FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Preventing Dysgenics in a Society With Basic Guaranteed Living

A system of guaranteed basic living above all must avoid encouraging dysgenic outcomes.  Otherwise good intentions make a bad situation worse until within a couple generations the lifeboat of society is destroyed and most everyone drowns.
I’ve already proposed that low IQ people who refuse to perform labor on state aid be sterilized and those who are useful enough incentivized to breed below replacement levels.
I’ve figured that could be done in many different ways including:
-anti-natal religion, propaganda, entertainment
-small living spaces given them
-food rations that don’t completely meet the needs of a kid, making it difficult to feed more than 1 without going hungry themselves.
-free contraceptives.
-free abortions

The more difficult question is how to deal with high IQ people receiving a state living.
If they are pursuing their passions but have little access to the mating market because of their lack of money and conventional status all we’ve done is reconstruct monasteries with celibate priests where we systematically kill off many of the brightest and most curious every generation.

On the other hand, we don’t necessarily want a group that contains many smart but lazy stoners to overrun society with their progeny.
So I figure it would be a sufficient goal for society to try to at least preserve its monastic leisure caste at replacement levels.  Perhaps those without kids would have the option to donate their sperm and have up to 2 kids to be raised by parents who volunteer for it.
Perhaps lower proles on BGL would be allowed to have more kids and with full rations and other goodies if the woman agrees to get impregnated with sperm/embryos from the leisure caste.

Of course, the most successful leisured creatives should be assured reproduction well above replacement.
Looking back on history, one of the greatest examples for me of elites’ lack of imagination is they did not seize men like Michelangelo, Newton, or Tesla and set them to stud.  None of the kids could be expected to be like the parent but simply propagating those traits would spread the tendencies that formed them.

J.S. Bach, for example, had something like 18 kids.  As it happens, some of his kids and even grandkids were also notable composers.  We can assume his favorable tendencies then got diffused into the general population.  If that’s the general practice rather than an exception, it perhaps starts to have observable effects.

I have wondered often if Confucian examination systems actually bred people to the test in East Asian countries.  After all, the mandarin classes to this day are well known for keeping multiple mistresses.  Their stereotypical study style of memorizing lots of precise information but not necessarily understanding fundamentals seems to me at first glance to support this hypothesis.
I think certain, though, that long-term social policies and customs must affect the gene pool through incentives.  Every system selects for something.

Naturally, a guiding principle for a system with a basic guaranteed living is having kids cannot be more attractive on state living than it is in the market economy.  Or else, like now, you select against the base of people who actually work hard to keep things running smoothly.

One of the main things this society needs to get straightened out is working cooperators need to be treated by the state kind of how a business treats its customers.  They should feel like they are valued every time they show up and put in effort and care.

When most people are just toiling on pain of starvation while they watch their money feed multiple welfare kids and pick up the slack for parasitic feminist and affirmative action hires, they feel like suckers who are being used.  This breeds resentment and sends them the message they are on the absolute bottom of the hierarchy, undeserving of basic security and unfit to breed.

The higher proles and up feel these pressures especially strongly because they are terrified of falling behind in the rat race and eager to get ahead no matter the odds.
The intense competition makes them insecure in having offspring who they produce in low numbers and instinctually hyper-invest in.  Some of that hyper-investment might be an inherited reproductive strategy amongst striver types but its intensity of expression could be alleviated if stressors were reduced.  Just a couple generations ago we see large families were normal.  Helicopter parenting of only children should be seen as a behavior of shell-shocked troops cowering in foxholes under perpetual machine fire rather than normal behaviors in a healthy society.  The same behaviors in lab rats would be noted as a response to extreme stress.

One of the key stressors is lack of time.  Relatively prosperous career couples often say they can’t afford kids.  What they’re really saying is they can’t afford kids if one of them were to stop working and they don’t have the time and emotional energy to raise a kid as it is.  For that matter, careers are so competitive, you can’t just waltz back into one after taking months off—there’s always a whole assembly line of pod people waiting to replace you.  They’re also saying they doubt their abilities to sufficiently hyper-invest in their offspring.  Most of all, perhaps, the scarcity of time and disconnection from supportive communities means the parents must sacrifice leisure, hobbies, and friends to have just one kid.

This complex problem has to be approached through gradually removing stressors and thereby giving working people a sense of stability, reasonable amounts of free time, and participation in something bigger than themselves.  They have to feel that by simply earning money in the market economy they have unquestionably higher status than proles taking out BGL.  Literal-minded enlightenment shills, never seem to understand that low status alone instigates fight-or-flight adrenaline-pumping crisis in humans.  Until we try to make inviting habitats for productive humans as we would do for the lowliest terrarium pets, we cannot go far.

21 responses to “Preventing Dysgenics in a Society With Basic Guaranteed Living

  1. Joshua Sinistar June 18, 2017 at 2:26 am

    Dysgenic breeding is caused by overly generous social safety nets, and your solution is more of the same? What? No Really. What? I’ve heard some dumb ideas, but using the problem to solve itself seems so dumb its beyond the point of parody.

    • Giovanni Dannato June 18, 2017 at 3:24 am

      What is society itself but a social safety net that allows people to hedge their bets? Otherwise nobody would bother and we’d be all alone in the woods naked scrounging up acorns. How do you think you can have a diversified economy with specialization? A highway system? A military?
      How about old people who rely on social safety nets? Should they just be “retired” at a certain age? How about millions of people who can never be expected to be very useful in a modern economy? Should we just starve them all to death?
      I’ve seen your comments on several sites and understand you’re coming from a free-everything anarcho-libertarian perspective. Like communism nice in theory, but doesn’t work in real life. A society as you envision would get conquered by narco cartels and the Canadians.

      • lalit June 19, 2017 at 9:17 am

        That’s the question I ask anarcho-libertarians. If your system is so awesome, how come we don’t have one yet? Awesome systems are by definition stable and stable systems come along once in a while. It is only unstable systems that never come to be.

      • Giovanni Dannato June 19, 2017 at 10:19 am

        You have been saying the problems I write about here are intractable. But part of my inspiration for these musings is the fact the US already leans towards a post-labor-scarcity economy that searches for pressure release valves despite having a “free market” state ideology. Look at how college has become a respectable way to keep young people from entering the labor market for as long as possible. They can just keep postponing until almost age 30.
        While anarcho-libertarians propose a system that has never actually existed on any serious scale for any real amount of time, I look at what we already have in real life and get a feel for what is possible by looking at what other, quite successful governments are already doing.

      • Lalit June 20, 2017 at 5:17 pm

        I’m not objecting to You thinking about these problems. You are a good writer and you make decent points.
        Let’s go back to these successful governments. They are all in small countries with small populations, aren’t they? Can we apply that to big countries like USA, India or China?

      • Giovanni Dannato June 24, 2017 at 12:09 am

        With my posts on subjects like state capitalism I actually am looking at policies that have been successful in massive countries like China, India, Japan, and South Korea.
        I agree Swedish style socialism is only going to work in a homogenous population of less than 10 million who have all the right population genetics.
        So I’m imagining a basic guaranteed living system instead that would move underclasses out of the cities and keep them well fed as they perform menial tasks so they aren’t rioting or drugging themselves into oblivion.

    • A.B. Prosper July 8, 2017 at 2:14 am

      You don’t have a lot of choices. A society with too low a demand for labor will implode do to demand destruction. Wages are the only reason for production, wealth and anything passing for modernity

  2. korezaan June 18, 2017 at 9:02 am

    “I have wondered often if Confucian examination systems actually bred people to the test”

    Oh god. Now that I think about it it’s probably true.

  3. Tomas Nau June 18, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    The bright but lazy or ADD/ADHD stoners make FAR more sense to encourage breeding than the career couple types. The career couple types being encouraged would help in the short and maybe medium-term, but be a long-term risk since they’d end up creating more and more work for themselves. Given even current levels of automation that’d translate into creating more busywork jobs or scams like say 90-95% of the FIRE sector of the economy.

    • Giovanni Dannato June 19, 2017 at 10:48 am

      Ha, you make some interesting points here. It has occurred me, actually, maybe the busybodies should be phased out. Probably because while not a stoner, I’m lazy and scatterbrained myself. Maybe you need to keep enough of them though to do work the lazy nerds don’t want to.
      For example, I think running a small business like a restaurant that requires constant attention, long hours, and a rigid daily routine would drive me crazy within a couple of weeks.
      Or as you suggest, maybe a high IQ population that hates grinding labor minimalizes the economy and looks for clever shortcuts wherever possible.

    • Sam J. June 20, 2017 at 7:14 pm

      “…The career couple types being encouraged would help in the short and maybe medium-term, but be a long-term risk since they’d end up creating more and more work for themselves…”

      HAHA I like that.

      Stoners unite for…well whatever.

  4. lalit June 19, 2017 at 9:05 am

    You seem to love thinking about problems that are essentially intractable. You should have gone into pure mathematics.

    • Giovanni Dannato June 19, 2017 at 10:23 am

      As I’ve pointed out, a lot of things that might seem like theory at first are actually already happening but hidden in plain sight.
      I’m just trying to think a step ahead about how these forces of change might be managed rather than left to chance.

    • Sam J. June 20, 2017 at 7:12 pm

      lalit,”You seem to love thinking about problems that are essentially intractable…”

      I don’t think all these problems are intractable if you’ll settle for good enough. Yes some problems are intractable but most can be tempered and guided into better results. If you want perfection then you’ll surely fail.

  5. Xwarper June 19, 2017 at 5:12 pm

    Giovanni makes a powerful point with “managed change” rather than “left to chance.”

    Twentieth-century world history is a textbook example of a bubbling scientific beaker of radical new things with no one in the lab. I recall reading a 1923 New York Times article about “this demagogue Hitler” in Munich who was stirring up the loyals. _1923_. Yet no one in the CIA (which didn’t exist) or in the U.S. government did a thing about him. Completely unmanaged disaster waiting to happen. Ditto Communism and the Russian Revolution, which ended with Bolsheviks (could’ve been Mensheviks in another timeline) getting nukes 30 years later. And a near-death experience for world civilization. You’d think there’d be sufficient motivation for keeping tabs on things? Even now, only the United States has a global intel apparatus, and are they willing to assassinate major de-stabilizers if they pop up? Would they even recognize them???

    — xwarper.wordpress.com

    • Giovanni Dannato June 23, 2017 at 11:59 pm

      It was possible in one lifetime to see the world go from horse and buggy to nukes and moon landings. Computers in the last 30 years have put even those developments to shame.
      We’re faced with change at a magnitude and rate our ancestors never had to deal with. So we have get in the lab to figure it out.
      In history so far, stuff just happens and people navigate the world with intution and instinct trained from childhood to believe in “slave” ideologies that cause them to behave in ways that may benefit society as a whole even when it hurts their own interests.
      Things happen so fast now, “slave” ideas we learn as kids are already out of date by the time we hit puberty. So here we are, trying to actually reason out what to do next.

  6. Sam J. June 20, 2017 at 7:06 pm

    I’ve thought about this.

    First some rules. Everyone gets the same basic Income(BI).

    Second Women or the State or no one can take the BI of anyone for debts or any purpose what so ever. If this happened then the State and other leeches would spend all their time figuring a way to take the BI away from people and we would be right back where we started. No confiscating of Men’s BI for child support. The only reason to lose BI would be if someone was in prison. Their BI could be taken EXCEPT there should be some period of time before the get out that it’s saved for them. A month? Two weeks? To be determined but I go for one month as that would be enough to get them in a apartment.

    Third. You only get BI at 18 years of age. That way people who want to go to school could have some basic funds to do so. I suspect that colleges would become much like they used to be. No big frills like health clubs and other such. Just teachers and no nonsense school buildings that would be economical. All the closed down malls would be a great resource for this.

    Now the decline of families is because the State pays Women to have kids on their own. The present system is the most dysgenic that anyone could come up with. Two people can live together MUCH cheaper than one alone. Maybe this could even be the return of the extended family as Grandmother and Grandfather could live in the house also making it even cheaper to live. Ding! Ding! Ding! true family formation.

    With the basic income Women would need to have a Man to have kids without living in squalor. Women who have kids that live in squalor could be prosecuted by the State, sterilized and/or forced to go on birth control. Now this is not perfect and is after the fact but over time it would change things. Those that joined with a Man with their combined income could probably get by. This would also have the long term effect of lower class Men being much more likely to be productive. Their Women will never be satisfied with the basic income so they will be hassling their Men constantly to do better. This would in turn push the Men to be more aware of their affairs and law abiding.

    Possible pseudo science alert!!!! Epigentics has confirmed in mice the ability to pass on behavioral traits to further generations(true and factual), could this also work in humans???? Could the priming of lower class Men to be more able and productive be passed on even in small amounts???? It would mean that lower class Men would be more careful in who they mate with as they would be expected to raise the kids since they have basic income they couldn’t say they had no money to do so.

    This arrangement while not perfect is a load better than what we have now. It would also stop a lot of Black teenage attacks as Men would be in the home to temper some of this behavior. Now we all know there would be many kids and parents that would be a disaster but we have that now. What we’re aiming for is not perfection but something at least better than what we have now. Compared to what we have now this whole thing would far less dysgenic.

  7. Xwarper June 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    There is always a small group of forward thinkers who would like to utopianize society. They are struggling against a mass of conformist thinkers who will never allow that to happen — more out of shortsightedness and risk-aversion than malice. The kind of man who would hop on a motorcycle without a helmet and write a long original treatise on his land of birth, is more valuable to the Human Continuum, the flow of events and personalities, than the kind who would agree with everyone at the office, slump back, and surrender to routine.

    — xwarper.wordpress.com

  8. Sam J. June 25, 2017 at 5:21 am

    “There is always a small group of forward thinkers who would like to utopianize society. They are struggling against a mass of conformist thinkers who will never allow that to happen…”

    The Utopianizers are generally vile, evil people because people ain’t no damn good and never do what you tell them to do. I want things like Basic Income so people can do what they want. Will many drug themselves up or abuse their children, you bet. Those we may need to put in the gulag but it will be for what they did to harm others in most cases. I don’t want Utopia but it would be nice to have a half assed decent system without Oligarchical control pushed down on us which it where it seems to be going. You know those people, whoever they are, that put up the Georgia Guidestones are not messing around. I bet they really do plan to reduce the population to 500 million and they might be able to get the power to do so.

  9. A.B. Prosper July 8, 2017 at 12:48 am

    I’m not sure making smarter people breed more is remotely a good idea, after all its our technology that’s putting our own species wide survival in jeopardy. One of these days AI , some angry omega male gene hacker, nukes (less likely than 30 years ago) chemicals screwing with gender or just a rat utopia will do us in
    Maybe a little lower IQ’s and less ability for smart people to do stuff will after the human numbers gradually reduce will have the nice side effect of limiting the adverse effects of the mouse utopia.
    Now granted most of us would miss the beneficial aspect of technology however (excluding asteroid defence) it will also paradoxically make humanity much safer. Think of it as measured collapse to avoid a massive one if you like.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: