Critique My Idea For A Eugenic State

[Yali]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Mankind's most important technological revolution will happen when we learn how to genetically modify baseline level of consciousness, not intelligence.

Is that how nature works? I feel for that to happen, our species would literally have to evolve at the physical level rather than at the technological level. @Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

18 minutes ago, Yali said:

Is that how nature works? I feel for that to happen, our species would literally have to evolve at the physical level rather than at the technological level. @Leo Gura

Technology is about short-circuiting nature.

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, Juns said:

please elaborate. how do you know what they are if you cant measure them?

How to measure that the people chosen to have children have a pure heart, integrity of character, courage and drive in life, genuine sense of loyalty and commitment? it is completely impossible

5 hours ago, Juns said:

guess that is a possibility in some sense, but what is your solution to dysgenics and declining intelligence?

Maybe a global war where 90% of the humans die 😅

5 hours ago, Juns said:

Please explain why this would be the case? why exactly would they be dysfunctional and egomaniacs?

Well, I don't know, but I imagine them to be something similar to highly educated Chinese people. I've met some. Children of engineers or highly qualified workers who have been put under a lot of pressure since they were kids. They know how to play instruments, they are athletes, engineers with a PhD in mathematics, but their hearts are empty, and they fill them with a kind of strange depressive narcissism. Anyway, maybe it wouldn't be the case. 

The problem you raise is very real, the West is declining and people are becoming more stupid and superficial. The Islamic world is institutionalized stupidity and emerging Asia is institutionalized neurosis. Africa remains, which is emerging with increasing force, we will see what its characteristics are. I do not believe that these movements are controllable, any attempt at eugenics can have the opposite result to that desired. The only real eugenics is a life with real challenges.

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

people are becoming more stupid and superficial.

That's not a genetic problem, that's an economic, cultural, media ecosystem problem.

And you need to keep things in perspective. Humans were really, really stupid 200 years ago. Most of them were illiterate, didn't even go to school, and believed insane things by today's standards: like that black people were sub-human.

Don't take for granted how far we've come.

Edited January 11 by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not a genetic problem, that's an economic, cultural, media ecosystem problem.

Well yes, but for whatever reason they become like this, they will pass on their superficiality and stupidity to their next generation both through education and genetics. Genes change in a single generation, even if they are small changes. Then is 3 or 4 generations it would be a genetic tendency 

[Ero]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Then is 3 or 4 generations it would be a genetic tendency 

Even though it’s true that children have around 60 new genetic mutations compared to their parents, we are long beyond evolutionary pressures selecting for those. Any phenotype changes would necessarily come from technology, since we are already operating at sub-generational time scales.

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Ero said:

we are long beyond evolutionary pressures selecting for those.

That's not the case at all.

Do you see how many men are struggling with reproduction these days?

That directly impacts evolution. The people who are unable to reproduce in today's online environment will be weeded out of the gene pool.

The notion that humans have stopped evolving is incorrect.

New techology creates new situations that organisms need to be adapted for or die.

Edited January 11 by Leo Gura

[Ero]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Do you see how many men are struggling with reproduction these days?

The notion that humans have stopped evolving is incorrect.

I didn’t say we have stopped evolving. I said that it’s not the genetic mutations that are being selected for. Being an incel has nothing to do with genes. Modern medicine has also changed the selection for physical attributes because even if you are short and weak, you will not die by a predator.

Edited January 12 by Ero

[Leo Gura]

27 minutes ago, Ero said:

Being an incel has nothing to do with genes.

It definitely does.

Quote

even if you are short and weak, you will not die by a predator.

But you will die without reproducing.

Evolution is not about death because everyone dies. It's about whether you are able to breed before you die.

Edited January 12 by Leo Gura

[Ero]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It definitely does.

It’s not like the sharp rise in virgins can be attributed to a genetic shift. Of course evolution always persists, it is a feature of consciousness. What I was pointing to is that we can no longer speak of only “genetic fitness” as the selection pressure. I used “technology” as a much broader term than simply CRISPR - it refers to any and all augmentations, whether it be societal (social media, internet), biological (medicine), or mechanical (transportation, industrialisation), etc. For example, if before primarily physical strength was being selected for, now it is intelligence and mercantilism (think of Musk with his 12 kids) And that will of course continue to change. 

Edited January 12 by Ero

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not the case at all.

Do you see how many men are struggling with reproduction these days?

That directly impacts evolution. The people who are unable to reproduce in today's online environment will be weeded out of the gene pool.

The notion that humans have stopped evolving is incorrect.

New techology creates new situations that organisms need to be adapted for or die.

I have toyed with the idea that certain societally harmful traits are being weeded out of the gene pool through all these Red Pill and Incel movements coming more prominently into the collective consciousness.

And women who are and will be of child-bearing age are more aware of these patterns in men more than any other generation of women has ever been... just because of social media and being able to read everyone's private thoughts.

And these manosphere movements and the anonymity of the internet have really amplified those socially degenerative voices that were more "only in his head" or "only talking with my buddies at the bar" voices 15+ years ago.

But now it speaks through a megaphone because there's so much coalescence of movements around them...

And about 10 years later, guys are struggling more with finding partners and the birth rate is declining. I'm sure the latter fact is for other reasons as well.

But part of me suspects that women's increased awareness of the dysfunctional ways that a sizable minority of men operate under make contemporary women a lot more cautious than women of previous generations when selecting for a partner.

Edited January 12 by Emerald

[gambler]

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

societally harmful traits are being weeded out of the gene pool

socially degenerative

This is sad to read.

Here I thought the red pill was a good movement to bring forward to the public men's issues, so that they can be solved. Yet the liberal elite and their ilk see men who are having a hard time adjusting in the modern world as socially degenerative and should be weeded out of the gene pool...

You guys really hate me.

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

women's increased awareness of the dysfunctional ways

I see no evidence that women care about these things in practice. Women will still sleep with any guy who emotionally stimulates them.

Women are not screening guys based on their manosphere ideology. Toxic pickup guys get laid the most.

The reason Incels gets weeded out of the gene pool is not because of women screening them out on the basis of ideology but because they simply don't approach women and don't know how to talk to women.

A cannibal Nazi would have no problem reproducing as long as he was charismatic, social, and approached.

But any ideology that prevents socialization and talking to women will inhibit reproduction. That's Blackpill.

Edited January 12 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

If you want to advocate for Eugenics, you have to take into account the backlash that people are going to throw at you. So, you have to be smart about it. You have to use your intelligence to cut through that. What were the mistakes made by Eugenicists in the past. Do not make the same mistakes again. What are the successful eugenicists doing? Do that.

If you execute this like a simpleton, they will remove you out of the gene pool. 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, gambler said:

This is sad to read.

Here I thought the red pill was a good movement to bring forward to the public men's issues, so that they can be solved. Yet the liberal elite and their ilk see men who are having a hard time adjusting in the modern world as socially degenerative and should be weeded out of the gene pool...

You guys really hate me.

The fact of the matter is that these ideologies are dangerous in multiple ways to women.

And they represent a real political and relationship threat to us.

I know that I tend to feel quite uncomfortable around men who hold these types of ideologies. Where 10+ years ago, I wouldn't have been as aware of these issues.

But the past 10 years have really sensitized me to these patterns.

So, it stands to reason that it's probably a lot of women who feel have developed the same type of sensitivity.

But it's not a matter of hatred but moreso of preservation of one's own sovereignty and well-being.

You just can't have a good life with a man who operates off of Red Pill ideologies.

Lots of women are aware of that, and will tend to just avoid guys that show signs of that.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I see no evidence that women care about these things in practice. Women will still sleep with any guy who emotionally stimulates them.

Women are not screening guys based on their manosphere ideology. Toxic pickup guys get laid the most.

The reason Incels gets weeded out of the gene pool is not because of women screening them out on the basis of ideology but because they simply don't approach women and don't know how to talk to women.

A cannibal Nazi would have no problem reproducing as long as he was charismatic, social, and approached.

But any ideology that prevents socialization and talking to women will inhibit reproduction. That's Blackpill.

I've noticed that most guys who are Red Pill or Black Pill are not very socially adept. The toxic pick-up artist is the exception, though he will also be repulsive to the majority of women who aren't swayed by pick up artists and who have a spidey sense about it. 

Now, you may not see this selection bias at play, because you're going out with women who you meet through pick-up and who respond to pick-up. So, 100% of the examples you see are of women responding in a positive way to pick up.

And women who are more open to meeting a guy outside of their well-traveled social networks, might not have as many filters as a woman who doesn't respond to pick up and might instead prefer to select from their social circle and broader social network.

And that might not expose you to a variety of different female perspectives on dating and relationships.

You might be simply choosing from a pool of 30% of the female population that's open to theoretically being picked up by a man.

But because you're getting the some successes and some failures, you might be thinking that the ones that reject you are rejecting you because of something about you... when in reality they may just be closed off to meeting guys that way. 

And while toxic pick-up guys are probably having the most sex (especially with women who are open to pick-up), they aren't necessarily settling into families and becoming present fathers.

And that's far more of an indicator of what the average woman is looking for. And it seems to me that half or more of women are pretty good at selecting for that... or they eventually get to that point after they get past college age.

And I know that I've developed a spidy sense for picking up on if a guy has problematic views on women over the past 10 years or so because of understanding more about how many men are operating from these viewpoints.

And I'm not even single. If I were single and dating and looking for a life partner, I'd be super vigilant for any and all hints of problematic mindsets that could bring harm to me.

And like everyone else, I do choose my social circle in ways that are more comfortable for me. That's pretty natural.

So, I don't have a lot of those guys around because it makes me feel uncomfortable. And it's pretty easy to pick up on the vibe of a guy who's operating that way. And if the vibe doesn't give it away, he'll say something that's a tell in pretty short order.

And I know there are a lot of Gen Z women who are extra sensitized to these dynamics as well because of certain perspectives and patterns that are growing in popularity on social media. 

So, you may not be experiencing it. But it seems to be a pattern that's emerging with women's response to the exposure to all this overt misogyny that the internet has revealed to us.

And I'm not 100% sure that it's for the reasons I mentioned.

But it would be some incredibly intelligent nature feedback loop where, if we need to progress forward to survive global issues like climate change and become more fit to the environment as a species... that 1. The population would have to shrink and 2. The men with a certain physiology/psychology that predisposes them to have a regressive effect on society might have a harder time passing on their genes.

Survival and reproduction is all about being the most fit to the environment, after all. 

But that's just a hypothesis. And it might be just a coincidence.

Though I haven't ruled it out entirely as there could be very complex connections between the human individual mind/body complex, wider macrocosmic social dynamics, human being's psychological and behavioral responses to those macrocosmic social dynamics, and cycles of nature.

[Gidiot]

Alan watts actually talked about this subject, pretty spot on with some of the answers I’ve seen.

Also I’ve never put much stock into reproduction for the sake of it. People should have a reason beyond biology for birthing a child and I disagree that society needs to run on the manual labor of stupid people.

 

There’s no reason why everybody couldn’t be intelligent just maybe genetic factors in the way.

 

also who says what society is doing should be perpetuated? Are we really doing anything that magnificent worth perserving? Seems to me like humanity is corrupted. can’t even keep a homeostasis for the planet to live on and we don’t look out for one another by and large beyond mild politeness until those things are fixed I wish nobody would reproduce 

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Emerald said:

Now, you may not see this selection bias at play, because you're going out with women who you meet through pick-up and who respond to pick-up. So, 100% of the examples you see are of women responding in a positive way to pick up.

Pickup is not something women notice. Pickup is just being social. And all women respond well to guys who are socially adept. Women do not logically select who they date.

There is not a special class of woman who is immune to charm, charisma, and social skills.

It's just that when you hear pickup being discussed on this forum it raises your alarm bells. But in the real-world it is not noticed nor cared about by women because they are not having logical discussions about who they will sleep with.

If you logically ask a woman, Would you date a pickup guy?, all of them will tell you NO! But then in practice none of that matters because that is not how things work.

It's like if I asked someone, Would you eat an animal that I tortured? Everyone would say NO! But then in practice they go and eat whatever is served to them when they are hungry and don't even bother to ask.

Edited January 12 by Leo Gura

[yetineti]

@Gidiot

49 minutes ago, Gidiot said:

There’s no reason why everybody couldn’t be intelligent just maybe genetic factors in the way.

Do you think that would solve something?

52 minutes ago, Gidiot said:

Also who says what society is doing should be perpetuated?

Practically everyone; society.

Could it be any other way? What are you upset about?

[Clarence]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But any ideology that prevents socialization and talking to women will inhibit reproduction. That's Blackpill.

I thought Blackpill was a form of depression and negativity caused by the overwhelming suffering and injustices in the world, such as wars, animal and human torture, pollution, environmental destruction, humanity's low level of cognitive development, etc.

As long as this dark lense of viewing the world isn't completely out of control and proportion, I don't see how it would directly affect one's ability to socialize. I perceive it more as a lingering sense of sadness, despair, or anger. Of course, it can intensify at times, but it would broadly affect one's life and not necessarily prevent socialization or talking to woman.

Did I get this wrong?