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.

The Need For Sexenomics

Enlightenment thought created a study of economics regarding the exchange and distribution of wealth in large societies but the view that people were more or less interchangeable created a curious blindspot.  Never was there a similarly detailed inquiry into how the market of sexual exchange affects the destiny of a people.
Though DNA was only discovered in the 20th century, any caveman could easily observe heredity matters when it comes to humans and livestock. Now with the unraveling of traditional mating patterns, it’s no longer possible to ignore the study of sexenomics.

Living in complex civilizations of millions of strangers doesn’t come naturally to humans and only those selected for it can thrive.  We can see that one of the key pressures that decides the direction of a society is selection through arranged marriages.  Where men must accumulate wealth and prestige in order to breed, they are selected to achieve and explore. In less organized societies, where men just have to persuade ovulating women to have sex a couple times, they are selected to talk smooth, dance well, and beat up male rivals.
The weird thing about men bred to live in civilization is the majority of their energy goes into activities not directly related to their immediate reproductive success. At first glance it’s not biologically rational to spend time going to boring jobs, reading books, practicing hobbies, climbing mountains, making scientific discoveries, or being curious about anything that doesn’t produce a payoff.
One thing that’s readily observable about men from more “primitive” less organized backgrounds is they spend much, if not most of their surplus energy on courtship and mating. It’s one of the reasons why they become devastating defectors in a society of cooperators with lower testosterone and less focus on the mating market.
As we’ve discovered since the 1970s, in a sexual free market, the most aggressive men with the best courtship skills get rewarded with soft harems and plenty of babies while boring schlubs busy at their desk jobs get cut out of the game while they waste time they could have spent out courting.
The pressures of mass society have squeezed civilized men to compete by adopting elaborate bower-building behaviors like we see in birds. This formula works in a society with strict rules that mandate high reproductive investment, but in a sexual free market, a lower investment strategy is far more successful. A man can forgo the bower and secure 5 or 10 mates in the time it takes a career schlub to lock down just one who’s at the end of her reproductive years.

So we can see very quickly that what we call “civilization” depends on sexual market protectionism. When we return the sexual market to its primeval state, all the rest of society soon returns to its primeval state.
We have only to look at feral dogs to see that within a few generations, they revert to a uniform breed best suited to the area whether it’s the forest or city streets. Humans are no different. A few generations where thugs and sociopaths clean up and before long there’s lots of males predisposed towards aggressive sexual strategies. There’s nothing inherently special about European peoples, the qualities that got them ahead mostly resulted from certain breeding practices that have now been dismantled. The status quo of Black society is already emerging as the norm for the bottom 70% of whites. Before long all the awkward nerds are mercilessly scraped from the gene pool and society goes to hell as defectors battle each other for turf.
This of course is why whites first got ahead by being cooperators. The law of the jungle selects for the most formidable individuals but undermines the formation of large groups. So when there’s an alliance of millions of cooperator bower-builder males who free each other from relentless direct sexual competition, quarreling tribes get crushed effortlessly underfoot.

The problem with the civilization model though is that it is dependent on enough scarcity to act as a practical constraint on mating behaviors. Whenever a certain level of prosperity is achieved the constraints on mating relax. Once women no longer need to restrict their mating choice for fear of starvation and men can be reasonably sure his offspring will survive and breed without his help, the incentives re-align to those of a pre-civilized state. What follows is what we like to call “decadence” in the history books or in our own time “the sexual revolution.”
Within a few generations, the genetic wealth of nations is squandered and another Empire is left to crumble for future archaeologists.
While a new empire may soon rise on the ashes of the old, something seems to be lost each cycle. Those peoples that have been civilized longest tend to stagnate.
The genius we associate with China, India, and the Middle East mostly comes from ancient times when their civilizations were still young. Northern Europeans have been yet another young civilization to make brilliant advances but it now seems they may be nearing the point of stagnation reached by other civilized peoples.
So a couple of the biggest problems a study of sexenomics must address are to:
-prevent the fatal decadence caused by prosperity
-stop the slide into stagnant torpor that besets peoples who have been civilized for too long.

Finally, sexenomics provides the core concept that civilization requires sexual market interference by definition, legitimizing righteous rulers to take the necessary corrective measures.

See also: Market Demand Must Be Regulated,
Smart People Are A Social Luxury,
The Three Keys To Anglo Success

Sorting out the Castes: Testing How People Think

A quick data mining search could give us a rough idea where most people are at in the hierarchy, but the caste system, like a system of courts needs to judge people with a very high degree of accuracy to preserve the system’s legitimacy.
A lot of busywork could be eliminated with easy disqualifiers but this frees up greater effort for the rest.
For the next step, maybe a test or evaluation of some kind would be required. The goal might be to look for key indicators of someone’s psychology in a way that would be hard to fake. Or perhaps even start testing people when they are children and continue to test periodically. In this process we would look for accurate constants that could improve the data mining algorithm.

Tests would need to be focused more in determining how someone thinks as opposed to memorized knowledge in itself.
Perhaps some raven’s style matrices could be thrown in like on an IQ test or reading comprehension/analogies to get an idea of spatial and verbal reasoning but more important might be simply asking someone’s opinion.
The idea wouldn’t be to screen people based on what they believe, but to examine why they believe it. If someone explains they believe in invisible unicorns because of lack of falsifiability principle, however specious this may be we already know this isn’t someone from the lowest tiers.

-Simple people tend to hold beliefs for simple reasons. The USSR is bad because the Russians are the bad guys.

-Middle people have an idea of a conflict between communism and capitalism and will be able to explain the differences in basic detail, something along the lines of free enterprise against collective control. They can tell us why one is bad and why the other is good but their reasons will mostly be the official propaganda without too much thought behind it. If you ask them to explain what “free enterprise” actually means they begin to stumble.

-Upper Middle can delve into more nuance regarding why a communist ideology that sounds good in theory doesn’t work with human nature and begin to simultaneously examine the flaws inherent in capitalism as well. However, they are quite content that capitalism is at once the least of evils and the best of possible solutions. They are not too interested in exploring further.

-Above that level someone might dissect the weaknesses in both systems and ask what a better alternative might look like. They might be willing to entertain the idea that communism suffered from being too extreme and that perhaps certain forms of socialism have applied Marxist principles more successfully and might in fact be more effective in the long run than a free market system with minimal controls that allows corporations to run rampant. This person has a mind that can place themselves on both sides of the issue and toy with different solutions from a detached perspective.

In short:

-Simple people believe what they’re told because they were told it and everyone else believes it.

-Middle people believe what they’re told because it seems to make sense in their daily life and everyone else believes it.

-Upper middle believe what they’re told because it seems to make sense in a larger context, seems better than what anyone else has come up with, and because everyone important believes it.

-Above that level, people examine what they’re told in depth and come up with their own ideas if it doesn’t check out. Or if it’s generally valid but just sub-optimal, they still ponder better solutions. They don’t really care what others believe for its own sake. They know full well most people believe what they’re told or at least they rationalize belief in what gets them laid and employed.

I figure just getting an idea of how someone thinks would be hard to fake. Even if someone memorized what to say about one topic, they would be lost if the subject were to change. I figure like confucian East Asia, people would send their kids to cram academies to learn how to think, or at least how to talk like a higher person.
My experience tells me though that there’s only so much that can be learned. And if the highest ideal is what every ordinary person strove for, that would be the mark of a healthy and vigorous social order.

Results could be cross-checked against data mining information and if there’s an unusual or unlikely patterns, the bureau of caste standards might have auditors it could send out to take a closer look.
It occurs to me that once people knew there was a data mining algorithm and a testing system, people would constantly try to game the system. An auditor might try to figure out if someone just memorized what to say on several topics and changed their purchase history to reflect tastes they don’t actually have in a bid to “get ahead.” “Speeding tickets” for caste fraud would disincentivize trying to cheat because there’s nothing to lose by trying and drastically reduce auditors’ caseloads to manageable levels. The biggest deterrent of course is most people simply wouldn’t find life beyond their rightful caste attractive.
Ultimately, though, the people on top must really be smarter than those below or else they will fail at preserving the legitimacy and integrity of the system.

Overpopulation Altruism Is Misguided

The composition of a population matters more than population size.
In ancient times we see a world that was far less populous yet far more violent with lower standards of living.  Over time people have been selected to be more productive and less violent even at much higher population densities.
The most casual glance tells us at once that how people are bred, organized, and educated is far more important than numbers alone.  A million humans bred for aggression, with no civic organization, and who are illiterate will be far more miserable and short-lived than a billion who can work together in peace.

This is why people who want to help overpopulation by not having kids are misguided.
If they, with their altruistic and cooperative tendencies choose not to procreate, they merely select for those who will reproduce recklessly.  Any “slack” that they free up for the species quickly disappears and further breeding is even more reckless.
If anything those who altruistically sit out of the game actually make the Malthusian trap even worse as even the capacity for restraint and long-term planning gets bred out, dooming the race to an eventual precipitous crash of famines, plagues, and wars.

A solution to the problem is to engineer societies to encourage conscientious cooperators to have babies and limit the fecundity of those who are short-sighted and vicious.
It may seem far-flung, but the inability of short-sighted people to plan makes them easily manipulated.  Their need for instant gratification means for small gains, more drugs and cash, they’d willingly get sterilized.  Thus the traits that make them fit under present circumstances would again, with such a correction, make them less fit.

It requires a certain conviction to make objective value judgments about populations of human beings, yet it must be done because avoiding the responsibility of judging leads to even worse outcomes.
Those who disavow children because of overpopulation are taking the easy way out, assuaging their guilt superficially while avoiding a higher responsibility to oversee the herd.

Of course, anti-natalist beliefs are also a convenient excuse for people to avoid children that will just be drains on their lives, so arguing the point matters little. We all contrive a facade to justify what we want to believe anyway.
In which case, it may simply be that in a world with abundant contraceptives, those who do not have an urgent drive to reproduce independent of sexual lust will simply go extinct, since it isn’t rational for an individual to beget the burden of offspring. Strictly rationally speaking, we live and die one life only, so the fate of a family, tribe, or species ought not to matter to us. Yet just one look at how the universe works shows us rejection of this sort of selfish nihilism is required to thrive and live well. Those who live for their brief day and stand outside the circle of life always lose to those who cooperate with the intent of nature. Anti-natalists, overpopulationists, selfish nihilists struggle against the laws of physics while those who work with ways of this universe succeed without effort.
Even the unusual breed of altruists who wish to reduce suffering by not continuing the cycle any further fail in their goals. By abstaining out of compassion and empathy, they merely select for those without compunction.

Pre-Politically Correct History: Eugenics and Hindu Caste

“The caste system had the eugenic value of keeping the presumably finer strains from dilution and disappearance through indiscriminate mixture; it established certain habits of diet and cleanliness as a rule of honor which all might observe and emulate; it gaver order to the chaotic inequalities and differences of men, and spared the soul the modern fever of climbing and gain; it gave order to every life by prescribing for each man a dharma, or code of conduct for his caste; it gave order to every trade and profession, elevated every occupation into a vocation not lightly to be changed, and, by making every industry a caste, provided its member with a means of united action against exploitation and tyranny. It offered an escape from the plutocracy or the military dictatorship which are apparently the only alternatives to aristocracy; it gave to a country shorn of political stability by a hundred invasions and revolutions a social, moral and cultural order and continuity rivaled only by the Chinese.”

Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, 1935

Despite all the flaws and cruelty we’ve seen come from the Hindu caste system there’s something to be said for making sure people spend more time getting things done rather than putting all their energy into competing for status.
Also, compared to the constant uncertainty of existence in our own society there is something to be said for being born into a trade union that has real leverage.

Though we must be mindful of the sort of strife that is typical in Indian society, surely there are important lessons to learn from them as well. Lessons that can put the barbarous excesses of our own system in perspective.

Finally, results matter. Hindu society has proven far more stable for far longer than our own.

Another Excerpt on Hindu Caste and Eugenics from 1927

Reversing Trends In Dysgenic Breeding

Awhile back, Giovanni posted the question, what if humans took a much care of their own genetics as they do dogs?

And then recently, Al Fin made yet another post on dysgenic breeding trends and the lowering of global IQ.

So, in the spirit of moving the debate forward I offer solutions for increasing children from more genetically fit parents and decreasing ones from those who aren’t.

To deal with the left half of the bell curve:

• Create a project prevention on a larger scale. Offering them money, vouchers, or even booze would work effectively. If drugs were legalized, doubly so. People on the left side of the bell curve have extremely low executive function and very short future time orientation. Ultimately, I believe that such a program would have to have global reach. Every antibiotic resistant strain  of disease in Africa, can just as easily pass through the borders of developed countries and infect the local population via immigration. First world nations have tools to detect the existence of these problems, 3rd world ones don’t and won’t for the foreseable future. Africa should be on top of the list, as in some cases they start as epidemics there and move with the migrants.
• Use TV as a propaganda tool. Excessive TV viewing tends to skew towards those on the left half of the bell curve of IQ and tend to be more violent. Obviously any preventative measure that gets people interested in things other than TV should be encouraged, however we should also coordinate social programs into TV programs. Overall TV has been shown to lower birthrates somewhat on it’s own, but the content method matters. Match the Sabido method, which has had some success in Mexico, and we’ll be off to a good start.
• The third method involves increasing their per capita income, there is some correlation between more income and less children. It’s going to be extremely difficult to pull 5+ billion people up to our standard of living without them pulling some of the weight. Education programs have been tried with some good results, but large programs have also shown themselves to be open to fraudulent grading to game the system. Decentralized and cheaper education may help this trend somewhat.

On the other side of the bell curve, here are some suggestions for increasing the innovators:

• Keep running with the decentralized/cheaper/free education trend. Education costs a lot, and it’s return on investment seems to be falling while it’s cost has been rising. It also somewhat inefficient, and therefore eats up extra early productive years. It acts as a safe haven where people can be sheltered from real life while appearing productive.
• Right now families have a hard time getting enough money together to raise a family. I am hesitant to suggest a government program for (smaller) young families, but in this political/economic climate it might be the only way of getting it to work.
• Most women put off having a family so that they can climb corporate/government ladders into a large corporate/government job. This is partially because these large structures must comply with affirmative action/discrimination laws. They usually end up in bureaucratic middle-management/support jobs, the types of training they get skew heavily towards these occupations. They tend to favor Public Administration, Education, Psychology and Health Services over STEM. The business degrees hasn’t changed their representation in the business world very much, many of those degrees are closer to secretarial/assistant positions.
• 
• If the economy dips into a deeper depression, it’s likely that many of these non-essential rolls that women fill will be cut. Employment is becoming much harder to hold on to, most jobs are being redefined so much that it’s very concept is mercurial. Men tend to be better at working with a large, shallow network of relations, whereas women work good with smaller, more intensive ones. If the trend towards technological decentralization and economic virtualization continues apace, women will likely find themselves working in smaller groups. This may provide them with a more stable, meaningful support network for raising children.
• The economic depression, if it occurs, will provide many meaningful challenges that women in our culture have thus far lacked. It may be a good time to get rid of the dysfunctional attitudes of political correctness and start building a value system that works.

William Shockley Talks About Race And Eugenics – 1974

Pre-Politically Correct History: Dysgenics, Immigration, and the Fall of the Assyrian Empire

“The Assyrian armies…were weakened by the very victories that they won; in each victory it was the strongest and bravest wo died, while the infirm and cautious survived to multiply their kind; it was a dysgenic process that perhaps made for civilization by weeding out the more brutal types, but undermined the biological basis upon which Assyria had risen to power…

They had brought into Assyria, as captives, millions of destitute aliens who bred with the fertility of the hopeless, destroyed all national unity of character and blood, and became by their growing numbers a hostile and disintegrating force in the very midst of their conquerors.”

-Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, 1935

How often do we see this kind of deeper analysis in modern day scholarship?