The only path for eugenics

Spandrell

The deep sense of crisis one gets after knowing of HBD comes in two flavours. Let's call them macro and micro.

Macro is the danger of race replacement. Millions of migrants from sub-90 IQ populations have been moving massively into areas with super-100 IQ populations, namely the West. You don't need to have a tribal allegiance to your people to feel very uncomfortable about that.  For 20 years we have been hearing about how Eurabia will happen during this century, and there's nothing we can do about it. Hell you don't even have to understand HBD to feel very uncomfortable with the prospect.

Still there are indications that immigration is slowing, the migrants already in place have stopped breeding like rabbits, and the native populations are starting to get pissed with this whole thing about being replaced. The wonders of the economic downturn. Miscegenation has also never been very high, so the prospects of the effective disappearance of the white race don't seem quite as certain. I used to get very worked out about all that, but recently I've reached the conclusion that it's going to be ok. Whites aren't going the way of the Romans or the Manchus.

But that doesn't mean that everything is ok. We still have the micro crisis. And that's not even close to being ok.

The micro demographic crisis is the differential birth rate between high IQ and low IQ, in all races. Remember the prologue of Idiocracy? Well that's it. Smart people worldwide are having less children than average, and the dumbest and most dysfunctional people are pumping out kids like rodents thanks to generous welfare benefits. The consequences must be, of course, a general dumbing down of the population.

That's a problem in all populations of all countries. Whites are getting dumber, Chinese are getting dumber, American Blacks are getting dumber, even Arabs are getting dumber. The fact that different peoples all over the world are experiencing the same problem means that it's not about religion or culture. There's something deep going on, and nobody knows how to fix it. Well in most places PC forbids people to even notice or care about the issue. But even Singapore is having trouble with it. See this article on how the uber-realist Singapore government is utterly incapable of getting smart people to have kids. And not for lack of trying.

But of course it's not that hard to understand the reasons behind the differential birthrates. People are just obfuscated. Governments are basing their policies in supplementing couple's income, when the dirt poor Afghans are having 7 kids per woman.  It's obviously not about money. It's about hypergamy. Even the UN (!) admits as much. Smart women don't have more children partly because they're busy working, but mostly because they don't want to. Not with a beta.

Giving women an education gives them money, status and independence, so they can follow their instincts more freely. And while not all of them are hell-bent on riding the alpha cock carrousel, it's quite natural that they don't want to settle down with an average chump. Let's face it, most men suck. Even Mencken will tell you that. The average man is a mediocre animal. Of course the average woman isn't all that cracked up either. But a college educated woman has spent 15 years of her life reading bullshit about how nice, pure, smart, and just plain awesome women are, and how they deserve everything they wish for. It's not even their only fault, their friends and families pretty much enable them too, setting unrealistic standards for the men they should marry. Hell, I'm the voice of reason, yet I also think my sister's boyfriend is an undeserving chump and she should try better. Settling with mediocrity is psychologically tasking.

It's not about bitchy fatties voting themselves freedom to chase alpha tail. That might be the case in the US but the poor leftover Chinese women and Arab spinsters haven't been riding anything at all. I once met a smart, outgoing,  good looking Chinese lady who was a virgin at 31 (don't ask me how I know). There's nothing wrong with this people, they just have unrealistic standards about how life is supposed to be. A hundred years of romance novels, soap operas and romantic comedies of course don't help. The sheer size of the bullshit broadcasting machine that has been running for the last decades makes it amazing that people still bother to marry and have children at all.

So you see, it's quite obvious that dysgenics isn't really caused by economics at all. It's a lifestyle choice, a choice by women. And you can give them all the money you want, yet they won't change that choice. It's biologically determined. What you can do, though, is restrict the choices women can make. That works like a charm. In fact is has been working like a charm for millennia. And that's what China has just started to do.

The New York Times reports how Chinese universities have just started to require higher test scores to women than to men for entrance. Well the report is not about that administrative fact, it's about how many female students are angry and complaining about it. The article tries to be damning but the sheer reasonableness of the college administrators is just too overwhelming. Girls are encouraged not to go into careers like criminology, engineering or Arabic. Because experience says they won't end up liking the jobs they would get. The government is encouraging students to think on the long term. The horror!

The second half of the article is a reminder of a fact that is being publicised heavily lately, that women are surpassing men as students and in some sectors of th economy. I won't comment on the issue itself and its causes, as Roissy and many others have already done so pretty well. Still articles like that show how things that almost everybody agrees are good things, like meritocracy, can and in fact do become destructive when taken out of their proper context. So women get better test scores. Right. So they deserve status and access to the system. But why? What does "deserve" even mean? Why not think on the long term consequences of encouraging women to spend their most fertile years in competing with men?

Academia robbed us of our vaginas

Given that women are hypergamous, and there's nothing we can do about that, it necessarily follows that the only way of encouraging reproduction is ceteris paribus giving less status to women than to men. Feminists talk often about the old stereotype of housewives chained to their kitchens, made to walk barefoot. Well that's exactly the point. High IQ females by their own nature are annoying enough, and lack in many qualities that men seek after. Giving them status, therefore narrowing their mating pool, only makes the matters worse. It's not fair of course, but that's how life is. I understand life sucks for a smart but plain looking woman, who can tell unworthy men better than anyone else, but whom worthy man ignore because she lacks in what men really want (looks). But the solution is not to give her a high paying job or an academic loudspeaker so she can write feminist books and feel happy about herself. What we have to do is get her married early and get those nice smart genes into the next generation.

And the only way to do that is to restrict women's access to education. Of course the new regulations in China are a tiny, infinitesimal step towards that goal. I hadn't heard of the news before, but googling I found a chinese article from July, with the hilarious title: "The different entry scores for some college majors are suspected of being gender discrimination". Suspected! No dear, they are the very definition of gender discrimination. It is interesting that it is China the first to officially discriminate against women. The Communist revolution also brought wholesale Soviet feminism into China, and women have more privileges and are a bigger part of the workforce than any other Asian country. I guess the unprecedented rise in women's social status, plus the demographic crisis caused by selective abortion hasn't gone unnoticed by the government. Chinese culture is obsessed with cognitive power, and IQ is widely (if not universally) understood to be genetic. The Shengnü epidemic is a threat to the nation, so the government is timidly pushing for eugenics. The best and most effective eugenics policy. Let's wish them luck.

rightsaidfred

I'd suggest that instead of trying to encourage smart women to breed, we would be better served encouraging (coercing?) dumb women not to breed. Birth control for welfare moms. A major wall around the fetid swamps of Afghanistan et al so their teeming hordes can live out their happy lives free from our influence.

Spandrell
Replying to:
rightsaidfred

Having more smart people is preferable to having less dumb people. And it's so much easier. Oppressing the dumb causes violent riots. Oppressing nerdy girls causes... articles in the NYT.

mitchellporter

Neurotechnology will matter more in the long run. You may be born stupid, it doesn't mean you'll stay stupid, not in this century.

Spandrell
Replying to:
mitchellporter

Perhaps. I hope so myself. But it's not 'eugenics' if it doesn't involve giving birth.

Jehu

I honestly don't have a lot of sympathy for smart but plain girls in the US as a class. The fact of the matter is that in the US, an absolutely plain and average girl can easily hit the 75th percentile in looks for a woman of her age by doing just one thing---maintain a healthy weight for her size. For most women this means a BMI around 21. The men you can get in the US from a 75th percentile position as a woman are very good. So much so that your foreign counterparts would queue up in droves for them.

Spandrell
Replying to:
Jehu

And what does that tell you about the gender distribution of status in the US? Why do women prefer chocolate to marrying their peers and have children? Did that happen when women had restricted access to education and the workforce?

Jehu
Replying to:
Spandrell

Spandrell, A big part of it is that both men and women have been fed a line of bullshit regarding what the opposite sex wants for at least 2-3 generations now. Many overweight women really have NO idea how much better their life would be if they reduced to a 21 BMI. A lot of smart women reason that---hey, I'm 2-3 sigma smart, and 0 sigma looks. A smart guy would choose me over a girl with 0 sigma smart and 1 sigma looks, right? But here's the rub, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. If he has the status to get a girl with 1 sigma looks (80th-90th percentile), he can get a girl with 1 sigma looks AND whatever level of smarts he desires. If you want men to have to make the tradeoffs you want, you need a HARDCORE inefficient Marriage marketplace. I suggest Alaska. As to the gender distribution of status, I agree that society SHOULD 'artificially' lower women's status insofar as required to make the 50th percentile man plenty alpha enough for the 50th percentile woman. Ending women's suffrage would be a good first step.

Red

Giving women freedom always leads to very low birthrates. The left knows this and now promotes feminism as method to reduce population in 3ed world nations. We're getting dumber because we stopped allowing stupid people to die in large numbers. The west had a solution to problem for a thousand years: No women could be married unless her suitor had a house. This guaranteed that only successful men reproduced and led to surplus of women to marry which allowed men to select better women. Lesser men who could never reach that level had to make do with sluts and hookers. A good chunk of European women died old maids.

rightsaidfred
Replying to:
rightsaidfred

We need to do both. Just out breeding in a numerical way would be a Pyrrhic victory. There is a difference between suppressing dumb birth rates vs. oppressing the dumb in a general way.

Candide III
Replying to:
Red

No women could be married unless her suitor had a house. This is the current situation in China's cities, although it is enforced by women's preference rather than law or custom.

RS-prime

> Neurotechnology will matter more in the long run. You may be born stupid, it doesn’t mean you’ll stay stupid, not in this century. As much as that's a fair to middling possibility, take it to the bank and call it a cheque.

Hail

"Whites are getting dumber, ... American Blacks are getting dumber" According to Richard Lynn, US-Blacks are getting dumber more quickly than are US-Whites. Whites have been losing 0.75 IQ points per generation, while Blacks have been losing 1.5 IQ points per generation, due to dysgenic breeding. This has been over the past century, at least, according to Lynn. See also: USA's White Dysgenics Quantified.

Discard
Replying to:
Jehu

Womens' suffrage is a very recent phenomenon, historically. In the U.S., there are plenty of women still alive today who were born without the right to vote. I think it is an ephemeral phase, and future historians will write books about it as current ones write about Ptolemy's astronomy or 18th century medical practices. We can either let women rule or we can feed ourselves.

Red
Replying to:
Candide III

The system only works if you create a surplus of marriageable women and the only way to do that is by removing female freedom.

Candide III
Replying to:
Red

the only way to do that is by removing female freedom Care to support your statement? There is quite a surplus of marriageable women in, say, Japan (look up konkatsu), and lifetime childlessness is high in both women and men. I know Japan is hardly a feminist's dream, but it's not quite medieval Europe either.

Red
Replying to:
Candide III

Your chance of getting a faithful Japanese wife is quite low. I wouldn't include them as a surplus of marriageable women. Marriage doesn't mean anything to a guy if he ends up raising someone else's kids. It's just legal contractual prostitution if you can't guarantee by force of law your kids are your own. Japan moved into pleasure style marriages where a women only marries if the guy turns her on a couple of decades ago. Japanese men had traits required to woo a women in this manner bred out of them from 2000 years of arranged marriage. Given the choice women would rather go childless than marry a non exciting man and have kids. You don't have a surplus of women to marry, but rather a surplus of men who don't have the genes capable of wooing women. Go back to arranged marriages and most of those sexless men would be married. Single motherhood is on the rise in japan. Given another 3 or 4 generations of nobody but cads and players reproducing japan won't have a very many sexless men.

Candide III
Replying to:
Red

The Japanese law actually requires fidelity (Civil Code §770, subclause 1). Your second paragraph is partly correct, although a dearth of men should have the same effect as a surplus of women. Note that your original comment refers to a dearth of men too. The tradition of arranged marriages is still alive in Japan, with about 6% of marriages being arranged (see this study). Considerations other than "turn-on" are also very important, this is one of the reasons why the marriage rate is relatively low in Japan. Japanese women don't need to marry to have sex and a relationship with a man who turns them on anymore, same as in the Western countries. I am surprised that you bring this up as an argument at all. As for nobody but cads and players reproducing, I would prefer to believe you are making a joking overstatement. Single motherhood in Japan is not negligible, but most of it is due to divorces and not actual out-of-wedlock births, which comprise only 2% of the total (so far), and this percentage includes couples which do not register their marriage because one of the spouses wants to avoid changing her legal name for business/professional reasons (I know one such example personally) — name change after marriage is mandatory and maiden name is not acceptable as a professional name (again, so far). I have compiled some relevant statistics on this matter.

PRCD
Replying to:
Spandrell

I don't see why you care whether the 'smart' Chinese breed or not. If they were inventive, it would matter. But they use their brains to count beans, cheat on exams, and steal IP, not innovate.

Red
Replying to:
Candide III

I've stated this badly. The requirement of a men having a house before marriage is directly tied to the only legitimate way of a women having children is legally enforced marriage including prohibitions on adultery (which as far as I can tell are no longer enforced in Japan). You have to curtail female freedom to run such a system in order to create the surplus of women that men are willing to work hard enough to get a house in order to marry them. This is genetic selection of successful males over males who are not industrious but limiting violent competition between men by reserving only one women per man as a legitimate child bearer. A man's energy is directed into economic production instead of violence, drug usage, and chasing women. A system that allows female selection/freedom ultimately changes mating to the lek mating system which entirely destroys both intelligence and civilization. http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-lek-mating-system.html What I'm describing is the fusion of 2 systems: 1. Patriarchy and the requirement of chaste and faithful wives with limited or not freedom. Every great civilization I know of has followed this system. 2. The second is giving men long term economic goals to pursue that selects males with good future orientation and intelligence to maximize his chances of reproduction. You see this type of arrangement coming out of feudal systems. It's good at removing the most worthless of men and keeping only the most promising of women reproducing without wide scale violence.

Candide III
Replying to:
Candide III

You have to curtail female freedom to run such a system in order to create You still haven't explained why this is so. At least in Japan, there appears to be a noticeable lack of men willing or able to work hard enough to "get a house", so marriage-minded women have to compete for them. The men who content themselves with games, idols, sex toys and harem anime don't count. The women who pursue the parasite single lifestyle, or remove themselves from the marriage market for other reasons, don't count either. As long as there are more of the former than of the latter, modulo demography, and there is no significant subsidy (psychological as well as financial) to single mothers, selection will exert pressure in the right direction.