Category: altruism

Genetic Structure and Altruistic Self-Sacrifice

A more precise accounting is required.

We are all aware of Haldane’s oft-quoted assertion that he would lay down his life for two brothers or eight cousins, the genetic payoff of such altruistic self-sacrifice being the equivalence – as measured by ”bean-bag” genetics – of the numbers of gene copies between these sets of relatives.

In general, I am in broad agreement with the sentiment, although as we shall see, it requires modification.  Even more broadly, those on the Far Right invoke this paradigm to support the idea of altruistic self-sacrifice in favor of larger numbers of an ethny, in defense if ethnic genetic interests.  Likewise, I support that as well, with the proper modifications as with the smaller-scale examples of familial relatives.

Even though at first glance, Haldane’s reasoning seems sound, likely most people would be hesitant to follow that advice.  In large part, this is the natural impulse of self-preservation, but there are other reasonable objections that can be made.

One could argue, all else being equal, that judging between two sets of equivalent genetics, it’s better to preserve yourself for reasons of control.  A person concerned enough with genetic continuity that they would consider such altruistic self-sacrifice is someone likely to start a family, care for children, and properly actualize the continuity. Can you be sure your two brothers would do the same?  Why are they in the position that they need your sacrifice to begin with?  Are they stupid?  Reckless? Are you sure they’ll act in support of your (in this case indirect) genetic continuity with the same vigor you would do for yourself?  So, to be safe, maybe you need to raise the bar for self-sacrifice to three brothers or ten cousins?

A more important reason, and one that may be intuitively sensed by most people even though they wouldn’t be able to explain it, or likely even articulate their feeling about it, is that there is more about kinship than mere numbers of gene copies.  Genetic structure is important – what genes are coinherited and, to the layman’s eye, what phenotypic traits (derived from those genes) are inherited together.  Of course, family is going to be more similar here than (co-ethnic) strangers, but similarity is not identity.  Even with siblings (apart from identical twins, which are a special case), recombination and independent assortment will ensure that your brothers will have a distinct genetic stricture from you.  Now, granted, these same processed, even with a co-ethnic mate, will ensure that your children will also have a different genetic structure than you, but, all else being equal, your brothers’ children will be more unlike you, with respect to genetic structure, than your own children, as the “starting point” (you vs. your brothers) is already different. So, when genetic structure is taken into account, two brothers are not really your genetic equivalent.  Apart from an identical twin, you have no genetic equivalent, just degrees of relative similarity and difference, even after numbers of gene copies are accounted for.  Then how many brothers are sufficient for self-sacrifice?  This requires a more rigorous analysis, which will be dependent upon accurate measures of genetic structure, and that’s not something we can expect SJW population geneticists are likely to do. However, while the overall Haldane argument – and its Salterian extension – makes sense the numbers given based on “bean bag” genetics is going to be an underestimation of where you need to draw the line in sacrificing yourself for others.  On the other hand, the reverse is true – if you have to choose between your brothers and strangers, or between co-ethnics and non-ethnics, taking genetic structure into account means that helping your brothers and your co-ethnics is even more important than before, because in comparison to more genetically alien peoples, genetic structure amplifies how much more close you are to your brothers and your co-ethnics.  It’s a double-edged sword: it makes your own preservation a bit more important, but it also makes the preservation of those more similar to you more important than those more distant.

Now, one can argue that after several generations of recombination and independent assortment – even assuming endogamous mating within the ethny – genetic structures derived from your posterity and those of your brothers will be more or less the same, converging on the common pool of ethny-specific genetic structures.  So, while in the first generation, your offspring and that of your brothers may be distinct with respect to genetic structure, that difference would be attenuated over time and, as long as endogamous mating is maintained, your posterity and theirs would reflect similar genetic structures.  But there are problems here.  First, a rigorous analysis is required; perhaps some differences would continue over at least several generations; even if these differences are small, they nevertheless would need to be accounted for.  Second, if it is true that familial genetic strictures would tend, over time, to converge on more generalized ethny-specific structures, then why bother favoring two brothers over two random co-ethnics?  The brothers would share more of your genes, yes, and be more similar as far as genetic structure, but if one invokes “long term intergenerational effects” with respect to questioning the need to account for structure in modifying Haldane’s argument, then one can use the same “intergenerational effect” to directly question Haldane’s original premise.  The answer I believe is that one must do the best they can at a given time in maximizing their genetic payoff, and hope that subsequent generations do the same. In the absence of the required analysis, one can simply argue that looking to the next generation, differences in genetic structure are important and, hence, two brothers are not quite the genetic equivalence of yourself.  Your structure is different from theirs and the genetic payoff of your reproduction is greater for your than both of theirs combined.  So, maybe you need to hold out and sacrifice for three (or more) brothers instead, including for the other reason outlined above. Note that these fine points deal with very close genetic similarity.  When we are talking about racially alien peoples, the genetic distance becomes even more amplified with genetic structure, and in the absence of panmixia, ethny-specific patterns of genetic structure are broadly stable over evolutionary time (we can see that the Iceman is genetically more similar to Europeans than to, say, Asians  of Africans, as one example).

In the absence of the sort of careful quantitative analysis that population geneticists won’t do, from a qualitative standpoint, it would be prudent to require more of a genetic payoff before engaging in Haldane-style altruistic self-sacrifice.  On the other hand, when considering a choice in investing between two genetic entities, picking the group genetically closer to you is even more important when considering genetic structure.  So, when the choice is between self vs. family or family vs. ethny, genetic structure will require a larger genetic payoff before agreeing to sacrifice the interests of the former for the latter. However, when considering a relative choice between ethny one vs. ethny two, genetic structure means that choosing the more similar-to-you ethny is even more important than with “bean-bag” genetics.  

The overall Salterian imperative remains the same as before, once these adjustments are made.


SLC News: More December 2017

Several items.

There’s an old saying that when one’s opponents make errors, you should just sit back and let them do it, and I have actually been holding back on commenting on some things recently, for that very reason.  However, when things occur that are absolutely ludicrous, the cost/benefit ratio moves in the direction of shining a light on it.  Included in this in the remarkable decision of Counter-Currents to expend its political capital in Der Movement defending the likes of Lauren Southern.  We’ve reached new heights of “jumping Moby Dick” with this:

It is possible that this will be the dumbest piece of writing in the history of Counter-Currents. That’s not my fault. The subject matter is dumb, and it will be hard to rise above it. I’ll do my best, and because the subject matter is dumb, I’ll be brief.

Among the recent charges against Lauren Southern is the claim that she is a sex worker who poses in revealing clothing in order to encourage men to masturbate to her pictures. She makes money thereby, so she is in essence a pornstar, even though she doesn’t perform sex acts on camera. Her pictures are so sexually powerful that many men are compelled to masturbate. These beta-orbiters just can’t help themselves, and Lauren acquires money from the cyber-fapping that she encourages.

That may be good for page hits I suppose, but the damage it does to the intellectual credibility of that blog is stupendous.  It’s analogous to Majority Rights being discredited by allowing J Richards to post porno pictures of women with smiley faces cover their nipples.

That Der Movement has been actually reduced to debating the onanistic habits of those who waste their time watching YouTube videos of useless females is, frankly, astounding.  Not surprising to me, but, from an objective standpoint, still astounding.

Look at this (apparently now deleted) exchange (emphasis added):

Joseph CurwenPosted December 21, 2017 at 4:57 am | Permalink

I think we should focus on securing the existence of our people and a future for white children instead of writing essays of 1.200 words defending someone who isn’t one of us and is actively against White Nationalism. 

Greg JohnsonPosted December 21, 2017 at 11:38 am | Permalink

Prove to me that you have done one concrete thing to help the white cause, beyond posting comments on the web.

Joseph CurwenPosted December 21, 2017 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

1. In cooperation with another Comrade, translating and publishing a considerable number of texts of H. Covington, whose works were totally unknown in the Spanish speaking world. Here is the blog (now more or less inactive due to personal reasons):
2. Translating (and publishing the next year) “Nietzsche His Life and Works” from Anthony M. Ludovici. The publishing house (Editorial Solar) is the same that published “Mein Kampf”, “The Protocols” and other important works in the Spanish speaking world.
3. Right now, I’m working in the translation of Nesta Webster’s “The Secret of the Zodiac”, to be published in the same publishing house.

Greg JohnsonPosted December 21, 2017 at 2:48 pm | Permalink 

Good work. Don’t waste any more time commenting here.

Johnson’s behavior is becoming increasingly erratic. The complete intolerance to any criticism is simply not normal, and not reflective of his behavior, say, five years ago.  

The last I looked, that exchange has now been deleted from the thread!  Instead, half the current comments are from Asians and lickspittle Asia-worshipers.  Remember this?  Do you still doubt that post’s accurate observation of your fearless leaders, who, in their almost pathological lack of self-awareness, are suffering from the same outgroup altruism and ingroup altruistic punishment that they decry in others?

Read the Curwen-Johnson exchange, consider it has been deleted, and carefully consider the consequences of a “movement leadership” that favors cunning Orientals and race-mixing mudsharks over genuine, sincere activists.  Consider the monumental hubris of people who cannot take the slightest hint of criticism and who state that they “fire” donors who have the temerity to ask that their donations be used for certain projects. 

A major difference between EGI Notes and Counter-Currents is this.  95% of the over-the-top rhetoric here is (as I’ve stated many times for the obtuse) for effect; I’m intentionally ridiculing the “movement” clownshow that I’m completely exasperated with after putting up with more than twenty years of nonsense (the other 5% is genuine outrage against the likes of Deasy and Munro).  Johnson, on the other hand, I believe is 100% serious when he bans people simply for having the temerity to disagree with him on something, when he talks about “firing donors,” and when he expends political capital defending low rent slutty airheads whose “hundreds of thousands” of followers likely mostly are what Weev says they are.  If it all were all really a joke, I would say “well done,” you’ve outdone anything I’ve ever played out.  But it’s not a joke.  It’s actually serious.

Chinese Nationalist Maiden writes:

Of course, I know that I have to be immune to criticism myself since people will try to alienate me from the White survival movement merely because I am (a) an Asian and (b) a woman. These accusations sound nonsensical to me. Being an Asian woman is irrelevant to me for believing that White survival is right. I support Whites on principle and I am disgusted with the tasteless liberal-democratic leftist and Marxist-Leninist hatred of White people. Denying Whites the right to live is just beyond disgusting and I cannot live in good conscience with myself if I did not support White survival.

The problem is when non-Whites promote their own racial interests while pretending to be part of the “pro-White cause.”  This disgusting and dishonest “Chinese Nationalist Maiden” is one of the worst.  Can she tell us precisely: in what country do you live?  After all, if you are so much in favor of White survival, you wouldn’t be living in any (majority) White nation now, are you?  Of course – of course! – you live in, say, Taiwan or Singapore, right?  Right?

Silver, of all people, has been mostly talking good sense on the comments thread of the anti-Romanian Amren piece.  Now, catch this reply to Silver from the author of that piece:

Silver: ‘Politically, something being true is not, of itself, reason enough to say it. Decisions about what to say have to be weighed against their likely impact on political objectives.’

Anti-Romanian Ingrate: This sounds a bit like the sort of thing you hear from the left: ‘We shouldn’t talk about race because it’s likely to have bad social consequences.’ One of the virtues of the right is that it acknowledges the existence of objective truth and allows more or less free exploration in the attempt to get at it. It’s in the spirit of the West to do so.

Excuse me, you anti-Romanian outrageous, filthy hypocrite, but if “One of the virtues of the right is that it acknowledges the existence of objective truth and allows more or less free exploration in the attempt to get at it. It’s in the spirit of the West to do so” then I ask:


Newsflash: Selective “honesty” is just another form of dishonesty.  Hypocrites.

Of related interest, this exchange:

Zaida  LHathaway • 15 hours agoBefore communism it was even worse in Eastern Europe: Slavs are incapable of producing anything of cultural value. Visit Poland or Romania and see the mess with your own eyes, as I’ve seen.

Independent Thinker  Zaida • 10 hours ago“Slavs are incapable of producing anything of cultural value.”
Complete hogwash. Let’s see: The periodic table of elements – Mendeleev, discovery of the atmosphere of Venus, the Law of Mass conservation, demonstrating the organic origin of peat, soil, coal petroleum, etc, plus many other things — Lomonosov, Quantum electronics work leading to the development of the laser and maser (and Nobel Prize) — Basov, Laser and Maser development (also same Nobel Prize) — Prokhorov, involved in the invention of the radio — Popov, work in low temperature physics leading to Nobel Prize — Pyotr Kapista, Development of Soviet nuclear weapons — Kurchatov, founder of field surgery — Pirogov, Stability theory of a dynamical system — Lyapunov, Timoshenko Beam Theory — Timoshenko, work in radioactivity, radium, and polonium — Marie Curie (recipient of two Nobel Prizes), inventor of the polarographic method, father of the electroanalytical method, and recipient of the Nobel Prize in 1959 for his discovery and development of the polarographic methods of analysis — Heyrovsky, inventor of Yablochkov Candle and Transformer — Yablochkov, Kolmogorov, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Rimsky-Korsakov, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Gogol, Chekov, Repin, Aivazovsky, Vastnetsov, Polenov, … too many to mention..

I will now give you the most important comment in the entire blog history of EGI NotesThe biggest impediment to the success of pro-White activism is Der Movement, Inc. itself.

It’s Der Alt Right: July 2017

Alt Right notes.

But, but, but…dem dere “high trust hunter gatherers!”  Get with the program, son!  Don’t you know there’s an official dogma?  

While I think the essay is mostly on the mark, one point he’s missing is that all those cold and rude Europeans may be cold and rude only to fellow Whites, while worshiping Color. Hasn’t anyone ever had a family member who exhibits disdain for their relatives (no matter how reasonable and helpful you are to them), but loves strangers?  Xenophilia is a (White) defect that operates on all levels of genetic interests.

And actually, it’s not either/or.  It could be both – that certain Whites personally benefit from White Genocide and that Whites are particularly prone to produce such traitors due to lower levels of innate ethnocentrism. What is required here is honest study of the problem – not fossilized dogma nor Alt Right anecdotes.

Those Asians know exactly what they are doing.  Where are all the skinny, buck-toothed, scraggly, male Asian vloggers to try to win over thirsty beta WNs?

Let’s consider the following exchange.

Here is a reasonable and defensible comment:

Evolver1 • a day ago

Japan? Who cares. They’re not White. I practice indifference and non-interference in the business of all non-Whites. They are not my kind. They are not my responsibility. They are not my concern.

Which induced the following hysterical reply (emphasis added):

MarlinLover  Evolver1 • 21 hours ago

They certainly have a right of self determination, nobody is arguing this. But how can you fail to see the value of having the honorary Japanese as an ally? They are ridiculously intelligent, naturally conservative, beauty is clearly evident (culture, architecture, ancestor worship, not to mention the beauty of the people themselves) they absolutely respect European culture and our knight like ancestors; yet you demonstrate nothing but contempt over a people who have a far older and richer history then our own. You sir, are dishonourable.

So, a WN is “dishonorable” for not caring about Japanese.  Also, according to this specimen, Japan had a history that is “far older and richer” than that of Europeans!  Wow! Let’s all thank Japan for creating the modern world! Thank them for their great Classical Civilizations that bequeathed to us philosophy and scholarship, followed by a modern Faustian civilization that has created 99% of the cultural artifacts and technological inventions and scientific discoveries of human history!  Whew!  For a minute there I had thought Europeans did all that, but I stand corrected!

Now tell me, and honestly, if the vlogger was a skinny, buck-toothed, scraggly, male Asian do you really believe that the above absurd comment would have been submitted?  Be honest, really honest. Again, the Asians know exactly what they are doing.

Good Hood essay.  Question: has Hood thrown in his lot with Will he show up at Counter-Currents?  I hope that credible authors like Hood won’t restrict themselves to one side of this feud.

Roissy thinks the Russian-Trump Jr fiasco was a leftist set-up.  That may well be right.  That still doesn’t excuse Don Jr’s abysmal stupidity – indeed, it underscores it.  During a campaign, do you fall for such an obvious set up? Don Jr as Fredo is correct, but Don Sr is no Vito Corleone.

And will the FBI re-open the Clinton investigation? I note this: looking back, Fat Don’s problems seem to have all started after he said he would not support a Clinton investigation. He displayed weakness and the sharks smelled blood in the water and started really pouring in on with “Russia” and all the rest.  The opposition saw the reality: Trump the beta cuck.

If the Roissy narrative is correct, then the Trump administration needs to do something, act upon this, and prosecute those involved.  Doing something does not mean jackass tweets and/or wresting videos.

When Is Self-Sacrificing Altruism Noble and Moral?

Answer: when it is adaptive.

In Salter’s On Genetic Interests (First Edition), pgs. 307-308, there is a brief discussion of how calls by moralists for completely disinterested, self-sacrificing altruism by others can serve the selfish interests of the moralists. Salter cites “one leading evolutionary theorist” who contends that “only non-fitness-enhancing behavior can be moral.”  Salter then cites someone else, called Alexander, who scoffs at this by suggesting that “this is an unconsciously self-serving moral sentiment that, when expressed, influences some susceptible individuals to show indiscriminate altruism that benefits the moralist.”  Salter then states that “by definition such behavior will tend to reduce the relative fitness of the genetic altruist.”  Salter then says it is unfortunate that Alexander did not discuss why the moralist’s arguments would not affect his own kin and offers no evidence that such moralists do not preach the same to their own families.

I’ll take a crack at this.  I think Alexander fails by stating that the altruism has to be “indiscriminate” and thus the advice in favor of “self-sacrificing altruism” meant for universal consumption.  From a WN point of view, when mainstream moralists call for such altruism, what they really mean is for (specifically) Whites to practice pathological self-sacrificing altruism for (specifically) non-Whites (including Jews). These calls can be explicit, or can be implicit using code-words, or simply using the realization that some ethnies are more or less ethnocentric than others, and that calls for such pathological altruism, while seemingly “universal,” will only affect less ethnocentric Whites while sparing non-Whites “immunized” by higher levels of ethnocentrism.  

Note that dual morality raises its head here, with Jews promoting miscegenation across wide racial lines for Whites, while moaning that inter-marriage is “worse than Hitler” for Jews. And the allegedly “high” Jewish inter-marriage rate is probably not only overestimated, but I note that it is overwhelmingly conducted with White Gentiles, who are genetically and phenotypically relatively similar to Jews, while Jews promote miscegenation of White Gentiles with Negroes, Asians, and other genetically and phenotypically distant (and in some cases low-IQ etc. – e.g., Negroes) groups.  So, yes, there is evidence that these moralists do not practice what they preach, and have a different message for familial and ethnic kin.  Also see the Jews’ different opinions about diversity and immigration as it applies to the West vs. how it applies to Israel.

The problem also occurs within Der Movement, where it is sometimes suggested that “inferior” White ethnies and individuals should sacrifice their interests to altruistically promote the well-being of “superior” White ethnies – with such calls usually coming from “superior” ethnic individuals or by non-Whites with an axe to grind against Whites in general (or who are simply deranged and/or influenced by writings by “superior” ethnics calling, explicitly or implicitly, for such altruism).  Also see page 109 of Salter’s book, where he states that calls for a special status for certain groups – e.g., that they are particularly deserving of having their EGI cared for – could be a “competitive move” by individuals from such groups.

I for one take the adaptive approach and would suggest that folks incorporate their own personal, familial, and (narrower) ethnic genetic interests in any activism in favor of more general EGI.  The two do not have to be in opposition, and I see no special truth or nobility in self-sacrificing altruism that is one step removed from the general pathological altruism that is helping to destroy the White race.

By the way, objectively speaking, one cannot find fault with the position of Derbyshire, who has to balance his English/White EGI with the fact he has intertwined his personal/familial genetic interests with that of China.  Hence, the promotion of anti-WN Jeurasian “race realism” and the HBD cult that grovels before the Altar of Asia, whole throwing a few bones in the direction of Whitey. However, subjectively, Derbyshire’s interest conflict with mine and with that of most White Americans; therefore, from our adaptive standpoint, we are justified in opposing him. That’s our “truth.”

I would propose that the only self-sacrificing altruism that is truly noble and moral is that which serves genetic interests.  It is not noble to sacrifice one’s interests for someone else’s ethny. Indeed, when such sacrifice is done at the expense of one’s own ethny, it is commonly known as treason. The ultimate solution is to sacrifice along a continuum, or within a concentric circle, of interests.  Thus, if a White person sacrifices for the White (European race), an entity that contains within in it whatever narrower identifies this person also has, then the sacrifice is noble, moral, and adaptive – indeed, adaptiveness should be a criterion for nobility and morality.  After all, ultimate interests – which are genetic – by their very name trump all else.

The Free-Riding/Social Pricing Paradox

If free-riding makes ethnic nepotism “impossible” than why are social pricing and anti-discrimination laws felt to be necessary?

Question:  If free-riding is such a problem for ethnic nepotism and various forms of ethnic activism, if it is all so “impossible” and “unrealistic” then why, pray tell, is there an intricate system of social pricing – never mind actual anti-discrimination laws – designed to dissuade people from engaging in such “impossible” and “unrealistic” behavior?  If everyone would just free-ride on the ethnic altruism of a small number of naive saps, then where is the problem?  Social pricing would seem superfluous, and anti-discrimination laws even more superfluous.  Why, people would just like, you know, spontaneously engage in aracial behavior, right?
No, they would not.  That fact than a repressive “carrot-and-stick” regime of de jure laws and de facto social pricing has to be in place to punish (for Whites only, of course) ethnic altruism/ethnic nepotism while incentivizing (for Whites only, of course) neutral or even pro-alien behavior is practical prima facie evidence that people – including many Whites – would naturally engage in ethnic altruism and ethnic nepotism in a “free marketplace” system lacking in coercive laws and social controls.  There is no other reason for all these laws and social strictures except the very real fear that in the “free marketplace” of ideas and actions people would act in a more ethny-based fashion and discrimination (pro-ethny and anti-alien) would be commonplace.

The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles

A free-riding social dilemma.

In all cases, emphasis added:

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) should reduce traffic accidents, but they will sometimes have to choose between two evils, such as running over pedestrians or sacrificing themselves and their passenger to save the pedestrians. Defining the algorithms that will help AVs make these moral decisions is a formidable challenge. We found that participants in six Amazon Mechanical Turk studies approved of utilitarian AVs (that is, AVs that sacrifice their passengers for the greater good) and would like others to buy them, but they would themselves prefer to ride in AVs that protect their passengers at all costs. The study participants disapprove of enforcing utilitarian regulations for AVs and would be less willing to buy such an AV. Accordingly, regulating for utilitarian algorithms may paradoxically increase casualties by postponing the adoption of a safer technology.

In summary, people think that in theory it’s great to have self-driving cars that would sacrifice the driver in order to save a greater number of strangers in a potential accident situation. But they want other folks to have such cars; for themselves, they want a self-driving car that would safeguard their own personal safety (and that of other Passengers, particularly family members) “at all costs.”
People, being what they are, are also dishonest about this:

Participants’ approval of passenger sacrifice was even robust to treatments in which they had to imagine themselves and another person, particularly a family member, in the AV (study three, n = 259 participants). Imagining that a family member was in the AV negatively affected the morality of the sacrifice, as compared with imagining oneself alone in the AV (P = 0.003). But even in that strongly aversive situation, the morality of the sacrifice was still rated above the midpoint of the scale, with a 95% CI of 54 to 66.

In theory they say they can imagine themselves sacrificing their life to save a greater number of others, and although this willingness is decreased if family members were also to be sacrificed, the “morality of sacrifice” was still there. (Note would this be the same for all ethnies? Der Movement would assert that those of “high-trust hunter gatherer” ancestry would likely be more willing to self-sacrifice. Likely, in general, Gentiles of European descent would be more likely to theoretically endorse such sacrifice than other races). But – alas! – there is a catch. Despite this moral posturing, these same people would be unwilling to actually buy a self-driving car programmed to sacrifice passengers for a greater number of, e.g., pedestrians. Thus:

This is the classic signature of a social dilemma, in which everyone has a temptation to free-ride instead of adopting the behavior that would lead to the best global outcome. One typical solution in this case is for regulators to enforce the behavior leading to the best global outcome. Indeed, there are many similar societal examples involving trade-off of harm by people and governments (15–17). For example, some citizens object to regulations that require children to be immunized before starting school. In this case, the parental decision-makers choose to minimize the perceived risk of harm to their child while increasing the risk to others. Likewise, recognition of the threats of environmental degradation have prompted government regulations aimed at curtailing harmful behaviors for the greater good. But would people approve of government regulations imposing utilitarian algorithms in AVs, and would they be more likely to buy AVs under such regulations?

Free-riding! Not only for ethnic nepotism, it seems! Could it be regulated? However:

Our findings suggest that regulation for AVs may be necessary but also counterproductive. Moral algorithms for AVs create a social dilemma (18, 19). Although people tend to agree that everyone would be better off if AVs were utilitarian (in the sense of minimizing the number of casualties on the road), these same people have a personal incentive to ride in AVs that will protect them at all costs. Accordingly, if both self-protective and utilitarian AVs were allowed on the market, few people would be willing to ride in utilitarian AVs, even though they would prefer others to do so. Regulation may provide a solution to this problem, but regulators will be faced with two difficulties: First, most people seem to disapprove of a regulation that would enforce utilitarian AVs. Second—and a more serious problem—our results suggest that such regulation could substantially delay the adoption of AVs, which means that the lives saved by making AVs utilitarian may be outnumbered by the deaths caused by delaying the adoption of AVs altogether. Thus, car-makers and regulators alike should be considering solutions to these obstacles.

This is a model for self-sacrifice (in theory) vs, self-preservation (in realty), as well as greater concerns when relatives are involved (familial genetic interests), and the free-riding/tragedy of the commons problem. All food for thought.
And here’s a final question: would people be less willing to “self-sacrifice” in a self-driving car (in theory, only in theory!) if those strangers to be saved were of a different ethny?

Gay Genes?

Always single genes?

On a thread from a Counter-Currents post about homosexuality, a commentator writes:

If “gayness” (i.e. total unambiguous homosexuality) is genetic, then how is it passed from generation to generation? Clearly whoever was carrying this gene wasn’t too gay to be making babies. Either that or society up until now has forced them to, thus inadvertently ensuring their survival. 

I’m not sure why people always assume that complex human behaviors are always the result of a single gene, or a small number of genes – just like the HBDers and their postulated “gene(s) for altruism.” The above comment is a case in point. Now, it is possible that homosexuality is due to a single gene or a small number of genes that is/are under direct selection.

However, it is equally possible – and probably more likely – that homosexual behaviors, to the extent that they are genetic, are due to the coinheritance of a number (likely more than a few) gene alleles, AND that these alleles may be maintained in the population for reasons other than homosexuality.

As theoretical examples: alleles coding for femininity in women which when inherited by sons increases chances for being gay, or genes for masculinity in men when inherited by daughters increases the probability of being a butch lesbian, or genes for creativity/aesthetic sense, which could be favorably selected for in some modern societies but which may also incline toward gayness.  

So, a man inheriting, say, a mix of femininity genes and artistic genes and some other genes – all of which are adaptive on their own in specific environments – may have a  greater chance of being homosexual. 

In this way,a tendency toward homosexuality is an unavoidable emergent property – a side effect if you will – of happening to inherit a constellation of gene alleles that are present in populations because they are adaptive for other reasons not having anything directly to do with homosexuality.

This is a hypothesis that may be right or wrong, but is just as likely as “gay genes” or “gay uncle fitness” or “gayness as a result of viral infections.”