All those scientists who defended Epstein? Go jump in a lake.


Yeah, you, Trivers and Krauss. I can’t believe you thought Epstein was a credible patron.

Now we find out he owns a $12 million ranch in New Mexico, and that he had grand plans for it.

The financier and suspected sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein told a number of scientists and confidantes he wanted to “seed the human race” with his DNA by impregnating women at his New Mexico ranch, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

He has been discussing the idea since the early 2000s at various dinners, conferences, and other gatherings, The Times reported, citing four sources familiar with his thinking. But there is no evidence he actually acted on the idea.

The idea was to impregnate 20 women at a time by inseminating them with his sperm, The New York Times reported, citing the author Jaron Lanier, who heard the account secondhand from a NASA scientist who told him about her conversation with Epstein.

We already knew he had a Creep Quotient that was pretty high, but now it’s just shot through the roof, and his estimation of the value of his DNA to the human species was repugnantly exaggerated. He must have heard that Alan Dershowitz was rivaling him for the title of King Creep, and this news had to come out to cement his position as the very worst.

I’d like to know if any of the scientists who took money from him were aware of his ludicrous plans, and if they did, why they didn’t back away from this person. Because he could offered me $10 million personally, told me about his freaky ideas, and I would have thrown the money back in his face and told him to never speak to me again.

Comments

  1. starfleetdude says

    At least Steven Pinker comes off better than some:

    At one session at Harvard, Mr. Epstein criticized efforts to reduce starvation and provide health care to the poor because doing so increased the risk of overpopulation, said Mr. Pinker, who was there. Mr. Pinker said he had rebutted the argument, citing research showing that high rates of infant mortality simply caused people to have more children. Mr. Epstein seemed annoyed, and a Harvard colleague later told Mr. Pinker that he had been “voted off the island” and was no longer welcome at Mr. Epstein’s gatherings.

  2. Sili says

    That struck me too.
    It makes me question my status as an atheist. It seems to be good evidence of the existence of Nuggan, that there is something good to say about Pinker.

  3. says

    It reminds me rather disturbingly of Dr. Strangelove:

    TURGIDSON: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

    STRANGELOVE: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious… service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

    AMBASSADOR: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

    The less said about what Mr Epstein finds “highly stimulating,” the better. But he wanted to double the ratio…

  4. starfleetdude says

    I can see Epstein as a character in Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut, actually.

  5. numerobis says

    Jumping in a lake sounds very pleasant. Why would you condemn them to a fun thing?

  6. willj says

    So he’s jewish, but the whole aryan master race thing somehow escaped him? Well okay, he’s a billionaire. I suppose acquisition is a worthy survival advantage that must be passed on.

  7. numerobis says

    A cold lake in summer sounds fine given the heat wave I’ve been in. A lava lake, not so much.

    I hope Epstein gets to rot in jail for a good long time, and that his many victims get the help they need.

    He basically wanted to set up a cult complex, I guess?

  8. says

    So if Dershowitz helped defend Epstein, does that mean he likely knew what Epstein was up to? Which he is falling all over himself to say “I had no idea…!”

  9. hemidactylus says

    Reading this article:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html

    I was taken aback by the mere mention of one of my heroes, Gould:

    “Mr. Epstein attracted a glittering array of prominent scientists. They included the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann, who discovered the quark; the theoretical physicist and best-selling author Stephen Hawking; the paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould; Oliver Sacks, the neurologist and best-selling author; George M. Church, a molecular engineer who has worked to identify genes that could be altered to create superior humans; and the M.I.T. theoretical physicist Frank Wilczek, a Nobel laureate.”

    Which calls for some sanity when connecting names, given Gould died in 2002, so what could he know. When I see the photo including Dennett I also have no besmirching judgement to make. I do still take issue with his optimistic take on memetics. But I still like the guy.

    Pinker did help Dershowitz with interpreting a statute, but someone I am not the hugest fan of made a pretty strong argument about how he offered his own expertise on the OJ trial. And Pinker regrets it according to that source:

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/07/14/if-pinker-is-bad-i-must-be-worse/

    Another concerning issue is Epstein’s connection to transhumanism. I have found that pursuit to be a bit utopian (or dystopian if you follow the Terminator scenario) and who wouldn’t want technology to extend life somewhat, but is the field comparable to eugenics? I would argue there would be disparity in access to technology and those who can’t afford it would miss nothing by not being swampman with consciousness uploaded to a server farm hell cloud.

  10. says

    The financier and suspected sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein told a number of scientists and confidantes he wanted to “seed the human race” with his DNA by impregnating women at his New Mexico ranch, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

    Ewww. Time for a Silkwood Shower.

  11. says

    #11 – Given Dershowitz’s past actions (e.g. his mistreatment and targeting of Norman Finkelstein) I’m not all that surprised he was involved.

  12. wzrd1 says

    First, I’ll say something that won’t especially make me popular.
    Every defendant in the US should and worse, is required and rarely is afforded the absolute best legal defense possible against any charge.

    That said, I’m not especially happy that such people were “captured alive”, to exploit things in a criminal way, that normally protect innocent people and worse, political shenanigans, which makes an entire populace mistrust multiple levels of government!
    In a significant part of my past, I could not object, beyond mere voting or verbally. I’m retired from things military, other than occasional contracting and that not revealed usually, needs not conform to a specific act of Congress.
    That one purchased his way free from justice in one state makes me wonder as to whether or not said state should remain in the union!

    Trigger warning.
    But, the entire damned story makes me want to consider and shudder, forming a Star Chamber.
    My vote for a few, hanged, drawn and quartered, in the traditional way.

    Those triggerable, please do not look up that specific punishment. Ever.
    It’s above and beyond the call of horrific.

    Oddly, people trust me to babysit their children and grandchildren, always with good results.
    Kids aren’t usually monsters and if I ran into one, I’d report the child to family, parents and mental health, hopefully, to be salvaged.

    But, this, it makes me gasp, “Jesus’s balls”!

    That said, my hyperthyroidism does make me want to shove a pistol up his ass, through is mouth, perfecting a pistol Möbius loop.
    Downside, one over infinity vs infinity over one. ;)
    Excuse me while I cook a snack over a Plank infinity “fire”… :P

    There are times when one must get silly, lest one cause harm to another…
    I’m thinking using thermonuclear warheads, still in their bomb or MIRV casing, sent to the bottom of the deepest depths.
    Reminds me of “Day of the Dolphin”.

  13. clevehicks says

    It appears that in the article, the NYT originally included SJ Gould in a list of scientists who associated with Epstein even after his 2008 conviction. When angry readers pointed out that Gould died in 2002, the paper seems to have quietly deleted the ‘after his 2008 conviction’ part without notifying the readers. Hmmm … There is something fishy about the entire article, I think. Intriguing that Steven Pinker is not included in the above-mentioned list and is instead throughout the article given multiple opportunities to appear as if he were an opponent of Epstein at the time. In one section, Pinker claims he heroically stood up to Epstein when the financier suggested that we should deny help to the poor, which would only lead to overpopulation. ‘Mr. Pinker said he had rebutted the argument, citing research showing that high rates of infant mortality simply caused people to have more children. Mr. Epstein seemed annoyed, and a Harvard colleague later told Mr. Pinker that he had been “voted off the island” and was no longer welcome at Mr. Epstein’s gatherings.’ Why didn’t Pinker object to Epstein’s callous suggestion for moral reasons, instead of, by my reading, making the dubious counterpoint that the poor breed like rabbits?

  14. ck, the Irate Lump says

    Eugenics never really died… It still carries along in the dual disguises of meritocracy and inherited wealth. When you hear the successful talk about themselves, they always talk about their inherent talent and how they bootstrapped their empire single-handedly and never about the inherited privilege they benefited from.

  15. kome says

    One of the things I detest most about academia is how frantically everyone is to chase funding, and how often academics are willing to compromise their values to secure said funding.

  16. rockwhisperer says

    @19, ck, the Irate Lump: I never thought about it that way, but you’re right. Not much experience with the inherited wealth part, but I do have experience with meritocracy. I spent two decades being an engineer in Silicon Valley, and my Husband still works as an engineer here. Meritocracy is worshiped here, though it’s pretty obvious to all but the merit “stars” that they succeed by having engineering talent that is modestly better than their peers and a terrific talent for sucking up to management. The founders of successful companies are lauded, though most people in the industry know that such founding requires not only a good idea but good selling to investors and more importantly, a heckuva lot of luck.

    And yet, the myth of the brilliant company founders who go on to fame and fortune based on nothing more than a good idea–and the possibility that anyone can do that–gets a lot of ordinary people through their days.

    There’s also a strain of social conservatism that runs through the valley, fueled by the notion that if I (a tech professional) can get a degree and bust my ass at a well-paying job so I and my similarly-employed spouse can raise a family in this amazingly overpriced area, then everyone else should be able to as well. If they can’t, there’s obviously something wrong with them. So why should my tax dollars go toward supporting them?
    Gah.

  17. fledanow says

    “The New York Times reported, citing the author Jaron Lanier, who heard the account secondhand from a NASA scientist who told him about her conversation with Epstein.”

    I’ve got no use for Epstein, and hope he is soon convicted of crimes that keep him in jail forever, but this is just gossip. We can entertain ourselves trashing people on sounder grounds.

Leave a Reply