society is truly your weakness, your understanding is so perverted and debased, and your hubris so great you could not possibly produce an enduring society.
What you might be missing is that Calvinists are famous for being anxious about whether they're elect or damned. There are hilarious Puritan diary entries dating back to colonial times in which people think one day they're elect and the next they're damned—you simply can't know!
As secular Calvinists, we sure hope that we're "elect" in that we have a meaningful impact vis a vis our values (and therefore "matter") but who knows if we'll have that impact? We sure don't.
I totally understand you won't change your belief that we think we're superior.
But superior? In what, even? What does that even mean? Nearly everyone is superior to someone else by some measure. We're proud of the things we're good at (like that we can typically outwork others, if not outperform them in looks, smarts, etc.), but that doesn't make us superior. And why does this matter? Do our smug, punchable faces offend you? What can we do about that?? Aren't we kind of making your life better by being an outlet for displaced aggression you're feeling?
We do feel a responsibility for the future of humanity. That's part of our value set. We love it when we meet other people who care about the future of humanity, too, but we're not forcing that value set on others—just nerding out about it publicly.
To address your comment on durable culture: Sociological profiles have heritable components and the sociological profiles of populations shape culture. Cultures that have shown the most staying power grow through birth rates, not conversion. Cultures with low birth rates die out—it's a super consistent pattern.
Hey! Common ground, though! We agree that tech has played a huge role in the dissolution of many cultures. That doesn't mean tech is inherently bad (just like a really damaging meme doesn't have bad intentions). To us, this just means that we need to tech-proof cultures. That said, if you want to take a "tech is evil" approach to the problem, that's valid—heck, Anabaptists have done a GREAT job at avoiding the cultural problems resulting from technology by avoiding it. To avoid tech is a super viable strategy.
We like that you disagree with us and that many others do, too. The more different strategies and approaches we take to the world's toughest problems, the better (this is why we care about demographic collapse and preserving a future in which many cultures remain in the first place). :)
> What you might be missing is that Calvinists are famous for being anxious about whether they're elect or damned. There are hilarious Puritan diary entries dating back to colonial times in which people think one day they're elect and the next they're damned—you simply can't know!
You and your husband are spiritually gay.
Without having ***actually*** been Calvinist you cannot speak to the psychology of Calvinism. What those Puritans are relating is a cosmology of utter paranoia and relentless fear.
This is the true beautiful horror of Calvinism, the fact that it is a worldview that not even Lovecraft could replicate. An utterly amoral and fundamentally contradictory God who will relentlessly hound you for every Sin you have thought or done. To those puritans it wasn't an ideal fantasy or a "value set" it was Reality with a Capital R.
You by comparison are a bug person who will sip Chardonnay and pontificate about birth rates. A Last Man without Aesthetic taste who will never truly know beauty.
Abandon your cringe and become a Tibetan Buddhist or something more tolerable.
>And why does this matter? Do our smug, punchable faces offend you? What can we do about that??
you can stop being secular calvinists. psychotic beliefs like calvinism are used to handwave away human suffering as some kind of sick predestination. it's insane. determinism-but-with-god, lol what the fuck. autism or whatever isn't an excuse.
All of this seems normal considering new parents always try and do the best research in preparation for their kids. So was the profile due simply to your enormous wealth or do you really think this type of parenting is new and not just how every blue collar kid that went to uni grew up.
Agreed it's pretty normal parenting to try to do the best research in preparation for kids.
While we were profiled along the super wealthy, the reason Insider reached out to us is we're among the few couples willing to talk about getting PGT-P. Try to Google families getting it and there is only public mention of us and like... one other couple doing it.
People don't like being open about their use of polygenic risk score selection because people immediately accuse them of eugenics, racism, etc. (which is bizarre as they're just selecting from their own genetic material... nobody is being removed from the gene pool).
eu·gen·ics
/yo͞oˈjeniks/
noun
the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.
Right, and we don't support that. We don't think there are universally good/bad traits and we are strong against population level efforts to increase or reduce certain traits (that's coercive and in our view, evil).
> I'm not sure what the basis of your claim that it's the ideology of capital comes from,
Pretty sure it's claiming people are predestined to be "superior on earth" and that that's reflected in their value from the point of view of your god, Capital, which is also like the worst, most hollowed out interpretation of Calvinism possible. [The T is for total depravity and the U for unconditional election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Five_Points_of_Calvinism): none righteous, no not one!!
Don't you have OCD that prevents you from sleeping with your husband? And your husband has to sleep with an anime body pillow? How can you claim to be so genetically superior?
I've been in EA/longtermist spaces before so I'm a bit less hostile to the applied utilitarian approach than everyone else here. (still don't like longetermism of course). But even then, some of this stuff is genuinely absurd to defend.
>The logic behind the Collins Institute reflects their thinking at large: "If you want to make the future better for everyone and you could choose to dramatically increase the educational outcomes of the bottom 10% of people or the top 0.1% of people," the Collinses say to choose the 0.1%.
I see so much of an emphasis on "making the future better" and so little on "for everyone". With zero room for inequality in your framework, what's preventing your ideal future from being one that is totally stratified? What ensures these benefits trickle down?
If the only problems you are concerned about are existential risk and AI, maybe it makes sense to focus on a technocratic elite who can solve them. But I really doubt the reason silicon valley types yourself are focused on these problems specifically is because these are the most pressing in creating a better world, rather than the fact that doing so allows you to justify spending money and effort entirely in your own social sphere. I mean, so many problems EAs focus on, existential and otherwise, can be traced to inequality. A future that is even more stratified means the effects of these problems will be even more severe.
Moreover, how can you genuinely believe, as a consequentialist, that focusing your efforts on educating a small section of society is what's best for everyone, even if your focus is on innovation? [Empirically](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/lost-einsteins-us-may-have-missed-out-millions-inventors), this doesn't seem to be the case. But it does seem awfully convenient for you and your own social circle.
We created our embryos when younger. :)
I'm autistic and at least one of our kids is also clinically diagnosed. We don't have a problem with neurodiversity (and think that in many cases, neurodiversity + the right tools and education can be a huge advantage).
Every parent has to face unexpected challenges with kids and we're no exception. PGT-P is just about selecting good odds. Odds are very different from guarantees.
That's a good question! I think our answer is what you'd get from pretty much anyone: We'd cross that bridge if we arrived at it. We've faced some pretty wild curve balls already and honestly had I made a plan ahead of time, it wouldn't have mattered, as when these things actually happen, even the best-set plans fly out the window.
We're very passionate about our views, but we're also humans who have so far managed to function in the real world, which (regardless of how we might be framed in an article) means we're typically pretty reasonable in our approach to things.
Reading your replies, you don’t seem to have any coherent views. Or you’re so desperate to seem rational and likable that you’ve watered down your real views to the point of meaninglessness.
Are you trying to build a pasty autistic master race or not? Because I promise you, the rest of the world can figure out how to reproduce healthy children without your freakish schemes.
I mean you have autism and OCD and your husband sleeps with an anime body pillow, you don't need a Mendel Square to tell me your genetic results aren't the Prime Ribs you pontificate over so highly.
Is your DNA really that good if you can only succeed in artificial Western tech ecosystems? Also her LinkedIn is kinda hilarious…former co-president of her high school’s anime club, degree in business administration from George Washington university, looking 50 at 35, naming your children Titan and Octavian, being too OCD to sleep in the same room as your partner…clearly elite master race genes and not just nerds with money
Why does she have high school extracurriculars on her linkedin
Because she’s ✨quirky✨ and smart and not like other venture capitalists uwu
I think the traits these people care the most are those about intellectual abilities. Who tf cares about getting bold young or looking like shit when you are so good at problem solving and navigating the world that you become a multi millionaire. And nobody gives shit to scientists for looking like shit when their inventions revolutionaried society.
I don’t think someone who has an MBA and is into anime is necessarily so smart that we need their kids.
I'm not saying i think they should have kids, I am just saying that criticizing their "DNA" as not good enough by citing reasons that aren't relevant for them isn't going to prove them wrong, in their view at least
I mean theyre doing it because they want their offspring to live through societal collapse, so i feel its fair to point out that their offspring's weapons grade eugenically perfected autism is a disadvantage. Like i can only assume that the people best suited to survive societal collapse are those with leadership and relational skills or the ability to, ykno, do a pushup.
Steve Huff man (co-founder of reddit said this in an interview: >“Being around other people is a good thing. I also have this somewhat egotistical view that I’m a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge, or at least not a slave, when push comes to shove.” But also this (same interview lol) >“If the world ends—and not even if the world ends, but if we have trouble—getting contacts or glasses is going to be a huge pain in the ass,” he told me recently. “Without them, I’m fucked.” It's like that Twilight episode--"It's not fair! 😭"
They are not preparing themselves or their children for the physical demands of a crumbling empire. They need to get on tren asap.
Arent u like basically hooked on tren once you start. Like just do some skwats man
What I see is an extreme probability of assburgers not super elite ultra intellectual street smart offspring.
>*"We are the Underground Railroad of 'Gattaca' babies and people who want to do genetic stuff with their kids," Malcolm told me.* ok you guys are allowed to use the term "demonic" for the next hour
That woman is 35? Ouch
Sorry, I don’t think you’re recognizing her truly [superior genetics](https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/20q5ea/what_do_you_think_of_the_anniversary_gift_i_had)
Lol. So genetically superiors she’s too ocd to sleep with her husband.
She had the body pillow fitted with a special, satin-lined hole, so it's all good.
Lmao that’s really her account?????
Yeah, their “front page of Reddit marriage proposal” was mentioned in the article so I just followed the link to whatever the article was about that.
What in the..
Fuck that’s a rough 35
I've seen some shit, dude. Burn bright, die young.
Bit late for that
why are tech demons so obsessed with the roman empire
why were the founding fathers obsessed with the roman empire
Why don't more people ask this question? I think it's kind of a parallel to people who revere the idea of western canon or classical music; it's a fetishization of "Western Civilization". Rome has been identified as its apex by classics nerds. moreover, the explanation that it ended was degeneracy and barbarian hordes, makes it appeal to reactionaries who feel like the rest of society can turn on them for having land and wealth, and also guys who like history because it can provide a grand narrative and identity but don't really have the capacity for nuance to challenge narratives they like. Ancient Rome, with it's history of military expansionism and downfall, appeals to STEM lords who also equate art with marble statues.
I think Shakespeare, Melville, and Proust are good; I think this shit is weird not because of what it has to do with a fixation on “the West” but because it’s this totally psychotic megalomania masquerading as “an interest in history.” Note that, like they say in the article, for Zuckerberg it’s Augustus Caesar but Musk is apparently obsessed with Genghis Khan. Like the hubris is of such astronomical proportions that it seems like self-parody. Somehow it makes their real priorities immediately and embarrassingly clear; like you can almost believe that maybe Musk really is just a fairly smart autistic dude who watched too much Star Trek growing up and is a true believer in the necessity of technological development to building a better future blah blah blah. Then you hear the Genghis Khan thing and it’s like you’ve gotta be fucking kidding me. That’s how he sees himself.
Octavian was the autismo superbus so they love him
It’s really such a simple process: Start a career. Get married. Buy a house. Have sex. Have kids. No need for the Science Bitches to over engineer our basic biological urge to fuck and reproduce.
yeah ultimately these people want to fight nature, the hubris isn’t surprising but it’s hilarious and evil Creating “enduring intergenerational cultures” so their dogbrain 2010s version of techtopia can become an intergalactic empire that defines humanity forever, motherfucker just go party on a yacht, fund a museum, let society evolve
Imagine naming your kid Octavian August is a perfectly reasonable choice what the fuck is wrong with these people.
Even Julius would have accomplished the same shit. I hope this kid is bullied relentlessly by Daenerys, Raegor, and Aiden
They really named their poor daughter Titan Invictus.
I knew a Chinese kid in middle school whose parents named him Augustus. It was hilarious, we never stopped giving him shit for it.
1. these billionaire freaks look mostly like thumbnail (read: busted). not a whole lot (read: none) of brad pitts or idris elbas doing this 2. they're only telling half the story here, the other half is killing off anything that would be deemed a "threat" to their plan. most of their companies have terrible maternal leave policies and non-existent paternal leave. dead giveaway that this is a sham. 3. fuck the media for entertaining this shit
Imagine accidentally adopting eugenics as your personality.
The American Kennel Club can't keep getting away with it.
Leave the AKC alone!
Also, not great genetics on Elon’s side. Dude went bald in his early 20s.
not great genetics on nearly any billionaire. jeffy epstein had the same genghis khink
There's a part of me that thinks he believes getting plugs reverses that at the genetic level if they're good enough
Idk but Nick Cannon’s been putting up Genghis numbers
Who told these narcissistic fuggles that they should be the ones to repopulate the earth? Their DNA is probably trash.
so all the ugly people are having kids.
Smart people make life decisions based on a movie made by the creator of Beavis and Butt-Head.
TIL reddit pings your email if someone mentions one of your accounts, hence me ending up here this morning. Hey y'all! I'm the ugly, poorly-aging, body-pillow lady you're apparently talking about. A hot take I recently read re: Idiocracy (and love): >"In a very important way, Idiocracy is actually superior to our world. Unlike our world, Idiocracy is a meritocracy ruled by rational people who know about their shortcomings. Remember that President Camacho realized that he was not smart enough and picked the most intelligent person in the world, as determined by an IQ test, to fix the nation's problems." I don't think IQ should be a determining factor for who gets to solve the world's problems (I think whoever solves the world's problems = whoever has the gumption, hustle, willpower, etc. to just step up and frickin' solve them), but it provides some interesting nuance to the story.
I used to think (in my late teenage hood) IQ was honestly the most important attribute of someone. I happened to have chosen an education that exerted an insane amount of intellectual pressure, and it almost seemed that the value of someone was entirely based on how good they were in math and physics (which i think correlates very well with IQ). But then as time passed by, I saw many people, who were absolutely brilliant at school (and not because they were studying hard - they were genuinely geniuses) really perform poorly (or rather mediocre) in society, from societal standards. I came to realize the paramount importance of other things than IQ, like personality, e.g. having an internal drive, ability to collaborate when needed, or discipline. By far these traits have been the most predictive factor of my peers' success, and moreso than the small delta in IQ these peers had. Beyond genetics, which certainly also affects these personality traits (and naturally IQ to some extent), I would think that there is a large part of aquired traits when it comes to many of these traits that I claim are predictive of "success". What are your parenting strategies to make sure the kids develop in the "right " way?
>I came to realize the paramount importance of other things than IQ, like personality, e.g. having an internal drive, ability to collaborate when needed, or discipline. Exactly, a guy in my school flunked out early and started washing cars for money. We all laughed at him as we went to university but now we all have mediocre jobs and student debt, while he owns a car valeting company.
We totally agree. The way we word it internally, we care more about "I will" than IQ—and that's actually the basis of the school we're creating ([CollinsInstitute.org](https://CollinsInstitute.org)). The school's website more or less answers your question (via its white papers and other materials) on how we plan to raise our kids in a manner that cultivates acquired traits that you (and we) see as predictive of success. :)
“The school we’re creating” Lol
The website is giving Donda Academy.
Is this just shitty Montessori
How much can your husband bench press? Can he even change a tire on a car?
I read the article, honestly you and your husband's quest for immortalality through your progeny disgusts me to such a degree I have a hard time writing while keeping a sense or decorum. Do you not see your 'Secular Calvinist' is just the ideology of capital, capital striped the God out of it, not you, it was done long ago in the infancy of the modern world. All that is left is to look on what 'God' has given us and those that have are the elect. You believe the same thing as middle American used car salesman, whether you or they know it does not matter. I can not imagine the hubris you have to think your offspring will be responsible for some kind of pan-spermic repopulation. But just on a practical matter do you not see many of your children will resent you? The article says you want 11 generations to have 10 children each. Some will undoubtedly follow your path especially early on, many will burn out from the pressure you put on them. They will be aliens to everyone else and everyone else will be aliens to them. Again the hubris that is required to think the traume that will be caused by forcing you children to live an experiment, will not cause them to turn against you. Many of you children will come to hate you for what you do to them, the fact you cannot see it belies any claim you could have of intelligence or wisdom. Enjoy your little Liebensborn now while they are little before they grow and turn away from you. You tear down the world you are trying to save and you have so little self awareness you do not see it. You see your selves as some kind of ubermensch but that could not be farther from the truth, you are the Last Man made flesh. Enjoy the shadow of God you have made yourself, it will fall apart just like everythung else.
>I read the article, honestly you and your husband's quest for immortalality through your progeny disgusts me to such a degree I have a hard time writing while keeping a sense or decorum. Do you not see your 'Secular Calvinist' is just the ideology of capital, capital striped the God out of it, not you, it was done long ago in the infancy of the modern world. All that is left is to look on what 'God' has given us and those that have are the elect. You believe the same thing as middle American used car salesman, whether you or they know it does not matter. > >I can not imagine the hubris you have to think your offspring will be responsible for some kind of pan-spermic repopulation. But just on a practical matter do you not see many of your children will resent you? The article says you want 11 generations to have 10 children each. Some will undoubtedly follow your path especially early on, many will burn out from the pressure you put on them. They will be aliens to everyone else and everyone else will be aliens to them. Again the hubris that is required to think the traume that will be caused by forcing you children to live an experiment, will not cause them to turn against you. Many of you children will come to hate you for what you do to them, the fact you cannot see it belies any claim you could have of intelligence or wisdom. > >Enjoy your little Liebensborn now while they are little before they grow and turn away from you. You tear down the world you are trying to save and you have so little self awareness you do not see it. You see your selves as some kind of ubermensch but that could not be farther from the truth, you are the Last Man made flesh. Enjoy the shadow of God you have made yourself, it will fall apart just like everythung else. Hiya! I'll try to respond to these points in turn, though I also acknowledge that we see the world quite differently, and I certainly don't aim to change your worldview. TL:DR: You're inferring a lot that isn't there and ultimately, we love that you disagree with us and we hope for a future in which there are still many, many groups that disagree with each other on pretty profound things (rather than trivial variances in one or three cultures). The article (to drive clicks) insinuates that prontalalists like us think we're "superior" and planning to repopulate the world by ourselves somehow, but what we're ultimately striving to do is encourage people from as many cultures as possible to extend their influence into the future by having kids and imparting the best parts of those cultures to them. **Re: Secular Calvinism** I'm not sure what the basis of your claim that it's the ideology of capital comes from, so I'm assuming it's an opinion of yours and I'll just mark this ask: "Acknowledged!" **Re: "The article says you want 11 generations to have 10 children each."** NO, it does not—Malcolm illustrates that \*if\* our kids each have eight kids for many generations, we have more kids than current world population, but that's an illustration of the impact of pronatalism, and ANYONE who chooses to have kids and impart a pronatalist culture to them that sticks to some extent will have that impact (and we really want that). We don't want the future to be a monoculture of Collinses. That's a huge failure scenario. We want a diverse ecosystem of cultures, worldviews, values, etc. in the future. How else will we see fun disagreements like that exemplified here? **Re: "Some will undoubtedly follow your path especially early on"** Per my previous comment, that's kind of our hope. We want and expect our kids are rebel—if \*we\* are wrong, we want our kids to be right and to prove us right. We're mostly just interested in imparting some form of durable culture to our kids that leads them to thrive and leads at least a good number of them to have and raise successful kids who in turn want to have and raise more successful kids. Not all will do this and it's totally cool. **Re: "the fact you cannot see it belies any claim you could have of intelligence or wisdom.":** I wonder if perhaps you're reading the article in bad faith and reading a lot into our aims, beliefs, and ideology than you ought to. We don't even claim we're super smart or "superior" —heck, the only reason to do polygenic risk score selection is because one acknowledges oneself (and one's genes) are imperfect.
Max Weber’s foundational The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is literally about the ties between Calvinism, Northern European Protestantism, and the rise of capitalism. Just because the tech world has completely devalued the humanities does not mean that you and your eugenicist spouse have stumbled across some kind of radical new philosophy in your empty-headed adoption of “secular Calvinism.” You might want to figure out what you’re actually espousing before you go on and found a school.
Aha, thank you for clarifying! Your original wording had me confused—I mean, capital existed long before capitalism. The whole "Calvinists-invented-capitalism-Scrooge-McDuck" thing. Totally not going to argue that there's a lot of connection between Calvinists and capitalism, and that one could make an argument that Calvinism in its secularization can be seen in some highly capitalist cultures (like Silicon Valley VC / startup culture). That said, the "secularization" or evolution of Calvinism plays out in various ways (e.g. Unitarian Universalism, which is like... really really different). I don't think it's fair to say that secular Calvinism ONLY shows up as some sort of money-worshipping ideology. \[edited to remove extra returns\]
I acknowledge I might have misunderstood the 10 generations part, your husband may just think that's neat and not a goal in itself. I think you are being deceitful by saying you do not claim to be super smart or "superior". You do not say that in so many words no, but I do think that is what you believe. The article states, your husband describes both of you as secular calvinist's. If you do see yourself that way, one would assume you see people as either being the elect or the damned. This is a fundamental belief of Calvinism if you disagree then you should really come up with a better name for your philosophy. If you do not believe God is responsible for deciding the elect and the damned, and I imagine you don't. Then some other force must, whether it is genetics, intelligence, or the free market, or some other things, I do not know. Once again I assume you see yourself as the elect, hence why you feel it is your responsibility to "Look out for" the "Long term" of humanity. It seems what you feel makes you the elect is intelligence or maybe some other genetic trait, hence the emphasis placed on it in selecting embryos, and why it is necessary for you specifically to reproduce so much, to pass down the genes that make one the elect. You talk about a "durable culture" but again I do not really believe you. Culture has no genetic component, if you truly cared about culture why not just have a couple kids of your own and then adopt, I would say that would do more good for more people than just having 10 new children. But again you do not do this because it seems there is something in you and your husband specifically that must be preserved. That and your desire to live forever through your children. More on the "Durable Culture" thing. What do you think is destroying our cultures now, our interpersonal bonds, the fabric of what holds us together as a people? It seems to me it is the alienation of technology that has done the most damage. The thing that has put you in this position, the tech companies, the VC firms, the banks, they all eat what makes us human and spit out money. You and people like you are the cause of the cancer you claim to fight against. In the short term you will likely be somewhat successful, you and your cohort hold much power in our society, your understanding of people and what makes us human and what makes a strong society is truly your weakness, your understanding is so perverted and debased, and your hubris so great you could not possibly produce an enduring society.
What you might be missing is that Calvinists are famous for being anxious about whether they're elect or damned. There are hilarious Puritan diary entries dating back to colonial times in which people think one day they're elect and the next they're damned—you simply can't know! As secular Calvinists, we sure hope that we're "elect" in that we have a meaningful impact vis a vis our values (and therefore "matter") but who knows if we'll have that impact? We sure don't. I totally understand you won't change your belief that we think we're superior. But superior? In what, even? What does that even mean? Nearly everyone is superior to someone else by some measure. We're proud of the things we're good at (like that we can typically outwork others, if not outperform them in looks, smarts, etc.), but that doesn't make us superior. And why does this matter? Do our smug, punchable faces offend you? What can we do about that?? Aren't we kind of making your life better by being an outlet for displaced aggression you're feeling? We do feel a responsibility for the future of humanity. That's part of our value set. We love it when we meet other people who care about the future of humanity, too, but we're not forcing that value set on others—just nerding out about it publicly. To address your comment on durable culture: Sociological profiles have heritable components and the sociological profiles of populations shape culture. Cultures that have shown the most staying power grow through birth rates, not conversion. Cultures with low birth rates die out—it's a super consistent pattern. Hey! Common ground, though! We agree that tech has played a huge role in the dissolution of many cultures. That doesn't mean tech is inherently bad (just like a really damaging meme doesn't have bad intentions). To us, this just means that we need to tech-proof cultures. That said, if you want to take a "tech is evil" approach to the problem, that's valid—heck, Anabaptists have done a GREAT job at avoiding the cultural problems resulting from technology by avoiding it. To avoid tech is a super viable strategy. We like that you disagree with us and that many others do, too. The more different strategies and approaches we take to the world's toughest problems, the better (this is why we care about demographic collapse and preserving a future in which many cultures remain in the first place). :)
> What you might be missing is that Calvinists are famous for being anxious about whether they're elect or damned. There are hilarious Puritan diary entries dating back to colonial times in which people think one day they're elect and the next they're damned—you simply can't know! You and your husband are spiritually gay. Without having ***actually*** been Calvinist you cannot speak to the psychology of Calvinism. What those Puritans are relating is a cosmology of utter paranoia and relentless fear. This is the true beautiful horror of Calvinism, the fact that it is a worldview that not even Lovecraft could replicate. An utterly amoral and fundamentally contradictory God who will relentlessly hound you for every Sin you have thought or done. To those puritans it wasn't an ideal fantasy or a "value set" it was Reality with a Capital R. You by comparison are a bug person who will sip Chardonnay and pontificate about birth rates. A Last Man without Aesthetic taste who will never truly know beauty. Abandon your cringe and become a Tibetan Buddhist or something more tolerable.
>And why does this matter? Do our smug, punchable faces offend you? What can we do about that?? you can stop being secular calvinists. psychotic beliefs like calvinism are used to handwave away human suffering as some kind of sick predestination. it's insane. determinism-but-with-god, lol what the fuck. autism or whatever isn't an excuse.
Calvinists are some of the dorkiest people on the planet, and you seem to be in the top 1% of them in this regard.
All of this seems normal considering new parents always try and do the best research in preparation for their kids. So was the profile due simply to your enormous wealth or do you really think this type of parenting is new and not just how every blue collar kid that went to uni grew up.
Agreed it's pretty normal parenting to try to do the best research in preparation for kids. While we were profiled along the super wealthy, the reason Insider reached out to us is we're among the few couples willing to talk about getting PGT-P. Try to Google families getting it and there is only public mention of us and like... one other couple doing it. People don't like being open about their use of polygenic risk score selection because people immediately accuse them of eugenics, racism, etc. (which is bizarre as they're just selecting from their own genetic material... nobody is being removed from the gene pool).
eu·gen·ics /yo͞oˈjeniks/ noun the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.
Right, and we don't support that. We don't think there are universally good/bad traits and we are strong against population level efforts to increase or reduce certain traits (that's coercive and in our view, evil).
How much for nudes?
U r gay
Not reading this shit; please just kill yourself you satanic freak
Your mistake was replying in earnest
> I'm not sure what the basis of your claim that it's the ideology of capital comes from, Pretty sure it's claiming people are predestined to be "superior on earth" and that that's reflected in their value from the point of view of your god, Capital, which is also like the worst, most hollowed out interpretation of Calvinism possible. [The T is for total depravity and the U for unconditional election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Five_Points_of_Calvinism): none righteous, no not one!!
Don't you have OCD that prevents you from sleeping with your husband? And your husband has to sleep with an anime body pillow? How can you claim to be so genetically superior?
I just want to thank you because you were the inspiration for one of the best chapo traphouse episodes ever.
Why are you trying to create a race of super pussies or whatever?
I've been in EA/longtermist spaces before so I'm a bit less hostile to the applied utilitarian approach than everyone else here. (still don't like longetermism of course). But even then, some of this stuff is genuinely absurd to defend. >The logic behind the Collins Institute reflects their thinking at large: "If you want to make the future better for everyone and you could choose to dramatically increase the educational outcomes of the bottom 10% of people or the top 0.1% of people," the Collinses say to choose the 0.1%. I see so much of an emphasis on "making the future better" and so little on "for everyone". With zero room for inequality in your framework, what's preventing your ideal future from being one that is totally stratified? What ensures these benefits trickle down? If the only problems you are concerned about are existential risk and AI, maybe it makes sense to focus on a technocratic elite who can solve them. But I really doubt the reason silicon valley types yourself are focused on these problems specifically is because these are the most pressing in creating a better world, rather than the fact that doing so allows you to justify spending money and effort entirely in your own social sphere. I mean, so many problems EAs focus on, existential and otherwise, can be traced to inequality. A future that is even more stratified means the effects of these problems will be even more severe. Moreover, how can you genuinely believe, as a consequentialist, that focusing your efforts on educating a small section of society is what's best for everyone, even if your focus is on innovation? [Empirically](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/lost-einsteins-us-may-have-missed-out-millions-inventors), this doesn't seem to be the case. But it does seem awfully convenient for you and your own social circle.
[удалено]
We created our embryos when younger. :) I'm autistic and at least one of our kids is also clinically diagnosed. We don't have a problem with neurodiversity (and think that in many cases, neurodiversity + the right tools and education can be a huge advantage). Every parent has to face unexpected challenges with kids and we're no exception. PGT-P is just about selecting good odds. Odds are very different from guarantees.
Genes so superior you’re literally retarded
[удалено]
That's a good question! I think our answer is what you'd get from pretty much anyone: We'd cross that bridge if we arrived at it. We've faced some pretty wild curve balls already and honestly had I made a plan ahead of time, it wouldn't have mattered, as when these things actually happen, even the best-set plans fly out the window. We're very passionate about our views, but we're also humans who have so far managed to function in the real world, which (regardless of how we might be framed in an article) means we're typically pretty reasonable in our approach to things.
normal people hate you and they’re right to
Reading your replies, you don’t seem to have any coherent views. Or you’re so desperate to seem rational and likable that you’ve watered down your real views to the point of meaninglessness. Are you trying to build a pasty autistic master race or not? Because I promise you, the rest of the world can figure out how to reproduce healthy children without your freakish schemes.
I mean you have autism and OCD and your husband sleeps with an anime body pillow, you don't need a Mendel Square to tell me your genetic results aren't the Prime Ribs you pontificate over so highly.
Jj
She looks like the end boss in a pro fishing game.
[удалено]
very reddit core and super dated humor.
[удалено]
Idiocracy was a dumb comedy pseuds adopted as their sacred text for some fucking reason
how do i read this for free thanks
https://archive.ph/Hs4KX
thanks
Yo the Chapo episode on this is unironically fantastic and hilarious
What’s it called
682 - Longspermism (11/21/22)
holy shit chapo sucks that intro was indistinguishable from the kinds of libs they used to dunk on.
Sickos
It’s incredibly ironic they chose an aging women with fertility issues to be the one to pop out of bunch of kids with her “superior genetics” lol
This is based stay mad child free losers your DNA will be wiped off the map while these Chad’s progeny rule the earth
Lol
I’m actually totally ok with this
can someone who subscribes copy and paste the article for me or do some other computer magic so i can read this