(10-28-2023, 03:07 PM)Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote: [ -> ]I generally agree that basic welfare, demographic, and institutional reform are more achievable solutions that would help the situation and should be solved first before implementing eugenics, but I think you're overly optimistic to assume they would be close to sufficient on their own. Targeted eugenic policies are probably necessary to prevent these problems from reproducing themselves in the long term.
For this very reason is why I tried to frame my proposal in as general and flexible a sense as possible. I am aware that this idea is not sufficient on its own, but it serves as a starting point and a springboard to eventually implement further policies.
- "I think that a society or group that has the improvement of its stock as its chief concern needs to already have in place an established system focused on positive eugenics before it even begins weighing possible routes of negative eugenics."
- "how does one sensibly move the needle toward creating social conditions in which they would be able to begin working toward a set of desired eugenic ends?"
To that end, one of the intentions is that by creating a new "elite" or ruling class, said class would be cognisant of the danger that is these problems reoccurring.
(10-28-2023, 03:07 PM)Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote: [ -> ]You're also in particular overlooking that educational attainment correlates inversely with fertility. Encouraging a White person to pursue higher education is on average going to reduce the number of children they end up having. A brief search suggests this is also true if we only consider male fertility. I don't think reform would reverse this correlation, fundamentally pursuing a good career is at odds with raising a large family for both men and women (not just time/effort spent but also cost of living in a city, less support from extended family, etc).
Even in a sensible centrist world, the poor will still tend to produce more offspring than the rich, which is an existential problem. I think this problem only really exists when a society becomes advanced enough to cheaply provide food, sanitation and healthcare. Historically a poor woman might have 10 kids but half of them would die and things would work themselves out. Even if we abolish welfare so that it's more expensive for undesirables to support large families, they are still going to at least survive because we cheaply mass produce food and medicine (and I don't mean expensive hospital treatment, I mean antimalarial drugs and soap). Mother Nature used to kill the weak for us, but that simply doesn't happen any more.
I don't understand how this would have a significantly negative impact on my proposal. As I make clear, it is a starting point. My goal would be to first build a new aristocratic class by meritocratic admission standards which, mind you, were common sense for all of human history aside from the last 60 years. Ensuring that only the most promising students are able to attend universities (which would be significantly reduced in number) by standards of general merit, i.e., intellect, athleticism, and other achievements, creates a competitive, and thus eugenic, environment in and of itself that is far more acceptable to the general population than outright saying that only the most promising people are allowed to reproduce. Whether this new aristocratic class should choose to implement such reproduction policies would depend on it making that determination given the facts and circumstances, but the main focus is that the new elite, which would be much smarter, healthier, and White male dominated, needs to exist in the first place.
As to fertility of this new ruling class specifically, you have to understand that my fundamental concern is not "declining [White] birth rates" or whatever nonsense Elon Musk boomertweets about. My aim is to maximise good pairings. Encouraging Whites to become Africans and pump out endless children is not eugenic just because the children are White, despite what anyone may tell you. The White race has basically always been outnumbered and, all the while, never been in danger of dying off. I disagree that poors having more children than the rich even with my proposal is an existential problem. The only existential problem is a ruling class that forces middle class Whites to continue paying for dem programz that allow and even incentivise non-Whites to proliferate in the way that they do.
It isn't as if what I am proposing is some new and unheard of idea. Very much to the contrary, women going to school and working, en masse, generally
IS a completely new and unheard of idea. Surely we can't say that men who went to university in past eras weren't fathering children. Keep in mind as well that this proposal will, in theory, create a somewhat new caste system. The males who attend university don't necessarily have to date and marry the females from the respective sister universities, though they may - and all things considered, they may end up finding that doing so is preferable. It would be crazy to think that the female students at Barnard and male students at Columbia don't already date each other. Altering the dating pool by removing female students from Columbia would create even more incentive for the male students to date Barnard females, and vice versa.
Also important to take into consideration is that the female students at the sister schools will, without question, be gagging for the male students at the universities because they will no longer have as much of a choice not to pair with them (perhaps you know Ivy League or Oxbridge females in your personal life; if you do, you are well aware that it is virtually unheard of for them to engage in the practice of hypogamy). What's more, all of the non-academic but still eugenic female specimens will also desire the male university students because they too, just like the academic females, have a lust and attraction to status. It goes without saying that
I will have singlehandedly provided a proven solution to the issue that captivates so much of this forum's attention. The male students will be Kings of the Jungle that is the sexual marketplace, their manes will gloriously flow as their roars bellow in the face of both the inferior mane-less males and the females begging to have their children.
(10-28-2023, 03:07 PM)Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote: [ -> ]Other thoughts:- This fertility problem is not only genetic, it also occurs with cultural factors and parental investment
- Democracy wrongfully allocates more votes to families with comparatively K-selected genotypes
- Egalitarian ideology also wrongfully allocates its baseline "moral value of a human life" equally to these cheap low quality humans
I don't have a response to the first bullet point right now. To the second two: I am not a democrat and generally do not believe that the affairs of a state should be left to any sort of mass voting. Though I would very much like it not to exist at all,
if voting has to exist, I suppose that I would prefer it to be extremely limited to those of a certain rank, which is consistent with my proposal. Forms to my taste would be either that of Athenian democracy, an imperial diet in the fashion of the Holy Roman Empire, or something similar to corporate shareholder voting where only those with a personal stake in the nation (determined by some metric) are entitled to vote their "shares" in elections. In each of these forms, "votes" being cast by the undesirable types would not be much of an issue. Also, for all of the aforementioned reasons and given the very title of this thread, I don't think I need to explain why egalitarian ideology would not be a concern.