Eugenics

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

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.

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.

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
  

[august]

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.

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. 

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.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

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.

I think we're mostly in agreement (we should do both) so I don't have much to say, but I take issue with the bolded statement. Competitive environments don't necessarily have eugenic effects, unless they result in the fittest starting families comparatively more often.

White birth rates as a whole are not a huge issue I agree, since there are other ways we can retain demographic dominance in our nations. I don't even think we need to be concerned if overall birth rates are below "replacement" at 2.0 since birth rates will increase again once population decreases, it's probably fine if our population stabilizes at a number that's smaller than what we have now. But if the aristocracy has significantly lower fertility than the average, this will lead to decline and I do consider this to be an existential threat. The underclass will get larger and larger, find ways to infiltrate and dilute the quality of the aristocracy, and eventually something will give way (slave revolt). I think negative eugenics is important for this reason.

A possible summary of your argument: the economic/career system worked decently as a eugenic mechanism in the past, and we should restore it to its previous functionality before we try to invent new eugenic systems from scratch.

Birth rates in the West are also a good example of what you mentioned in your previous post where conservatives are scared to directly address the important issues, in this case declining fertility is presented in safe terms as concern for elderly welfare (which is not probably a big deal any more if we eliminate the tax burden immigrants represent).

Another thought since you mentioned hypergamy: Sexual promiscuity is probably suppressing fertility among the college-educated by a lot. Preventing hypergamy might be the Lindy reason why we used to have gender segregation in education, more so than anything else like making schools more meritocratic or whatever.

[august]

A possible summary of your argument: the economic/career system meritocratic academy worked decently as a eugenic mechanism in the past, and we should restore it to its previous functionality to create a legitimate governing elite before we try to invent implement new eugenic systems from scratch.

I realise that the edits I made to the above make the whole thing sound very much like a high-level pitch of a certain strain of NRx. I am partly amenable to this. At this point, I would likely welcome a great fracturing of the current way, a balkanised America where each state is a sovereign realm or a European return to the convoluted borders of the Medieval period. I know, this is largely fantastical, but such an environment is where real potential for opportunity and competition lies. I went back to reread the Moldbug thread and found that my general critique was said better by @anthony than I'd ever be able to say it myself. It captures the crux of why/how I think the levers of power need to corrected first -- which in itself would be the first eugenic step, and a large one at that for my reasons laid out in this thread thus far. Then, such correction would open the door for targeted policies of so-called "Amarnite" choosing. I humbly quote his words with my own added emphasis:

White society broke because we got a whole load of people not cut out for it thinking in ideas that are above them, and they're now determined to give this to absolutely everybody.
Moldbug kind of acknowledges this but hardly touches the scope of the problem at all.

He says elves are good at finding elves in other populations and uplifting them to their proper place, but that's not what's happening at all.
What's happening is that all of the places in society that enable self-actualisation and the freedom to think higher and more deeply are monopolised by retarded spiritual mediocrities, and all of society's capacity to uplift and maintain more patricians is being burned out on overclock telling people who are outright spiritual serfs to think about their true identity until the age of 30 in "higher education". And while this is happening every other man with an IQ above 115 is becoming a burned out social reject because the "elf" system of uplift is not just passing over them or not embracing them, but explicitly FUCKING HATES THEM.

---

Read any book by an American Elite written before 1945 and it's plain that this was an entirely different class of person, and that this class is *gone* in positions of real power and influence. The real elves, the ones whose natures effortlessly draw them towards higher and finer things, are no more as a coherent class with power. And the potential new elves, who *can* emerge from anywhere and everywhere, are kept broken, brutalised, and divided, mostly by the education system. The ostensibly "elf" system fishes for elves all the time, but only its own kind. The new fake elves. The first world education system is provincial hicklib freaks brutalising any bright spark who displays promise of character while uplifting, praising, and grooming fellow petty, power-lusting mediocrities like themselves, and filling their ideas with notions of importance and complexity of self-consciousness that they'll never be able to handle properly.

[Unformed Golem]

There are none, you should immediately become a sexpat in darkest afrika.

[Cyber Viking]

There are none, you should immediately become a sexpat in darkest afrika.

I support this for blanched_chards, he should take himself out of our people's gene pool. (If he is white, he very well could be a spic, if so, it doesn't matter what he does.)