Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
people think "remaking man into a new being" is a bad idea because the only people that were allowed to try are retarded jewish communists
eugenics would work well and is good actually
-
Embed this notice
@Jens_Rasmussen There are big genetic correlations between health, athleticism, intelligence, value system and many other traits.
Most every trait you can think of is heritable to a large degree. I could go into much more detail here if you'd like, but the value system of a people is definitely a heritable thing and there are obvious dysgenic filters in place that select against what we consider classic virtuous behavior.
For example: the destructive wars of the 20th century select against bravery. Brave people, those who like heroes, etc. volunteered more, died more. Cowards and those who think "hero worship is silly" would stay home more, not volunteer or be more likely to dodge the draft.
Another example are social safety nets, which select against the virtue of "not mooching off others". If you have that virtue, you'll not have children until you are self-reliant, because you think the safety net is only for those who "truly need it".
An amoral, or dumb, person will simply not care and have five kids on social security.
Let me know if this is convincing. I think we obviously hit a roadblock in the discussion if we don't agree what dysgenics even is
-
Embed this notice
@WandererUber >they are smarter than we are so they would obviously be better at picking the correct option
>Why would they be split 50/50 if one is obviously worse?
You are again applying hivemind-thinking to mankind.
People have personal interests and goals. Perhaps one faction supports expanding continental influence, whereas others prefer overseas influence.
You could also take two completely different subjects that people can disagree on because they have different interests and situations, the final budget is still limited.
One group might want to make investments into finding a cure for cancer because their primary concern is the people's health and wellbeing, while another wants to lower taxes because they care about personal wealth and economic individualism.
>Think about what is required from the voting base to have a republic
I already think democracy is fake and gay, and so is republicanism.
>the Chinese would probably cook up some horrid hivemind aberration in their lab if they were the first to succeed
Perhaps. Although some would say that they have already effectively managed to do so.
>It has diminished. Dysgenics
How so? Jewish admixture? Surely not. Brownoid genes? Hardly. Where does the diminishing come from? Just random mutations?
If ZOG can effectively form "culture based on genetics" into what they desire through random mutations, then I don't think the argument for culture being derived from genetics rather than politics is very strong.
-
Embed this notice
@Jens_Rasmussen >democracy gay
yes very. Because it's obvious to us that voting can only work if you actually have a stake and also have a same goal and just disagree on how to achieve it and also everyone voting is an equal. Democracy lovers don't understand this (or they are just evil) and thus they make idiots from disparate groups choose from a set of spineless traitors who aren't on the hook for their decisions.
>Deteriorated how?
Population genetics is a broad field and I won't pretend to understand it fully. Surely on a basic level you agree that dysgenics are real? If you don't inhibit fertility based on virtue or social class or actual health, mutations will accumulate and bad/evil people will proliferate. That much is obvious, isn't it?
-
Embed this notice
@WandererUber >Surely on a basic level you agree that dysgenics are real?
Yes, but that is more related to medical and racial issues, on some level intelligence as well.
-
Embed this notice
@Jens_Rasmussen I have some AnCap priors that I didn't explain to you properly apparently. If you are split on a decision, say building a library, you just go your separate ways and only those who paid for the library can use it afterwards. This doesn't mean you embargo each other. You don't need an all or nothing attitude with every decision, that's just for governing flawed people.
>I do not believe violent tendensies on a genetic level can be directed only at strangers
Why?
High empathy plus high in-group preference means the person would be horrified to hurt an innocent, especially one that looks like him.
>so it has to be cultural
there is no 'cultural', psychological traits are genetic and culture arises from biology.
-
Embed this notice
@WandererUber >you just go your separate ways and only those who paid for the library can use it afterwards
So when half of the people think that the defense budget should go towards expanding the navy, and the other half think it should go towards modernizing the army, you end up with a navy that cannot properly project power because it only has half the desired size, an army that is either forced to downsize or use multiple weapons platforms because there were not enough funds for a total modernization, and worst of all; the navy doesn't protect the national interests of army-voters and vice versa.
>that's just for governing flawed people
Humans are social, not "eusocial". If we ever were to become eusocial, then we would be something other than human, I'd say.
I am not particularly religious, but mankind is inherently flawed from everyone's perspective as long as there exist people who are different from oneself.
>Why? High empathy plus high in-group preference...
This creates a pacifist racist, and that is assuming you can somehow direct what a person considers their "in-group" to be racial, rather than based on something like political lines, gender or even hobbies.
"I would never hurt a gamer, but a cyclist I would run over if it was permitted."
>there is no 'cultural', psychological traits are genetic and culture arises from biology
Cultural trends arise from said biological genetics, but specifics are directed by powers such as politicians, media and celebrities.
There is for example a strong tradition for celebrating mythical warriors in Germanic peoples, yet this has not been done for generations. How can this be? Has the Germanic genetics disappeared? No, cultural expression has simply been directed away from this tradition by political and media powers.
-
Embed this notice
@Jens_Rasmussen >army navy
The main point is they are smarter than we are so they would obviously be better at picking the correct option. Why would they be split 50/50 if one is obviously worse?
The second point is they are more virtuous so they would not quarrel over equally good choices. Why would they block national security over petty preference?
If you think it's not possible:
Think about what is required from the voting base to have a republic*, and what archaic forms of rule you'd need if the population deteriorated genetically. Look at what happened to Rome. Look at what's happening to us.
Extrapolate in the other direction.
If you just think it's not inevitable, that's fair enough, the Chinese would probably cook up some horrid hivemind aberration in their lab if they were the first to succeed.
>"I would never hurt a gamer, but a cyclist I would run over if it was permitted."
You forgot to attach the gigachad image.
>assuming you can somehow direct what a person considers their "in-group" to be racial
This is very possible genetically. Many animals including humans exhibit such a trait.
>There is for example a strong tradition for celebrating mythical warriors in Germanic peoples, yet this has not been done for generations. How can this be? Has the Germanic genetics disappeared?
It has diminished. Dysgenics.
*Side Note: I am not defending democracy or republics in general here. Democracy is gay and flawed.
-
Embed this notice
@WandererUber >imagine a people so brave, so intelligent, so honest and so just that they have no need of any government
Sounds like a group that is either quite small or some sort of hivemind, or at least heavy thought-control.
Intelligent and honest people can still disagree on core matters, and if they are all brave, they will not hesitate to fight one another over who is right. Hardly an orderly nation.
-
Embed this notice
@Jens_Rasmussen They can be bred such that subjugating another intelligent and free man like them (in-group preference) is disgusting to them.
So they might disagree and split up but they wouldn't fight over it.
We can't imagine what is possible.
You imagine a highly intelligent group as small because in our world, big groups are mostly comprised of stupid people. But if their average intelligence is much higher, this wouldn't be the case.
Think about european nations vs tribes. The prerequisite was higher average intelligence. What might be possible with even smarter people? You wouldn't even need to make thousands of petty little laws because they could reason about what makes sense in that situation from first principles in seconds.
-
Embed this notice
@WandererUber >You imagine a highly intelligent group as small
You just said it yourself. First of all there has to be a culture of internal pascifism (I do not believe violent tendensies on a genetic level can be directed only at strangers, so it has to be cultural), which would lead to splitting up over every political disagreement, because there is no government where these political differences can be discussed and decisions made.
-
Embed this notice
@WandererUber It's like people holding to libertarian "government bad" ideals because they can only imagine government powers used for bad things.
-
Embed this notice
@Jens_Rasmussen True, they are cheering on closing down FEMA, because they didn't help White people after Helene, instead of forcing them to help White people. They still took your money retards.
Government deteriorated because the people bred dysgenically btw. The founding fathers talked this. There was a better quote but I can't find it right now.
Now imagine a people so brave, so intelligent, so honest and so just that they have no need of any government (organization by force) at all.
I dream of a world where these people exist and look down with disgust and confusion at "old man" squabbling over nothing.
-
Embed this notice
@WandererUber We can agree to your examples, although it would imply that the men who fought in WW2 would have to be cowardly, because the brave men died in WW1, which is not really true. There is plenty of possibility for a cowardly parent to have a brave child.
I am generally one to emphasise nature over nurture, but not to the same degree as you. Things like values and preferences can be instilled in a lot of people, it is not entirely genetic.
-
Embed this notice
@Jens_Rasmussen >There is plenty of possibility for a cowardly parent to have a brave child.
This is because Europeans are very outbred. They have a high diversity of genetic alleles and are heterozygotic in most of them.
Regardless, not everything is AA bb Mendel type shit, when you filter brave people your population will become cowardly over time. This is not really up for discussion. It's the basis of evolution and animal breeding.
The filter wasn't 100%, obviously. Many returned from war, brave and strong people are more likely to survive than draftees, and so forth.
Evolution mostly works by very loose filters over long times, although the ones we are talking about started around the time of the industrial revolution, which is quite fast in genetic terms, even if not immediate.
>Things like values and preferences can be instilled in a lot of people
I think this is called Agreeableness and it's one of the big 5 traits. Those are heritable. Ability to be "trained" was bred into people like it was into animals.
Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer
Jens_Rasmussen
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the