Should the right to breed be conferred on meritocratic principles?
Right to Breed
Recent education programs for teenage girls which taught them about environmental responsibility have succeeded in bringing the birth rate in those areas down to less than 2 children per woman. Which is the perfectly sustainable level, as not all of those 2 kids will choose to have kids, and some will probably die early and get eaten by a shark or whatever (joking). So yeah, making it a cultural expectation that women should either have zero kids, 1 kid, or 2 kids, but planning to have 3 kids is being environmentally irresponsible but we wonât kill ya if you do.
So we donât need draconian laws or coercive force to slow breeding. As educated countries tend to have low birth rates, I think the primary cause of population growth is the obsession with economic growth on our limited size planet. Once we stop the economic growth âwhipâ along with educating woman and giving them access to birth control, then all will be just fine and our population should slowly decline over the next 100-years.
Thereâs lots of research on this topic and almost all of the researchers have come to the conclusion that we wonât need to force people to stop breeding like what China does. Education, changing cultural expectations, and access to birth control are the key things.
1 Like
Thanks for your very interesting reply. I think economics will also have a bearing on this. Apart from general trends, do you think the specifics of breeding should be meritocraticly influenced? By this I mean the quality of genes, especially with reference to intelligence.
I used to believe genetics played a big role in passing down intelligence. But what ever happened to Einsteinâs kids and grandkids? Nothing, they didnât achieve very much⌠And how is it that every 2nd generation actor is a worse actor than his father or mother? Eg. Martin Sheen is a better actor than Charlie Sheen or Emilio Estevez, Donald Sutherland is a better actor than Kiefer Sutherland, Kirk Douglas was a better actor than Michael Douglas, and Goldie Hawn is a better actor than her daughter Kate Hudson.
So if intelligence was really passed down via the genes in large quantities then where are the super-smart families? There are none lol.
Google search âregression to the mean in geneticsâ, this explains why short parents are more likely to give birth to tall kids, and tall parents more likely to give birth to small kids. Similarly smart parents are more likely to have stupid children and stupid parents to have smart children.
But there may be a way to escape this senselessness. Have kids with someone who is on your level. Smart men who marry stupid models are wasting their time, they should grow some balls and go for a really smart woman. Also, smart women who mate with stupid âhomer simpsonâ breadwinners are also committing this genetic averaging crime. Either way all we can do is educate people about regression to the mean and the real statistics around this topic.
People wonât find such a measure at all palatable unless we follow Edâs suggestions about educating people to better plan parenthood. You canât force people to stop having kids, it would require monstrous levels of coercion for them to comply with it. You can however try to educate them to pick the best person to have kids with and choose the best way to raise them.
Regression to the mean definitely does exist and is the reason why racial average intelligence is such an important question. But even if youâre considering regression to the mean in a single race, it doesnât mean improvement isnât possible, otherwise weâd still be pre-human. The problem with relying on education and freewill is that the most ignorant and irresponsible will flout it and and the best of each generation will limit their breeding. Even if this means a tiny degradation in each generation, this will snowball into a significant effect. Einstein pinpointed the worst human failing as the underestimation of exponential change. Einstein is also a great example of the influence of genes on group intelligence being influenced by breeding patterns as he highlights the superior intellect of the Jew which seems to have occurred very quickly in evolutionary terms. Our current democractic/free market/state welfare system is clearly dysgenic where the worst of society breed the most and this is supported by the design of the state. Whatâs so hideous about putting this effect into reverse? State control is only monstrous if you make a god of the freedom of the masses and in such a society the race to the bottom will always predominate. You cannot lift the lowest common denominator to the height of the elite, and so the only movement possible is to move the elite to the level of the masses. You seem to be arguing for libertarianism but doesnât meritocracy necessarily have to be form of aristocracy with enforced central control? An arrangement which recognises that political vocation is the gift of the few. Democracy, liberalism and your arguments rest on the idea that people are equally reasonable and responsible when the evidence is clear that they are not. Until natureâs elite muster the courage to take charge of the situation, arenât we on an inevitable descent to genetic degradation? Looking at direct relatives is too short-sighted. Scientific and statistical analysis of long-term group averages is the only way to see the bigger picture, else youâre getting lost in detail. Large scale variations are small, but over time they would be enough to revolutionise the world.
We need to focus on what will allow people to be content with meritocracy and working around whatever might provide them incentive to rebel against it. That basically means limiting force at all times. The only time I see force being necessary is in ensuring people do not try to circumvent inheritance tax, which should be enforced by the barrel of the gun if needed.
Sterilising people by force is something the Nazis did. Itâs simply not an acceptable way of approaching the problem. There must be better ways of raising the quality of the average person. Sterilisation is a crude, barbaric kind of approach, akin to smashing a clock to figure out its internal workings instead of consulting the design papers. This has nothing to do with libertarianism or anything else, it is just a monstrous act to go around mutilating the genitals of people and it doesnât matter what kind of political ideology underlies the act. You can have an all-powerful state which acts benevolently to its citizens, by educating them to make wiser decisions vis-a-vis having children. You canât have an all-powerful state which acts punitively to its citizens by sterilising them forcefully.
There are many, many ways of approaching this if educating people fails. You could pass out millions of condoms for free. You could offer monetary incentive for people to step forward and be voluntarily sterilised. You could distribute aphrodisiacs to the best of society and withhold them from the worst to give the best a better chance of having as many kids as the worst do. And best of all, you could address the birth rate problem simply by providing centralised boarding school education to all children, thereby insulating them from poor parenting for 9 months of the year. There is really no need to impose some artificial, coercive measure preventing people from having as many children as they want. The problem is not that the lowest common denominator have more children than the highest, the problem is that the LCD are in most cases not suited to parenthood and abuse the responsibilities parenthood comes with; and this can be addressed by granting the state substantial control over children through public boarding schools.
I think it is worth adding here that the only time that the German people came close to rebelling against nazi rule was when the t4 extermination program against those with mental illnesses and forced sterilization of those with undesirable traits became widespread to the point that it was impossible to disguise. This led to the cancelation of the official program to placate civil unrest that was occurring as the nazi started to sustain their first losses. While meritocracy is nothing like the race based ultra nationalism of nazism, great caution and care needs to be taken with any advocacy to start altering human biology in the context of an ideological system.
2 Likes
Meritocracy is nothing to do with race based statistics. We are not about Social Darwinism, we are about removing the effects of the environment on each individual, so that people of the nation feel like they belong (i.e. not racism); and so that people function to the very best of their ability along with their peers, regardless of background, eventually (i.e. not racism).
Racism is unwelcome in a rational society that wants everyone to feel like they belong, and can function (potentially) just as well as everyone else. Racist policies are thus anti-meritocratic in their very nature.
Democracy, liberalism and your arguments rest on the idea that people are equally reasonable and responsible when the evidence is clear that they are not.
Meritocracy is rather about the grand, sweeping changes that the most meritocratic (the most intelligent and active participants) will make; this leaves the average person to choose for themselves past a certain set expectations, what their influence on the world will be. Meritocracy instead of being racist, simply selects who influences the events of the nation by means of hard work; dedication; determination; intelligence; active participation; passion. The effects of the most intelligent are thus readily and vastly put to use more than any modern nepotistic government could ever imagine. The smart will simply rule for the first time in history.
The grand sweeping national changes that the Meritocratic Government creates, will trump any local problems, because our aim is to solve every problem from the root. It naturally starts with taking the reins from the (a)pathetic, elitist current government which does virtually nothing to improve the standards of modern life, except in its own interests.
A Meritocratic state must serve the people first â the capital creators â and not any racially supremacist, Social Darwinistic notion of ânatural selectionâ. The law of the jungle does not belong in a truly civil, rational society which aims to draw the highest actualized potential from every single citizen. We declare that people are not just numbers in the system; numbers of intelligence, and so on. Our vision for the future is radically different to any fascist or democratic state.
The no compromise stance must also extend towards racists. Racist views are unwelcome in a true meritocracy, which is inherently leftist, pro-positive liberty, pro-women, anti-Abrahamic religion, anti-negative liberty. The far right could not be more opposed to our positive liberty intentions.
Large scale variations are small, but over time they would be enough to revolutionise the world.
We need a solution now, not decades down the line. Waiting for people âintelligentâ under the current systemâs view is pointless, it will never happen, people are far too obedient towards a tiny minority ruling super-rich. The more likely course of action is that the intelligent simply take the reins of government itself and bend it towards the will and tasks of reason.
Thanks for everyoneâs replies and Iâm terribly sorry itâs taken so long to make my own. Life rather took over.
I donât suggest using force around breeding. The dysgenics we have in place now is âsoftâ. It is exercised via the tax and benefits system, cultural programming and immigration laws. Thru being more selective about who we let into the country, by influencing culture and by tweaking the tax and benefits system, we could put our current dysgenics into reverse.
I challenge the idea that it was only the Nazis who used force to prevent breeding. Our own governments do it now with severely disabled people. Itâs just a question of where you draw the line and what your view of rights is. Does an individual with a severe genetic diseaseâs right to breed override the stateâs right to protect its future populations from genetic harm? Why does the one overrule the many?
I agree with not mutilating genitals of people as a general principle. And yet in our weak system we allow Jews and Muslims to perform involuntary male infant genital mutilation as a matter of course. Something I would like to see removed by our societies by law. Does an adult member of a cultâs right to mutilate a childâs genitals override the childâs right to physical integrity and freedom from violent assault?
The problem occurs when itâs only the most educated who take the decisions to act responsibly in their reproductive choices. Thinking folk might think two or fewer children is whatâs environmentally responsible. Ignorant breeders who donât give a hoot might have five or six. End result = genetic degradation.
freddie_kane, largely you have described my ideal model of eugenics. I think eugenics acted as a trigger word for you, conjured up images of baddies, and youâve reacted to that image rather than what I actually said.
If we let go of the idea that our current system isnât moulding our genetic future, weâll be much less resistant to taking responsibility for that process. What Iâm saying is consistent with meritocracy. Iâm saying breeding isnât an automatic biological right, itâs a merit to be earned, even if itâs just by being part of a couple that is capable of earning an income to sustain a child.
Meritocracy is biology multiplied by opportunity and effort. It is also scientific in nature. If youâre going to reject the idea that races have different brain biologies and so has no part to play in meritocracy, surely you first have to exhaust the science.
Thereâs a good argument that a well administered meritocracy would be eugenic by nature. We want to break the bonds of inherited privilege. This is essentially a genetic act. We want to separate immediate genetic relatedness from elevated or lowered privilege. But itâs possible to overreact and go too far the other way, ignoring biology and the fact it underpins every human activity and the fact that inherent tendencies do congregate in wider genetic groups. The sheep dog will never become the shepherd. Whatever our efforts as individuals, biology defines our limits.
Marcus.Aurelius (interesting you named yourself after a notable fascist) you describe meritocracy as leftist. I believe a truly organic, balanced and holistic system is neither leftist nor rightist. We take equality of opportunity from the left, and individual responsibility and inherent giftedness from the right. We are not a blend of the two, they took limited parts from the ideal.
We need a solution now, not decades down the line.
Iâm not saying we donât act on other things now. Iâm not saying eugenics is the only answer. Most of what we need to solve could be solved in a generation. But that doesnât mean we should ignore what inheritance we pass down to future generations. You get similar arguments in any environmental debate. Genetic inheritance is a non renewable natural resource and I think itâs right to take care of it, even if âit wonât affect me coz Iâll be deadâ.
The more likely course of action is that the intelligent simply take the reins of government itself and bend it towards the will and tasks of reason.
I love this and your rejection of Jewish religions. Debate among ourselves is necessary, but more widely what is needed is assertion and what we need to assert is the Greek tradition.
1 Like