I think it's worse than this. It's not surprisingly women are foolish enough to think they can have career followed by their Dream Man, but the lousy economy and laws against men are encouraging men, even the smart ones, to not get married and have kids. On the other hand, the lower classes are pretty fecund. But not the smart.
This article is from Henry Dampier.
Earlier this year, I read Richard Lynn’s Dysgenics. Unfortunately, I don’t remember all that much from it, in part because it was just retelling a lot of history that I was already aware of from a separate perspective.
The push-back against Darwin by secular thinkers has been far more wide-ranging and successful than the reaction against it by religious thinkers ever was. I remember seeing a performance with Brian Dennehy some years ago of Inherit the Wind, and I think that’s still the extent to which the urban left views evolution: it’s a brickbat to thwack the Williams Jennings Bryans of the world, rather than a theory that describes human evolution as well as it does for other species.
The same people who will snicker at Texans and Kansans for being hicks who don’t believe in evolution will accuse you of being an evil bigot for believing in human evolution.
One of the reasons that this might be is that, politically, it’s difficult to suggest that the consequences of the Green and Industrial revolutions may not have been entirely benign. By weakening selection pressures on the species, we have been deteriorating ourselves in terms of genetic quality.
Shutting off this inquiry has likely lead to an enormous number of health problems in the general population. Making evolutionary thinking unpopular is one of the reasons why sensible dietary advice and research has had to go underground, until recently becoming successful with such buzzwords like ‘paleo diet’ gaining currency, with a backing in evolutionary theory.
The idea of human evolution is also quite threatening to the pretensions of the egalitarian left, which holds that anyone can be remade into anything with the right education. If it in fact takes generations for major changes to happen in generations, absent strokes of fortune, then many egalitarian pretensions must also fade away, and traditional emphases on family, family quality, and child-rearing become more readily understandable.
In particular, with knowledge of evolution, which is not entirely out of step with traditional emphases on blood and family honor, feminism turns from an important moral initiative into something that’s easier to perceive as a dire social problem. To the extent that you encourage the smartest women from the best families to turn themselves into dissolute corporate strivers, you also encourage the race if not the species to destroy itself in terms of quality.
The push to get more women into more high-performance career tracks at the expense of having children stops looking like a noble, heroic advancement of the species, and more like the cannibalization of the world’s genetic cream to try to squeeze out a few percentage points of greater output temporarily before an enormous crash. The demographic collapses in Japan, Germany, the rest of Europe, and even the United States are coincident with high rates of female education and serious workforce participation outside the home.
You have these goofy initiatives about ‘teaching women to code,’ in the present, instead of teaching them to bear sons who will learn to code in 15 years, and will be better at it and be more capable of sticking with it than the women are. Such initiatives are aimed at producing greater profits for companies in a few years, but what happens in 30 years when those same women barely succeed at reproducing themselves effectively?
Sure, you can try to replace a single bright white person with 50 mestizos, but the type of output that you’re going to get from the replacements is not going to be the same, and the culture is not going to be the same either.
Further, encouraging later births also encourages greater birth defects, which further damages the ability of the best and brightest to reproduce itself effectively.
These sorts of programs to deal with dysgenic consequences of inane policies tend to dance around the root causes, because the root causes are the people who shape the policies, and the societies that have forsaken in the future in favor of the present.
CRISPR, radical life extension, and regenerative synthetic biiology will make short work of these issues long before this century ends.
Debate about demographic decline, dysgenics, and what not strike me as the current version of the debate over the accumulation of horse manure on city streets prior to the mass production of the automobile.
@ Kurt9, Couldn't resist: "I don't mean to be a dick or nothin', but the charts says you're all fucked up. You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded. Don't worry scro, tons of tards live kick ass lives."
That is what you sound like when you talk of these so-called technologies, when our modern world is crumbling all around us. Your ignorance and blind religious zeal in technological advancement just proves the point of the post.
Things are moving very rapidly in biotechnology (for example, I thought CRISPR was impossible until it was first announced in summer of '12). One of the reasons why biotech is moving fast is that it is far cheaper than, say, building a semiconductor fab (around $4 billion) or a nuclear power industry ($10-20 billion). A state of the art biotech lab can be had for less than a million.
Developments in mitochondrial DNA cause of aging are occurring WEEKLY.
I stand by my comments.
BTW, here's the real scoop on the dysgenic problem.
Its not a problem within this century, which gives us more than enough time to develop the technologies to transcend the problem.
Long-term population projections are fantasy anyways:
@kurt9 - very interesting the dysgenic info there.
Not ragging on you: I wonder who will be able to afford those things in the end? (CRISPR/Cas)
Kurt, interesting stuff. but if long term population predictions are fantasy, long term population predictions based on the predictions of technological advancements are science fiction. At a glance Jayman seems to have only a very slight halt in dysgenic trends for the age group born in the 60s with trends continuing on either end of that decade. The economist article doesn't tell us whether women with post graduate degrees are having children at replacement levels, but they have 20% of them ending up being childless compared to 5% of female dropouts. Both links seems to indicate that education for women is wildly dysgenic. Not that it matters because they predominately concern only the white population, who will soon cease to be the majority in the US. The people replacing them haven't typically been maxing out IQ tests. We don't need to create our own home grown idiocracy, because we've imported it from other countries where it already exists.
All this is missing the point, though, I think. Contra IQ fundamentalists, maxing out iq isn't really great eugenics. Even if the number of people at the far right of the bell curve aren't rapidly decreasing in terms of raw numbers, having a high iq elite ordering around a clueless servant class isn't really an ideal society. That are plenty of genuinely awful countries around the world that have their own elite castes and nobel prize winners. The beauty of the US wasn't that it produced the greatest physicists or whatever but rather that it was a highly competent, high trust society overall that offered excellent opportunity and a high standard of living to everyone compared to other countries. We excelled at producing great all arounders. If you got into a cab, for instance, you didn't have to worry that the driver was some third world idiot who'd only been driving for a few weeks, like the cabbie that killed John Nash last week. It was probably about the best society for the normal man that the world has ever seen.
Here is a series of articles worth reading:
Post a Comment