Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

The only path for eugenics

The deep sense of crisis one gets after knowing of HBD comes in two flavours. Let’s call them macro and micro.

Macro is the danger of race replacement. Millions of migrants from sub-90 IQ populations have been moving massively into areas with super-100 IQ populations, namely the West. You don’t need to have a tribal allegiance to your people to feel very uncomfortable about that.  For 20 years we have been hearing about how Eurabia will happen during this century, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Hell you don’t even have to understand HBD to feel very uncomfortable with the prospect.

Still there are indications that immigration is slowing, the migrants already in place have stopped breeding like rabbits, and the native populations are starting to get pissed with this whole thing about being replaced. The wonders of the economic downturn. Miscegenation has also never been very high, so the prospects of the effective disappearance of the white race don’t seem quite as certain. I used to get very worked out about all that, but recently I’ve reached the conclusion that it’s going to be ok. Whites aren’t going the way of the Romans or the Manchus.

But that doesn’t mean that everything is ok. We still have the micro crisis. And that’s not even close to being ok.

The micro demographic crisis is the differential birth rate between high IQ and low IQ, in all races. Remember the prologue of Idiocracy? Well that’s it. Smart people worldwide are having less children than average, and the dumbest and most dysfunctional people are pumping out kids like rodents thanks to generous welfare benefits. The consequences must be, of course, a general dumbing down of the population.

That’s a problem in all populations of all countries. Whites are getting dumber, Chinese are getting dumber, American Blacks are getting dumber, even Arabs are getting dumber. The fact that different peoples all over the world are experiencing the same problem means that it’s not about religion or culture. There’s something deep going on, and nobody knows how to fix it. Well in most places PC forbids people to even notice or care about the issue. But even Singapore is having trouble with it. See this article on how the uber-realist Singapore government is utterly incapable of getting smart people to have kids. And not for lack of trying.

But of course it’s not that hard to understand the reasons behind the differential birthrates. People are just obfuscated. Governments are basing their policies in supplementing couple’s income, when the dirt poor Afghans are having 7 kids per woman.  It’s obviously not about money. It’s about hypergamy. Even the UN (!) admits as much. Smart women don’t have more children partly because they’re busy working, but mostly because they don’t want to. Not with a beta.

Giving women an education gives them money, status and independence, so they can follow their instincts more freely. And while not all of them are hell-bent on riding the alpha cock carrousel, it’s quite natural that they don’t want to settle down with an average chump. Let’s face it, most men suck. Even Mencken will tell you that. The average man is a mediocre animal. Of course the average woman isn’t all that cracked up either. But a college educated woman has spent 15 years of her life reading bullshit about how nice, pure, smart, and just plain awesome women are, and how they deserve everything they wish for. It’s not even their only fault, their friends and families pretty much enable them too, setting unrealistic standards for the men they should marry. Hell, I’m the voice of reason, yet I also think my sister’s boyfriend is an undeserving chump and she should try better. Settling with mediocrity is psychologically tasking.

It’s not about bitchy fatties voting themselves freedom to chase alpha tail. That might be the case in the US but the poor leftover Chinese women and Arab spinsters haven’t been riding anything at all. I once met a smart, outgoing,  good looking Chinese lady who was a virgin at 31 (don’t ask me how I know). There’s nothing wrong with this people, they just have unrealistic standards about how life is supposed to be. A hundred years of romance novels, soap operas and romantic comedies of course don’t help. The sheer size of the bullshit broadcasting machine that has been running for the last decades makes it amazing that people still bother to marry and have children at all.

So you see, it’s quite obvious that dysgenics isn’t really caused by economics at all. It’s a lifestyle choice, a choice by women. And you can give them all the money you want, yet they won’t change that choice. It’s biologically determined. What you can do, though, is restrict the choices women can make. That works like a charm. In fact is has been working like a charm for millennia. And that’s what China has just started to do.

The New York Times reports how Chinese universities have just started to require higher test scores to women than to men for entrance. Well the report is not about that administrative fact, it’s about how many female students are angry and complaining about it. The article tries to be damning but the sheer reasonableness of the college administrators is just too overwhelming. Girls are encouraged not to go into careers like criminology, engineering or Arabic. Because experience says they won’t end up liking the jobs they would get. The government is encouraging students to think on the long term. The horror!

The second half of the article is a reminder of a fact that is being publicised heavily lately, that women are surpassing men as students and in some sectors of th economy. I won’t comment on the issue itself and its causes, as Roissy and many others have already done so pretty well. Still articles like that show how things that almost everybody agrees are good things, like meritocracy, can and in fact do become destructive when taken out of their proper context. So women get better test scores. Right. So they deserve status and access to the system. But why? What does “deserve” even mean? Why not think on the long term consequences of encouraging women to spend their most fertile years in competing with men?

Academia robbed us of our vaginas

Given that women are hypergamous, and there’s nothing we can do about that, it necessarily follows that the only way of encouraging reproduction is ceteris paribus giving less status to women than to men. Feminists talk often about the old stereotype of housewives chained to their kitchens, made to walk barefoot. Well that’s exactly the point. High IQ females by their own nature are annoying enough, and lack in many qualities that men seek after. Giving them status, therefore narrowing their mating pool, only makes the matters worse. It’s not fair of course, but that’s how life is. I understand life sucks for a smart but plain looking woman, who can tell unworthy men better than anyone else, but whom worthy man ignore because she lacks in what men really want (looks). But the solution is not to give her a high paying job or an academic loudspeaker so she can write feminist books and feel happy about herself. What we have to do is get her married early and get those nice smart genes into the next generation.

And the only way to do that is to restrict women’s access to education. Of course the new regulations in China are a tiny, infinitesimal step towards that goal. I hadn’t heard of the news before, but googling I found a chinese article from July, with the hilarious title: “The different entry scores for some college majors are suspected of being gender discrimination”. Suspected! No dear, they are the very definition of gender discrimination. It is interesting that it is China the first to officially discriminate against women. The Communist revolution also brought wholesale Soviet feminism into China, and women have more privileges and are a bigger part of the workforce than any other Asian country. I guess the unprecedented rise in women’s social status, plus the demographic crisis caused by selective abortion hasn’t gone unnoticed by the government. Chinese culture is obsessed with cognitive power, and IQ is widely (if not universally) understood to be genetic. The Shengnü epidemic is a threat to the nation, so the government is timidly pushing for eugenics. The best and most effective eugenics policy. Let’s wish them luck.

Advertisements

61 responses to “The only path for eugenics

  1. rightsaidfred October 12, 2012 at 14:53

    I’d suggest that instead of trying to encourage smart women to breed, we would be better served encouraging (coercing?) dumb women not to breed.

    Birth control for welfare moms.

    A major wall around the fetid swamps of Afghanistan et al so their teeming hordes can live out their happy lives free from our influence.

    • spandrell October 12, 2012 at 15:54

      Having more smart people is preferable to having less dumb people.

      And it’s so much easier. Oppressing the dumb causes violent riots. Oppressing nerdy girls causes… articles in the NYT.

      • PRCD October 15, 2012 at 06:33

        I don’t see why you care whether the ‘smart’ Chinese breed or not. If they were inventive, it would matter. But they use their brains to count beans, cheat on exams, and steal IP, not innovate.

    • rightsaidfred October 13, 2012 at 09:44

      We need to do both. Just out breeding in a numerical way would be a Pyrrhic victory.

      There is a difference between suppressing dumb birth rates vs. oppressing the dumb in a general way.

  2. mitchellporter October 12, 2012 at 15:56

    Neurotechnology will matter more in the long run. You may be born stupid, it doesn’t mean you’ll stay stupid, not in this century.

  3. Jehu October 12, 2012 at 18:02

    I honestly don’t have a lot of sympathy for smart but plain girls in the US as a class. The fact of the matter is that in the US, an absolutely plain and average girl can easily hit the 75th percentile in looks for a woman of her age by doing just one thing—maintain a healthy weight for her size. For most women this means a BMI around 21.

    The men you can get in the US from a 75th percentile position as a woman are very good. So much so that your foreign counterparts would queue up in droves for them.

    • spandrell October 12, 2012 at 18:09

      And what does that tell you about the gender distribution of status in the US?
      Why do women prefer chocolate to marrying their peers and have children?

      Did that happen when women had restricted access to education and the workforce?

      • Jehu October 12, 2012 at 18:50

        Spandrell,
        A big part of it is that both men and women have been fed a line of bullshit regarding what the opposite sex wants for at least 2-3 generations now. Many overweight women really have NO idea how much better their life would be if they reduced to a 21 BMI.
        A lot of smart women reason that—hey, I’m 2-3 sigma smart, and 0 sigma looks. A smart guy would choose me over a girl with 0 sigma smart and 1 sigma looks, right?
        But here’s the rub, HE DOESN’T HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. If he has the status to get a girl with 1 sigma looks (80th-90th percentile), he can get a girl with 1 sigma looks AND whatever level of smarts he desires. If you want men to have to make the tradeoffs you want, you need a HARDCORE inefficient Marriage marketplace. I suggest Alaska.

        As to the gender distribution of status, I agree that society SHOULD ‘artificially’ lower women’s status insofar as required to make the 50th percentile man plenty alpha enough for the 50th percentile woman. Ending women’s suffrage would be a good first step.

        • Discard October 13, 2012 at 20:05

          Womens’ suffrage is a very recent phenomenon, historically. In the U.S., there are plenty of women still alive today who were born without the right to vote. I think it is an ephemeral phase, and future historians will write books about it as current ones write about Ptolemy’s astronomy or 18th century medical practices. We can either let women rule or we can feed ourselves.

  4. Red October 13, 2012 at 00:38

    Giving women freedom always leads to very low birthrates. The left knows this and now promotes feminism as method to reduce population in 3ed world nations.

    We’re getting dumber because we stopped allowing stupid people to die in large numbers. The west had a solution to problem for a thousand years: No women could be married unless her suitor had a house. This guaranteed that only successful men reproduced and led to surplus of women to marry which allowed men to select better women. Lesser men who could never reach that level had to make do with sluts and hookers. A good chunk of European women died old maids.

    • Candide III October 13, 2012 at 13:58

      No women could be married unless her suitor had a house.

      This is the current situation in China’s cities, although it is enforced by women’s preference rather than law or custom.

      • Red October 13, 2012 at 22:29

        The system only works if you create a surplus of marriageable women and the only way to do that is by removing female freedom.

        • Candide III October 14, 2012 at 01:01

          the only way to do that is by removing female freedom

          Care to support your statement? There is quite a surplus of marriageable women in, say, Japan (look up konkatsu), and lifetime childlessness is high in both women and men. I know Japan is hardly a feminist’s dream, but it’s not quite medieval Europe either.

          • Red October 14, 2012 at 19:03

            Your chance of getting a faithful Japanese wife is quite low. I wouldn’t include them as a surplus of marriageable women. Marriage doesn’t mean anything to a guy if he ends up raising someone else’s kids. It’s just legal contractual prostitution if you can’t guarantee by force of law your kids are your own.

            Japan moved into pleasure style marriages where a women only marries if the guy turns her on a couple of decades ago. Japanese men had traits required to woo a women in this manner bred out of them from 2000 years of arranged marriage. Given the choice women would rather go childless than marry a non exciting man and have kids. You don’t have a surplus of women to marry, but rather a surplus of men who don’t have the genes capable of wooing women. Go back to arranged marriages and most of those sexless men would be married.

            Single motherhood is on the rise in japan. Given another 3 or 4 generations of nobody but cads and players reproducing japan won’t have a very many sexless men.

            • Candide III October 15, 2012 at 01:17

              The Japanese law actually requires fidelity (Civil Code §770, subclause 1).

              Your second paragraph is partly correct, although a dearth of men should have the same effect as a surplus of women. Note that your original comment refers to a dearth of men too. The tradition of arranged marriages is still alive in Japan, with about 6% of marriages being arranged (see this study). Considerations other than “turn-on” are also very important, this is one of the reasons why the marriage rate is relatively low in Japan. Japanese women don’t need to marry to have sex and a relationship with a man who turns them on anymore, same as in the Western countries. I am surprised that you bring this up as an argument at all. As for nobody but cads and players reproducing, I would prefer to believe you are making a joking overstatement.

              Single motherhood in Japan is not negligible, but most of it is due to divorces and not actual out-of-wedlock births, which comprise only 2% of the total (so far), and this percentage includes couples which do not register their marriage because one of the spouses wants to avoid changing her legal name for business/professional reasons (I know one such example personally) — name change after marriage is mandatory and maiden name is not acceptable as a professional name (again, so far). I have compiled some relevant statistics on this matter.

              • Red October 15, 2012 at 07:41

                I’ve stated this badly. The requirement of a men having a house before marriage is directly tied to the only legitimate way of a women having children is legally enforced marriage including prohibitions on adultery (which as far as I can tell are no longer enforced in Japan). You have to curtail female freedom to run such a system in order to create the surplus of women that men are willing to work hard enough to get a house in order to marry them. This is genetic selection of successful males over males who are not industrious but limiting violent competition between men by reserving only one women per man as a legitimate child bearer. A man’s energy is directed into economic production instead of violence, drug usage, and chasing women. A system that allows female selection/freedom ultimately changes mating to the lek mating system which entirely destroys both intelligence and civilization.
                http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-lek-mating-system.html

                What I’m describing is the fusion of 2 systems:
                1. Patriarchy and the requirement of chaste and faithful wives with limited or not freedom. Every great civilization I know of has followed this system.
                2. The second is giving men long term economic goals to pursue that selects males with good future orientation and intelligence to maximize his chances of reproduction. You see this type of arrangement coming out of feudal systems. It’s good at removing the most worthless of men and keeping only the most promising of women reproducing without wide scale violence.

              • Candide III October 15, 2012 at 12:38

                You have to curtail female freedom to run such a system in order to create

                You still haven’t explained why this is so. At least in Japan, there appears to be a noticeable lack of men willing or able to work hard enough to “get a house”, so marriage-minded women have to compete for them. The men who content themselves with games, idols, sex toys and harem anime don’t count. The women who pursue the parasite single lifestyle, or remove themselves from the marriage market for other reasons, don’t count either. As long as there are more of the former than of the latter, modulo demography, and there is no significant subsidy (psychological as well as financial) to single mothers, selection will exert pressure in the right direction.

  5. RS-prime October 13, 2012 at 19:53

    > Neurotechnology will matter more in the long run. You may be born stupid, it doesn’t mean you’ll stay stupid, not in this century.

    As much as that’s a fair to middling possibility, take it to the bank and call it a cheque.

    • RS October 15, 2012 at 16:14

      Also, congenital interventions are probably going to be easier/likelier than later-life ones. There’s a reason this matters — it means 25-30 years more latency before your high-production person (or genius) yields fruit.

  6. Hail October 13, 2012 at 20:04

    Whites are getting dumber, … American Blacks are getting dumber

    According to Richard Lynn, US-Blacks are getting dumber more quickly than are US-Whites. Whites have been losing 0.75 IQ points per generation, while Blacks have been losing 1.5 IQ points per generation, due to dysgenic breeding. This has been over the past century, at least, according to Lynn.

    See also: USA’s White Dysgenics Quantified.

  7. Pingback: Randoms « Foseti

  8. Domingo October 17, 2012 at 06:11

    Somebody should study Orthodox Jewish communities to see if a secular version of key cultural traits can be extracted.
    There’s a Jewish Orthodox girl’s high school in my city which consistently aces state wide test scores, yet most graduates marry early and have a string of kids.
    Some of the following is guesswork:
    Marriages are arranged, status for men in the community is primarily in Torah studies, for women it is in managing large families. Many of the women also get university degrees and start businesses to support their families. Community values very strong and inward-looking, peer pressure is huge – not so different from China in this respect. Children are treated less narcissistically, there are far fewer choices available. The definition of a ‘good life’ is traditional, one does not aspire to be amazing.

    • spandrell October 17, 2012 at 10:14

      Jews are without doubt the best example for natural eugenics. But they are a subgroup inside wider society, and that makes it hard to learn from their example. Jews wouldn’t be able to function as well as they do if they had no gentiles to outsmart. The women get university degrees in a system designed by gentiles, and start business who sell stuff to gentiles to support themselves.

      If we all were Orthodox jews, it wouldn’t be that easy.

  9. Abelard Lindsey October 21, 2012 at 22:49

    Reforming the social-welfare system to reduce the fertility of the less capable makes sense and should be done. The welfare reform we had in 1995 has largely accomplished this objective. However, pushing people who don’t want kids into having them makes no sense at all. Also, I see no benefit in restricting the economic/career options for women either. Restricting economic opportunity for anyone makes absolutely no sense at all.

    • spandrell October 23, 2012 at 02:09

      No sense at all. We had been doing that for millenia though.
      What does ‘want’ even mean? Is wanting the measure of morality? The government can make you want a lot of stuff by pure suggestion.

  10. RS-prime October 22, 2012 at 11:51

    > That’s a problem in all populations of all countries. Whites are getting dumber, Chinese are getting dumber, American Blacks are getting dumber, even Arabs are getting dumber. The fact that different peoples all over the world are experiencing the same problem means that it’s not about religion or culture.

    There are a few old-school trad countries where dysgenic differential fecundity doesn’t occur ; I think they may include Indonesia. However, it’s basically irrelevant.

    I have pointed out several times: dysgenesis in the West is fascinating, but what about Mexico, or Bolivia, or Egypt? As fucked up as the West may be, many of these countries have less of a ‘buffer’ (of prosperity, etc) and may have a greater potential for total social breakdown underlain by (inter alia) dysgenesis. You probably don’t hear much about it in Europe, but about five years ago there was much talk about the potential for total disintegration in Mexico. If this be the case today, how will matters stand in 45 years — with, likely, a considerably worse population?

    The differential fecundity goes back so far, and is so bad (in America, especially in non-Whites), that it must surely be countered by other forces. The problem is that those forces are apt to be exhausted. You probably read at Jim’s how I pointed out that secular increase in height generally ended in the West with the 1980 birth cohort. That there should even be a secular height increase after say 1950 or even 1920, by which time it appears as though the environment was largely ‘fine’, fascinates me in its own right.

    As far as I know, US Blacks also stopped growing higher around the 1980 cohort despite their somewhat worse general living conditions. As Jim and I discussed, their level of culture appears to have deteriorated while this is less evident in Whites IMO (especially before 1990), detectable mainly at the extremes in supreme artwork.

    Not sure when the Japs hit their max height.

    I wonder who has actually measured the braincase volume of Whites over 1870-2000.

    • spandrell October 23, 2012 at 02:14

      Not maybe Bolivia (they’d just fall back into their Indian peasant society), but Egypt seems to me a prime candidate to break down into Mad Max chaos.
      Dysgenesis in Europe is not fascinating, it’s scary because it means an absolute decline of civilisation. But Egypt? Who would care? They might blow the pyramids away. Oh well. But no big deal really.
      The Third World suffering dysgenesis means that crap got worse. The First World suffering dysgenesis means there’s no First World anymore.

      Re; Jap height, those guys don’t eat meat. They have been getting taller, but a lot of people still hang on to medieval nutrition so you see plenty of sub 160cm men and sub 150cm women. Totally solvable by eating more meat and drinking meat, but they just won’t. Messes their stomaches they say. China’s communist party has been more pushy about having good nutrition, so people are taller in general.

  11. Dan October 23, 2012 at 16:37

    I have a faithful Japanese wife and this poster is not correct. The problem is with Japanese men. So many are not agressive and a high percentage are not even interested in relationships. Eighty percent of game is just getting out there and trying and not being afraid of rejection. Women often don’t know what they want and if you sincerely woo someone you will often succeed even if you are nerdy, or short. Many Japanese men are juvenile and adolescent in this way. It is a cultural thing. Their samurai ancestors and kamikaze uncles would be shocked.

    • Dan October 23, 2012 at 16:38

      When I say ‘poster’ I am referring to the commenter Red, not the original blog post.

    • spandrell October 24, 2012 at 16:39

      I have some experience on that, and I agree partly with you.
      But men don’t educate themselves, do they? Growing a pair of balls needs some guidance and encouragement, which in Japan they are not getting. Women also have dreams of Mr. Right that aren’t very realistic. That your wife is faithful doesn’t mean everybody is.

  12. RS-prime October 24, 2012 at 14:14

    > They might blow the pyramids away. Oh well.

    Iran, Pakistan, India? Nukes?

    Pak’s fecundity is (way?) too high and Iran’s waaay too low. Iran also seems very de-traditioned and decadent, and, not unrelatedly, dysgenic differential fecundity sounds very strong there. I’m not emotionally hostile to Iran, Hafiz I adore.

    Unz says the bottom ~20% of Indians eat way less than they ate about 30 years ago.

    Add dysgenesis.

    • spandrell October 24, 2012 at 16:34

      So Pakistan and Iran kill each other. Yawn.
      Hafiz isn’t going anywhere.

      • RS-prime October 25, 2012 at 05:04

        I’m to understand that you have questions like AGW and nuclear winter well in grasp?

        • spandrell October 25, 2012 at 11:19

          You mean that Pakis have enough nukes to produce a worldwide nuclear winter? Come on.

          • RS October 25, 2012 at 14:23

            Though it certainly costs a pretty penny, I think most of the costs are up front. I don’t believe the marginal cost is very great or that it was ever any significant chunk of US arms spending. Granted US arms spending is pretty large. I’d like to have money like that.

            Interesting that you’d take Pakistan as your example rather than the other two with their clearly higher economic potential.

            Now, Golden Spengler talks as if there were no such thing as M.A.D. for India and/or SW Eurasia, or it’s just highly unbankable. I don’t necessarily feel that way at all.

  13. Baker November 23, 2012 at 05:30

    While I agree there is currently a dysgenic trend, I think political discrimination is not necessary. While dysgenics may introduce a temporary dip in human quality, nature is self-correcting and humanity may eventually evolve back to a healthy setup. eg, If high intelligence females are unfit in breeding, sexual dimorphism in genes and memes will evolve in a way such that the intelligence gap between females and males is further widened, making most females fit to breed again. Unfit genes/memes simply naturally select themselves out. Rather than coercing the naturally unfit into fit ones, we better spend energy into encouraging the naturally fit ones. Not to mention that artificial genetic manipulation may to viable within 200 years.

    • Baker November 23, 2012 at 06:02

      Trying to introduce the old institutions into the modern world wouldn’t work, I think. The old instituion worked because the economics of old times largely based on physical prowess, and the physical disparity between male and female allowed male to naturally take the leading role and female the nurture mode, ie the old institution. Modern economics is based on information and mind manipulation, the disparity between male and female is not so large in these areas, hence disrupting the old institution. Humanity is currently in a evolutionarily disruptive and maladaptive state due to a disruption of environment that is the modern economics. Trying to solve the problem by forcefully reintroduce the old institutions is like trying to heal an unproductive sick man by forcing him to work productively 9 hrs a day since this is what a healthy man does; it address the phenonmena rather the cause, and won’t work unless the sick man is healed first.

      • spandrell November 23, 2012 at 06:45

        That’s bull. Women were more productive back when they did farm and textile work than now as information manipulators. What do women do besides sales, HR and other make-work?
        If women were really more productive they wouldn’t get legal privileges.

        • Baker November 23, 2012 at 08:00

          I said economics, and economics is not direct productivity. It is about power of control. The primary production of old time is agriculture, the defense of land and some adventures, where men vastly out perform women with women in auxillary roles. Today it is not so clearly cut. While men still out perform women in some hardcore jobs, in more mundane jobs women almost equals men. Women are the primary consumers, which allows them to wield large power in commerical market and mass media. The average women tends to be better than the average men in mind/social manipulation which gives them further edge like affirmative actions, women’s rights, pedestaling of feminism etc, which can be seen as a modern version of class war.
          The natural power disparity between men and women is much smaller nowadays. And one can only execise as much control and status as his power allows. An open society would not allow man to collectively use their physical prowess to beat women back into their traditional status; and closed societies have a host of other problems that I don’t think we want to retreat back into.

          • spandrell November 23, 2012 at 10:38

            Fair enough.
            What’s your definition of a closed society anyway? Our ‘open’ society isn’t going to last much longer at this rate.

            • Baker November 23, 2012 at 12:10

              An open society allows people to freely enter and leave institutions by suitable qualification; a closed society coerce people into institutions by class labels. In this age, there is no way to limit women’s access to education, careers and politics without heavy coercion. Even the Islam countries are losing their grasp.
              So hard limitation on women simply won’t work, there will never be enough social support for it. As you notes the current course is unsustainable. The more likely resolution is that there will be substantial social morphism and collapses in the next 200 years, cleansing the unfit genes/memes [eg bitches, manginas, parasites, egalitarian], and teaching the humanity a lesson. Also, technology progression may mitigate some problems, and may change humanity so much that many currently perceived problems become irrelevant by that time.

              • spandrell November 23, 2012 at 12:27

                I don’t know if genetics work like that. The Romans were hedonistic philohomosexuals who disdained manual work. They collapsed, but their genes don’t seem to have been wiped out.

                You can argue we will get genetic engineering very soon now; but evolution doesn’t care about civilisation. When the Islamic empire collapsed, it didn’t wipe out the lethargic genes/memes that caused it. It fixed them on place, and Islam has been very stable, in fact slowly expanding in its medieval idiocy.

  14. Baker November 23, 2012 at 12:46

    I used evolution in a very general sense, both in genetics and in culture (memes). Evolution doesn’t care about civilization, but it does care about being sustainable and “good enough”. If a setup is unsustainable, it will eventually be replaced by sustainable ones. Yes human remain lazy and stupid, but we did good enough to maintain largely sustainable, occassionally progressive cultures for thousands of years. Without the partial cleansing of erroneous gene/meme, human civilization would be so unsustainable that it is long gone. It would be too optimistic to assume that our first foray into the realm of modern technology and economics would be fine; more likely we would seriously screw up and suffering is inevitable.

    • spandrell November 23, 2012 at 13:01

      So what you´re saying is that liberal society is going to slowly rot and there´s nothing we can do about it.
      I think foseti said something similar. There’s four theories on the endgame I guess:

      1- Slow rot => Middle ages
      2- Sudden Collapse => Mad Max
      3- Restoration => Traditional awesomeness Christ comes back
      4- Singularity => Futuristic awesomeness Gattaca becomes reality

      I don’t know but slow rot doesn’t seem to be a positive scenario so that “political discrimination is not necessary”. I think avoiding 200 years (which could be longer) of rot and decay very much merits trying to do something about it.
      Might be helpless, but damn it we might as well try.

      • Baker November 23, 2012 at 13:44

        I think the most positive thing we can do is self preservation, uniting people of similar cause and to plant the seed of a better culture, rather than trying to save a rotting culture. They may have the same skin colour as you but they are not your brothers. They don’t want to be saved and they will kill you if you try. Realistically speaking, none of the alt-right / libertarian ideology is half realizable without the current system first collapsing and people are shocked into a reason for change. A collapse is not the end but a new beginning.

        I am a chinese and have learnt so many cycles of rise and fall of dynasties in history that I am somewhat desensitized. Not in a single case a dynasty can reverse its root of rotting before collapsing.

        • spandrell November 23, 2012 at 14:07

          Ok now I understand.

          我剛才看我博客的統計網頁,看到有很多香港的訪客,平時特別少,不知道是怎麼回事。
          原來是您吶。歡迎歡迎。能見到一個有思想的中國人真是不容易。您在香港或是翻牆來的?

          You have a strong point. Although I’d argue that dynastic falls are different from total civilisational collapse.
          I think the Mormons will fall to liberalism sooner than later. For people to find their natural place they have to have a minimal idea of what they want, and that’s seriously lacking these days. If we are in the altright are doing something is trying to come up with something.

          • Baker November 23, 2012 at 14:35

            I’m from HK. My browser is having problem that’s why I refreshed a lot :-)

            Each collapse of a great chinese dynasty was accompished by a partial collapse of civilization, especially when invaded by the north barbaric tribes. Sometimes for better sometimes for worse. Total civilizational collapse is very unlikely. But China was screwed since the mongolian invasion and from there it was all downhill.

            Yes the root problem of modern age is not liberalism, but human losing the meaning of life and their place. It is an adaption problem that will take a while to fix. And if it cannot be fix, then modern civilization is simply maladaptive and is not supposed to last long.

            • spandrell November 23, 2012 at 15:01

              China’s too damn big. Everybody turns provincial when they can afford it. Happens that you guys can.
              I find no comfort evolutionary teleology, although I can see its appeal. Guess it fits a certain sensibility, call it Daoist or whatever.
              Anyway, how’d you find my blog? My pal at theslittyeye.wordpress.com was trying to reach out to other like-minded chinese, don’t know if you’re interested or not. A HK meetup would be nice someday.

      • Baker November 23, 2012 at 13:58

        Hardcore political discrimination is not necessary because even if you can succeed in implement it (you cannot), it would induce so much internal stress and negative side effect that the country may as well be in middle age, aka the Islamic countries. I would prefer a softcore cultural solution where people find their natural place, eg Mormonism, even it may take longer.

  15. Matt Strictland December 28, 2012 at 09:22

    Very good article. I am delighted to have found your blog, reaction and HBD are like my two favorite things right now.

    As for the fertility issue, its an odd problem. The markets demand more people but people themselves are getting close to carrying capacity, more than just a hypergamy issue (though thats a big one) its a money issue as you mentioned and the technology we have is paraxoical. It can easily provide lots of material wealth but it also removes the status methods (i.e jobs) that determines ownership. Social vs. phsyical carrying capacity if you will.

    Take Spain for example, it has a TFR of around 1.34. Thats awful but though you might not think it its also extremely high and suggesta a strong desire for family given the near 50% youth unemployment rate (from 18-24 about half of Spanish youth have no employment) and horrendous underemployment rate

    This suggests to me that people are behaving rationally. So even if we fix hypergamy somehow with policy it won’t help if machines take all the jobs. Baring a return to agrarianism we must expect population shrinkage and lower IQ (they tend to have more kids) til some kind of equailibrium is met.

    Oh as to getting the IQ up, you can do it but not in a democratic state of any kind. Half measures like those of Singapore won’t work, you’d need carrot and stick, payments for some, no payments for others. I can’t see that working with human nature or any political process. Heck if you have that much political power go full tyranny and be done with it. It would be more effective and cheaper

    Basically in the long run, I see that evolution is selecting against brains as less useful past a point and I don’t expect that to change.

  16. Pingback: The sociology of dysgenia « Bloody shovel

  17. Pingback: Statistics on sex and marriage in Japan | Candide III

  18. Agonistes January 5, 2015 at 04:16

    What you forget is that historically, NEITHER gender exercised choice in their relationships. Up until fairly recently, marriage was an agreement between two families, and had nothing to do with the wishes of the young man or woman involved.

    Just take a look at the history of royal families. The king of one country might marry one of his daughters to the king of another country to secure an alliance. The result was that European royal families became very interrelated, with Kaiser Wilhelm being the cousin of George V of Britain. More recently, there can be no doubt that Prince Charles’ marriage to Diana achieved a status for him that he never would have enjoyed had he married Camilla first.

    Loveless but economically advantageous marriages are not just a facet of old world royalty; they still exist today among the rich and powerful. Political families in the US are often related, and it is blindingly obvious that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s relationship has always been a business deal.

    In the business world, a tycoon might arrange a marriage between his son and the daughter of another mogul. A young executive who is rising through the ranks might marry the daughter of the company chairman to secure his future. This is especially good if the chairman has no sons; he would then have a good chance of succeeding the old man. Marrying the daughter of a powerful man is a great way to move up.

    Even in the Robert De Niro movie Limitless (2011), Carl warns Eddie that he won’t succeed without Carl, because “You haven’t had to climb up all the greasy little rungs. You haven’t been bored blind at the fundraisers. You haven’t done the time in that first marriage to the girl with the right father.”

    Men can play the hypergamy game just as good as women can.

  19. cyborg_nomade August 9, 2016 at 11:05

    latecomer here (and haven’t read most of the comments thread)

    shouldn’t we be going all Western on these crises and making baby factories of high IQ kids that could be sold (or given) to parents? donating eggs and sperm is much easier than raising kids.

  20. the paper of the day April 22, 2017 at 18:14

    Deception includes white lies, jokes, disguise,
    forgery, magic, financial fraud and scams, feints
    and ploys in games and sports, and much more. Some of
    the lies are selfish and antisocial, leading to serious consequences,
    but other lies are altruistic and prosocial, making
    for smoother communication.
    Lying and deceit are
    ubiquitous in a society and are essential for appropriate
    social interactions.

    Ubiquitous and essential for… why didn’t you tell me some 10, 15, 25 years ago, fkers?!
    I know, I know, you hate to tell it as you love to do it. And not telling it is part of the “essential for appropriate”.

    The sweet close isn’t what persuaded me to post it here, though.
    It’s the boldened part.
    I mean, doesn’t it have a cute sound to it?

    Doesn’t it?
    They can never know their real reasons and motives, can they?
    In fact, weren’t they the afraid-ers they are, they’d add “self-deception” to all sentences there.
    Self-deception is no less ubiquitous and essential “for appropriate”, buddies.

    Trust me, I know.

    • maybe yes, maybe not April 22, 2017 at 18:23

      I mean, the good lies the prosocial ones… they only lead to the non-deceiving and generally better more humane people to being fked every single time by anybody in any context.

      If that isn’t prosocial, what else is it?

      What’s “essential” “for appropriate” is that reacting with, say, a smack in the (her) face must be illegal.
      Wholesome psychologists and psychiatrists stress it that violence and aggression aren’t always bad; those always bad are the socio-culturally disapproved ones.

      Upsetting and melting someone’s brains by keeping lying to them in their face about broken promises, unfaithfulness and other stuff, destroying them for years if not forever, is super-socially-approved. I mean, socio-culturally.

      “Other people aren’t responsible for your wellness”
      Oh, sure, no, they aren’t. No matter how mindlessly and traitorously they act after freely stepping into your life, they aren’t.

      Responsibility pops up the moment you respond physically (not that such people can be harmed emotionally or mentally, after all).

      Why is that different?
      Because why!; I mean, because it is!.

      I mean, it’s prosocial.

      (And if after some decades you figured the deceptocruelgame out and estrange yourself from it, we’ll still blame you and swipe at you, you antisocial! Why don’t you want to play with us? It’s funny, you antisocial!)

      Maybe yes, maybe not.

      • iNothing April 22, 2017 at 18:35

        Some of
        the lies are selfish and antisocial, leading to serious consequences,
        but other lies are altruistic and prosocial, making
        for smoother communication.

        I mean, if you don’t get a pair of Nobel prizes with that sentence, nobody should get one ever!

        One of the many comments that are possible: lies that don’t screw da group but only people who don’t understand or are bad at the deceptofukgame have no antisocial and serious consequences (not serious in the eyes of da group, for sure!), so they 1) aren’t selfish (yay!) and 2) aren’t bad (yupieeee!).

        Basically, a paper on deception can’t do without lies and self-deception, not even a bit.

        There is nothing the human species dreads like seeing itself in a mirror. Not even remotely.

        Not easy to see they are wrong.

        • in the beginning was the Word April 22, 2017 at 18:42

          Not that there is any based reason to get angry at anything/anyone; one shall never forget that free-will is an illusion.

          I mean, if you want to get mad at proteins, water, and strands of DNA, do that, but it looks purposeless.

          It’s just that once you get far enough from the whole merry-go-round that you can really observe it, everything feels a little grey and void.
          Just a tiny little, yes…
          And there are no purposes left.

          Or in other words, blessed the sociopath who has his healthy, functional addiction to power.
          If you are a sociopath (somebody who can detach themselves from the merry-about enough to observe it), be of the power-hungry type.
          Otherwise you’ll be left without purpose and direction.

  21. cyborg_nomade April 23, 2017 at 01:53

    well, industrialization used to be pretty western.

Please comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s