Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retards

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retards

Postby AutSider » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:25 am

Evolution is about adaptation, not constant improvement/progress where every generation is better than the past one. The only way evolution of a certain species could end up being about progress in some sense is if that species continuously faced increasingly austere environments with every generation, and managed to adapt and survive. This is not the case for humans. If anything, the humans in the last couple of decades have been faced with less challenging, more permissive environments, which resulted in the decrease of quality in the population and made people more unfit to survive in a natural environment, without the system. It made people weak and dependent.

The evolutionary cycle of human societies:

Image

The only thing that truly matters in the end is adapting to nature, not adapting to the artificial system (society). For example, in society you can adapt in a parasitic way, at least if you're a fertile woman - you can exploit the altruism of the society and become a welfare queen. However, like I said, this adaptation is parasitic and unfit in relation to nature, because in order to exploit the altruism of the society and extract resources through welfare to feed your children, some other members of the society must be productive. This means that the welfare queen is spreading her parasitic genes at the expense of productive men and women, this results in more and more parasites in the system and less and less productive people (hosts), which weakens the system. Basically, welfare queen type of parasite destroys the very people whose existence it depends on to survive.

What really matters, is if this welfare queen strategy is an effective adaptation in nature, and of course it isn't. Nature doesn't give a shit.

Image

In nature, screaming for your welfare money and demanding your "rights" (to exploit productive people) would only attract predators who would proceed to kill you and feast on your retarded corpse.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby UrGod » Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:14 pm

Haha. Well yes, of course in a sense you are right. Welfare queens are parasitic and quite unattractive... also unnatural, in the sense that in the non-human world nothing would ever be allowed to become that parasitic and passive in perfect contradistinction to the actual ruling ethos of its type, species or group. But then again you have to remember the Pareto distribution: in a society of 300 million people only around 17,000 of those people are producing half of the wealth and productivity of the entire society. But it isn't as if we live in tree huts anymore snacking on nuts and berries.

Leeches and parasites are always going to be the case. Not everyone will ever be 100% contributing or productive, and the increase of number of people leeching and lazing parasitizing off the society is actually a sign of the excess such society is capable of handling; these lazy people are quite literally an excess, a remainder. And yes you are right in your pictures above, that when this lazy group gets too large it threatens the entire society. The excess tries to become that which grants excess, which cannot work. Then war obtains between producers and takers.

Parasitism is natural, plenty of life forms in nature exist as parasites. Plenty of members of any given species exist to feed off of the excess produced by the stronger more productive few of that species; remember that any species needs a sufficiently large genetic pool to keep itself going, so the species tolerates and even requires a certain excess of lazy members reproducing offspring; it isn't as if the lazy people's kids are all going to be lazy too, genetic diversity and replication errors will ensure that productive strong individuals will still arise out of even the lazy group, although most likely less frequently per capita than from out of the productive group.

The last point I want to make is the following: the high point of human evolution is not adaptation to nature. We have already adapted to nature for the most part, there remains only a few areas where we can still improve, namely finding ways to survive extreme storms and finding ways to survive germs. Other than this, humans have essentially broken nature and are in the process of remaking it in our own image; what is far more important now is that humans evolve (adapt, as you said) to their social constructs and force these constructs to evolve to us. The latter is especially important at this historical juncture: social constructs being artificial (at least the ones we have in the world now, are very much the artificial creations of the ideas, work and wars of the past; simpler societies are less artificial for being closer to nature), must be slowly adapted to the rational human requirements which our ontological-epistemological 'type' requires to continue to survive and thrive. We must make sure our social constructions do not lapse into pathological forms of entropic decay whereby humanity will be stifled from achieving its higher necessities and aims, for instance to create clean free energy and move out into the stars, and throw off the yoke of growing Marxist world communism under the auspices of what today is known as "globalism". These aims are crucially important, and to meet them it is required that we as humans not only adapt ourselves well enough to our societies so that we can actually function effectively within them, but just as significant that we work to adapt society to ourselves, to the individual rational-sane requirements of the sort of beings which we are. That is the higher struggle, between individual and society, not between individual and nature or society and nature. "Nature" can now be reformulated as both individual human nature and societal human nature, both of which are at war with one another. If this war goes the wrong way and the Marxist globalists keep gaining the upper hand then we will see a quick slide into a 1984 world as Orwell predicted. But we can still fight to break this model before it solidifies itself beyond our control. And there is also the argument to be made that such a model would function so imperfectly and pathologically anyway (look at any communist society in history for examples) that it is bound to fail anyway... sure, we can accept that maybe, to a degree, but we need to use that logic to our advantage as we fight here and now, rather than allow such idealism to breed our own apathy and laziness.

Just like ideologies, hyperbole is a form of mental and emotional apathy; an indirect expression of entropic collapse. Philosophy is properly about working beyond the superficial ideological-hyperbolic, even and especially where such superficialities actually feel quite convincing, easy and 'good' in their simple-mindedness and in the ease with which they allow us to craft attacks and defenses against whatever we might wish to battle. In other words, never confuse the battle with the war.
I am your master.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby AutSider » Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:26 pm

in a society of 300 million people only around 17,000 of those people are producing half of the wealth and productivity of the entire society.


Not even sure that is physically possible. Isn't it more about a few people HOLDING most wealth? Producing half the wealth, well, money is an abstraction and can be easily manipulated and created out of nothing... not the same with actual resources (energy).

Leeches and parasites are always going to be the case. Not everyone will ever be 100% contributing or productive, and the increase of number of people leeching and lazing parasitizing off the society is actually a sign of the excess such society is capable of handling; these lazy people are quite literally an excess, a remainder. And yes you are right in your pictures above, that when this lazy group gets too large it threatens the entire society.

Parasitism is natural, plenty of life forms in nature exist as parasites. Plenty of members of any given species exist to feed off of the excess produced by the stronger more productive few of that species; remember that any species needs a sufficiently large genetic pool to keep itself going, so the species tolerates and even requires a certain excess of lazy members reproducing offspring; it isn't as if the lazy people's kids are all going to be lazy too, genetic diversity and replication errors will ensure that productive strong individuals will still arise out of even the lazy group, although most likely less frequently per capita than from out of the productive group.


Acknowledging the inevitability of their existence doesn't mean we are obliged to tolerate them and that we shouldn't strive to remove incentives for parasitic behavior and destroy the parasite.

The minimum number of humans needed to avoid serious inbreeding is estimated to be around 160, and at 5000 and more it's basically not an issue anymore. There are far, far more humans than that. We're not a species that's in danger of extinction or inbreeding, there's no reason to tolerate parasites and we don't need their parasitic genes.

The last point I want to make is the following: the high point of human evolution is not adaptation to nature. We have already adapted to nature for the most part...


At a cost, though. The system is good at dealing with nature, but it is fragile in that it consists of people who are for the most part too specialized and incapable of dealing with nature on their own. If the system broke down there would be a lot of death.


Anyway, the point I wanted to make with this thread is that evolution doesn't have some sort of a set goal where each generation "evolves" a bit more and gets a little bit closer to that goal than the previous one. A lot of modern liberal speak is based on this idea, so they will use primitive as an insult, tell you how you're not "evolved", etc. If you try to remain strong and refuse to go along with the above mentioned cycle and descend into degeneracy and weakness with them, then you're not "evolved" aka you're not responding blindly and instinctively to your immediate environment like them.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm


Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:44 pm

Wyld wrote:Haha. Well yes, of course in a sense you are right. Welfare queens are parasitic and quite unattractive... also unnatural, in the sense that in the non-human world nothing would ever be allowed to become that parasitic and passive in perfect contradistinction to the actual ruling ethos of its type, species or group. But then again you have to remember the Pareto distribution: in a society of 300 million people only around 17,000 of those people are producing half of the wealth and productivity of the entire society. But it isn't as if we live in tree huts anymore snacking on nuts and berries.


K: I too must quibble with your numbers of 17,000 people producing half the wealth
and productivity.....your Pareto and the GINI is a variation of the same thing....
and it works for wealth, the number of people having wealth, but it doesn't work for
the number you propose... (which btw, I like to see how you came up with that number 17,000)
in your Pareto numbers, it talks about 80-20 in which 20% of the people have 80% of the wealth,
I have heard similar numbers mentioned as 20% of the people do 80% of the work, however,
20% of 300 and the actual number is more like 330 million people in the U.S...that leaves us
with 20% of 330 million people being 66 million people, not your 17,000......

the second quibble I have is this idea of a welfare queen... when in the in America today,
the greatest welfare entities are business and wealthy people... Exxon for example,
a billion dollar company pays no taxes and hasn't for years and this is just one example
of welfare cheats in America...and if big corporations don't pay taxes, then who makes
up for it? you do in your taxes... wonder why your taxes are so high, it because welfare
cheats like 45 and Exxon don't pay taxes.....

so your argument is based on false comparison thinking that in America exist parasites
and welfare queens and they are the poor, minorities who "game" the system,
when the real parasites and welfare queens who game the system are the wealthy
and business who pay off politicians to rewrite the tax laws making it easier for
them not to pay taxes....

W: Leeches and parasites are always going to be the case. Not everyone will ever be 100% contributing or productive, and the increase of number of people leeching and lazing parasitizing off the society is actually a sign of the excess such society is capable of handling; these lazy people are quite literally an excess, a remainder. And yes you are right in your pictures above, that when this lazy group gets too large it threatens the entire society. The excess tries to become that which grants excess, which cannot work. Then war obtains between producers and takers.

K: and who are the lazy people? the hardest working I know are the poor.. just to survive
they have to work, 2 or even 3 jobs and being at the bottom of the job chain means they
have the hard work, usually they have the hard physical labor jobs... the parasites you talk
about are actually the wealthy who game the system to receive immense tax cuts....
my father in law, before he passed away, was a CPA and a very good one... he once
told me years ago, if you make over 500,000 a year and pay taxes, you are being very
generous because the laws are set up in such a way, that anyone who makes over
500,000 don't really have to pay taxes....and he was an CPA for over 30 years.....
BTW, before that, he worked for the IRS......


W: Parasitism is natural, plenty of life forms in nature exist as parasites. Plenty of members of any given species exist to feed off of the excess produced by the stronger more productive few of that species; remember that any species needs a sufficiently large genetic pool to keep itself going, so the species tolerates and even requires a certain excess of lazy members reproducing offspring; it isn't as if the lazy people's kids are all going to be lazy too, genetic diversity and replication errors will ensure that productive strong individuals will still arise out of even the lazy group, although most likely less frequently per capita than from out of the productive group.

The last point I want to make is the following: the high point of human evolution is not adaptation to nature. We have already adapted to nature for the most part, there remains only a few areas where we can still improve, namely finding ways to survive extreme storms and finding ways to survive germs. Other than this, humans have essentially broken nature and are in the process of remaking it in our own image; what is far more important now is that humans evolve (adapt, as you said) to their social constructs and force these constructs to evolve to us. The latter is especially important at this historical juncture: social constructs being artificial (at least the ones we have in the world now, are very much the artificial creations of the ideas, work and wars of the past; simpler societies are less artificial for being closer to nature), must be slowly adapted to the rational human requirements which our ontological-epistemological 'type' requires to continue to survive and thrive. We must make sure our social constructions do not lapse into pathological forms of entropic decay whereby humanity will be stifled from achieving its higher necessities and aims, for instance to create clean free energy and move out into the stars, and throw off the yoke of growing Marxist world communism under the auspices of what today is known as "globalism". These aims are crucially important, and to meet them it is required that we as humans not only adapt ourselves well enough to our societies so that we can actually function effectively within them, but just as significant that we work to adapt society to ourselves, to the individual rational-sane requirements of the sort of beings which we are. That is the higher struggle, between individual and society, not between individual and nature or society and nature. "Nature" can now be reformulated as both individual human nature and societal human nature, both of which are at war with one another. If this war goes the wrong way and the Marxist globalists keep gaining the upper hand then we will see a quick slide into a 1984 world as Orwell predicted. But we can still fight to break this model before it solidifies itself beyond our control. And there is also the argument to be made that such a model would function so imperfectly and pathologically anyway (look at any communist society in history for examples) that it is bound to fail anyway... sure, we can accept that maybe, to a degree, but we need to use that logic to our advantage as we fight here and now, rather than allow such idealism to breed our own apathy and laziness.

K: I would argue that globalism is the only possible response to our situation right now....
government is a response to problems.. and the greater problems and the greater population,
the larger government is needed... if you have a small population, you can get by with
a small government.... if you have a large population, you cannot get by with a small
government....the system will collapse if the government isn't large enough to deal with
the growing population....in fact, I would guess that there is a mathematical formula
between the population and the amount of government needed to deal with the population...
in other words, if you have 1 million people, government can be this size, but at 10
million people, government must be at this size and at 100 million people, the government
must be at this size otherwise the society collapses when the government collapses because
it cannot handle a number of people the society has.....as we have 300 million in the
US. alone and over 7 billion world wide, we need a world wide government that
can deal with that number of people... asking for a small government in the
face of billions is basically asking for the collapse of society....


W: Just like ideologies, hyperbole is a form of mental and emotional apathy; an indirect expression of entropic collapse. Philosophy is properly about working beyond the superficial ideological-hyperbolic, even and especially where such superficialities actually feel quite convincing, easy and 'good' in their simple-mindedness and in the ease with which they allow us to craft attacks and defenses against whatever we might wish to battle. In other words, never confuse the battle with the war.


K: this is just babbling and there is no reason to answer.........

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby UrGod » Wed May 03, 2017 1:56 am

AutSider wrote:
in a society of 300 million people only around 17,000 of those people are producing half of the wealth and productivity of the entire society.


Not even sure that is physically possible. Isn't it more about a few people HOLDING most wealth? Producing half the wealth, well, money is an abstraction and can be easily manipulated and created out of nothing... not the same with actual resources (energy).


People who hold wealth are, generally speaking, going to also be the people who produced that wealth. Wealth accumulation will always skew a little bit toward the producer, because if it didn't then that wealth production would not have occurred. Also the producer has more control over how said produced wealth is distributed, and will therefore value himself qua producer a little more highly than others who had less to do with that production. And rightly so. Again, generally speaking.

If you're not literally a thief then you have earned what you own because someone voluntarily chose to pay you for values that you created and then gave to that person. That is how economics works. And it is why theft is such a universal evil, because theft is the only real way that economics is perverted/destroyed, at any level from the individual-local to the national.

And yes, this has implications for taxation, since taxation is not voluntary and is technically theft.

Leeches and parasites are always going to be the case. Not everyone will ever be 100% contributing or productive, and the increase of number of people leeching and lazing parasitizing off the society is actually a sign of the excess such society is capable of handling; these lazy people are quite literally an excess, a remainder. And yes you are right in your pictures above, that when this lazy group gets too large it threatens the entire society.

Parasitism is natural, plenty of life forms in nature exist as parasites. Plenty of members of any given species exist to feed off of the excess produced by the stronger more productive few of that species; remember that any species needs a sufficiently large genetic pool to keep itself going, so the species tolerates and even requires a certain excess of lazy members reproducing offspring; it isn't as if the lazy people's kids are all going to be lazy too, genetic diversity and replication errors will ensure that productive strong individuals will still arise out of even the lazy group, although most likely less frequently per capita than from out of the productive group.


Acknowledging the inevitability of their existence doesn't mean we are obliged to tolerate them and that we shouldn't strive to remove incentives for parasitic behavior and destroy the parasite.


We should try to work for a society that dis-incentivizes parasitism, yes I agree. But the difficulty with doing that is simply that most people in positions of power who could alter the laws are also people who are themselves incentivized to make sure that everyone else is not dis-incentivized from being parasitical. The easiest and cheapest way to win votes is to cater to parasites.

The minimum number of humans needed to avoid serious inbreeding is estimated to be around 160, and at 5000 and more it's basically not an issue anymore. There are far, far more humans than that. We're not a species that's in danger of extinction or inbreeding, there's no reason to tolerate parasites and we don't need their parasitic genes.


This isn't about inbreeding, it is about having the largest and most diverse genetic pool under one single cultural-national roof as possible... and then making sure that your society is set up to take advantage of that genetic diversity when it produces geniuses. How many Einsteins are you going to get in a population of 5000? Probably none.

The last point I want to make is the following: the high point of human evolution is not adaptation to nature. We have already adapted to nature for the most part...


At a cost, though. The system is good at dealing with nature, but it is fragile in that it consists of people who are for the most part too specialized and incapable of dealing with nature on their own. If the system broke down there would be a lot of death.


Yep, which is why humans have social, economic, and cultural systems to begin with. We don't exactly all want to be living out in the forest surviving on our own or in small tribes, now do we?

It's great when people can be more survivalist and have more hard-core skills such as hunting, trapping, gardening, foraging, martial arts, but the fact is not everyone needs those skills anymore.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make with this thread is that evolution doesn't have some sort of a set goal where each generation "evolves" a bit more and gets a little bit closer to that goal than the previous one. A lot of modern liberal speak is based on this idea, so they will use primitive as an insult, tell you how you're not "evolved", etc. If you try to remain strong and refuse to go along with the above mentioned cycle and descend into degeneracy and weakness with them, then you're not "evolved" aka you're not responding blindly and instinctively to your immediate environment like them.


Haha yeah, definitely. Evolution aka nature doesn't give a shit about anything, including us. Nature isn't fucking alive, it has no being, no consciousness, it is just a set of blind dumb automatic processes; "evolution" doesn't even exist, what exists is natural selection, one of those dumb blind processes.

People confuse natural selection with "evolution" as if evolution were some noble thing, some grand telos or something... by all accounts evolution is just an accidental, blind, dumb process that simply takes advantage of random mutations and environmental coincidences in order to keep whatever is alive somewhat sufficiently adapted for survival in the following generation. If we want to talk about telos, meaning, and "evolution" in a broader more universal sort of way, then we need to stop talking about nature, natural selection and genes, and start talking about some fucking philosophy.
I am your master.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby AutSider » Wed May 03, 2017 5:22 pm

People who hold wealth are, generally speaking, going to also be the people who produced that wealth. Wealth accumulation will always skew a little bit toward the producer, because if it didn't then that wealth production would not have occurred. Also the producer has more control over how said produced wealth is distributed, and will therefore value himself qua producer a little more highly than others who had less to do with that production. And rightly so. Again, generally speaking.


I'm not sure if I would agree with that, actually. Our society has reached such a point of artificiality and nature-inversion that I don't know what to think anymore. As an example, I have an uncle who does hard physical labor which has actual, tangible consequences, and yet he works for minimum wage and a hooker who just spreads her legs can earn in one day of work more than he earns in a month, and yet he clearly 1) Put more work in and 2) Is more productive, obviously.

Another example are rap/pop stars like Lil Wayne, Madonna, Lady Gaga and such, who not only don't contribute in any actual, tangible way to society, but actually promote degeneracy which destroys the moral fabric of society, and yet they get paid more than the architect who would design a building and the workers who would build it. These people should be executed for promoting degeneracy, NOT paid for it.

If you're not literally a thief then you have earned what you own because someone voluntarily chose to pay you for values that you created and then gave to that person. That is how economics works. And it is why theft is such a universal evil, because theft is the only real way that economics is perverted/destroyed, at any level from the individual-local to the national.

And yes, this has implications for taxation, since taxation is not voluntary and is technically theft.


What law is voluntary? Nobody ever asked me if I desire to be subordinated to any law. I'd say whether taxation is justified or not depends on whether you're benefiting from the thing your tax money is going towards, and at the very least if you agree with it in principle. It makes no sense to have to pay taxes to the church if you're an atheist, f.e. Technically taxation cannot be theft because taxation is necessarily legal (enforced by the state), whereas theft is illegal (disapproved of by the state). Technically. What you're really saying is that you dislike the kind of system where taxation exists, and that you don't think it should be legal because it is akin to theft.

We should try to work for a society that dis-incentivizes parasitism, yes I agree. But the difficulty with doing that is simply that most people in positions of power who could alter the laws are also people who are themselves incentivized to make sure that everyone else is not dis-incentivized from being parasitical. The easiest and cheapest way to win votes is to cater to parasites.


Yes, parasitism is the path of least resistance and if you permit people to take it without shaming it at least if not outright forbidding it, increasingly more people become parasites.
Yep, which is why humans have social, economic, and cultural systems to begin with. We don't exactly all want to be living out in the forest surviving on our own or in small tribes, now do we?

This isn't about inbreeding, it is about having the largest and most diverse genetic pool under one single cultural-national roof as possible... and then making sure that your society is set up to take advantage of that genetic diversity when it produces geniuses. How many Einsteins are you going to get in a population of 5000? Probably none.


Genetic diversity is good as long as it nurtures certain qualities. A half-white half-aborigine child may be more genetically diverse than a purely white child, but it is still inferior.

It's great when people can be more survivalist and have more hard-core skills such as hunting, trapping, gardening, foraging, martial arts, but the fact is not everyone needs those skills anymore.


I agree with this too. It's always good to obtain some survivalist skills not to forget our roots and foundations and to avoid becoming modern, spoiled brats. They're also good to have just in case.


Evolution may let parasites live one generation, if they successfully infiltrate and drain a host, but once the host is drained dry it will wipe the parasites out. Evolution is indeed blind and short-sighted. As are most humans.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby UrGod » Wed May 03, 2017 11:25 pm

AutSider wrote:
People who hold wealth are, generally speaking, going to also be the people who produced that wealth. Wealth accumulation will always skew a little bit toward the producer, because if it didn't then that wealth production would not have occurred. Also the producer has more control over how said produced wealth is distributed, and will therefore value himself qua producer a little more highly than others who had less to do with that production. And rightly so. Again, generally speaking.


I'm not sure if I would agree with that, actually. Our society has reached such a point of artificiality and nature-inversion that I don't know what to think anymore. As an example, I have an uncle who does hard physical labor which has actual, tangible consequences, and yet he works for minimum wage and a hooker who just spreads her legs can earn in one day of work more than he earns in a month, and yet he clearly 1) Put more work in and 2) Is more productive, obviously.


But this isn't just about tangible material production, which I'm sure your uncle contributes to very much; rather this is about value. How much value does a hooker Create for her buyer? A ton. Sex is almost the most meaningful, valuable thing we humans can experience. So while your uncle is laying brick or whatever and that is quite noble, the woman who gives sexual fulfillment to a man is comparatively creating far more value, at least in the sense of costs of time and materials involved.

Another example are rap/pop stars like Lil Wayne, Madonna, Lady Gaga and such, who not only don't contribute in any actual, tangible way to society, but actually promote degeneracy which destroys the moral fabric of society, and yet they get paid more than the architect who would design a building and the workers who would build it. These people should be executed for promoting degeneracy, NOT paid for it.


No, because Madonna et. al. are creating value for those people for whom their music is a value. As said above, sex is near the top of the human value hierarchy, and if you go a short distance down you find music. How much pleasure and respite and emotional catharsis has Madonna produced in the world, and how do you measure that? The free market economy measures it by the dollar amount of her earning. Which is to say that she is producing a fuck-ton of real value for a lot of people (not me, I think her music is shit, but many people like it).

Values are conditional to the valuer; it doesn't even make sense to speak of value without speaking of the for-whom a value is valuable, and how and why that is the case. I would probably mostly agree with your value-set when it comes to music since I also detest this degenerated music, but you and I are not equal to humanity. Fact is that "degenerates" like Madonna or Kanye or Drake or whoever are producing tangible, real, meaningful, and immediate VALUE for millions of people. Maybe not you and me, but many others. And that's the nature of reality, man-- self-valuing. (Actually I like Kanye's music, in the interest of full disclosure; I find (some of) it valuable to me.)

If you're not literally a thief then you have earned what you own because someone voluntarily chose to pay you for values that you created and then gave to that person. That is how economics works. And it is why theft is such a universal evil, because theft is the only real way that economics is perverted/destroyed, at any level from the individual-local to the national.

And yes, this has implications for taxation, since taxation is not voluntary and is technically theft.


What law is voluntary? Nobody ever asked me if I desire to be subordinated to any law. I'd say whether taxation is justified or not depends on whether you're benefiting from the thing your tax money is going towards, and at the very least if you agree with it in principle. It makes no sense to have to pay taxes to the church if you're an atheist, f.e. Technically taxation cannot be theft because taxation is necessarily legal (enforced by the state), whereas theft is illegal (disapproved of by the state). Technically. What you're really saying is that you dislike the kind of system where taxation exists, and that you don't think it should be legal because it is akin to theft.


I appreciate the distinction you're making, but I do not define theft based on whatever the state says is legal. I define theft based on the consent of him from whom property or value is being taken. And yes, we agree about the nature of law, but taxation is a different creature than law. Law is rooted philosophically; the imposing of the forces of the state subject to enumerated descriptions of approved and disapproved uses for that force. But taxation, while yes being a law as you imply, involves stealing your property against your consent. I'm not saying that taxation is evil, only that taxation is theft. It is in the best case necessary theft, just as Law is necessary ontological delimitation of the use of force approved by the state apparatus. It doesn't make it right even if it is practically necessary. But again, I would distinguish between law as such and the justification for law, and the theft of your property via taxation at the point of a gun (with support of law).

This isn't about inbreeding, it is about having the largest and most diverse genetic pool under one single cultural-national roof as possible... and then making sure that your society is set up to take advantage of that genetic diversity when it produces geniuses. How many Einsteins are you going to get in a population of 5000? Probably none.


Genetic diversity is good as long as it nurtures certain qualities. A half-white half-aborigine child may be more genetically diverse than a purely white child, but it is still inferior.


Inferior how? I never said nor implied that diversity as such is "good", what I said was that greater genetic diversity will give you better odds of producing a genius. But culture has a lot to do with it also.... an Einstein born in Sudan has basically zero chance of becoming the genius he should have been.

And what are these "certain qualities" you allude to?

It's great when people can be more survivalist and have more hard-core skills such as hunting, trapping, gardening, foraging, martial arts, but the fact is not everyone needs those skills anymore.


I agree with this too. It's always good to obtain some survivalist skills not to forget our roots and foundations and to avoid becoming modern, spoiled brats. They're also good to have just in case.


Evolution may let parasites live one generation, if they successfully infiltrate and drain a host, but once the host is drained dry it will wipe the parasites out. Evolution is indeed blind and short-sighted. As are most humans.


Yes. But humans are in part the produce of their environments. So improve the environment, improve the human.
I am your master.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby AutSider » Thu May 04, 2017 10:27 pm

With regards to economics, there's nothing really to argue anymore. We have a fundamental disagreement over what is the ultimate goal of a society. Mine is to make the society strong and functional, and since giving resources to unproductive people is dysfunctional, I will be against it by default. Basically, I value health/functionality of a society and anything that goes against it must be forbidden.

You seem to be perfectly fine with degenerates fucking your society up by creating degenerate art for other degenerates and spreading their degeneracy. Yes, degenerates will value degeneracy, just like scatophiles will value shit, doesn't mean I'm going to let them spread their filth and fuck the society up. . Degenerates should be purged from society. Yes, they will always exist, just like parasites, but that is no reason not to destroy them if they are clearly identified.

Inferior how? I never said nor implied that diversity as such is "good", what I said was that greater genetic diversity will give you better odds of producing a genius. But culture has a lot to do with it also.... an Einstein born in Sudan has basically zero chance of becoming the genius he should have been.

And what are these "certain qualities" you allude to?


The chance of an Einstein being born in Sudan is basically zero. Well not really, but very freaking close to it. Culture is expression of the group's genes.

As for what certain qualities I want to nurture and preserve, I'm a white nationalist, so whiteness and all that it entails. Specifically, strength, beauty, and intelligence.

A larger gene pool is good, but adding filth and slime just for the sake of increasing the size of the pool and "diversity" isn't good. Breed for certain qualities, yes, but not at the expense of identity.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby UrGod » Thu May 04, 2017 11:22 pm

The value of not making "degeneracy" the enemy of your social planning is that fighting degeneracy has a lot of unsolvable problems. For one thing, your understanding of what constitutes degeneracy is going to differ from the understanding of what constitutes degeneracy by other people, even other people who would be considered like-minded by you. Second, fighting degeneracy is a lot like fighting corruption in corporations or politics, in that it is a game of diminishing returns: yes you can make a substantial impact right away by funding anti-corruption or anti-degeneracy programs, but as you keep throwing more money and investment of time and resources at trying to eliminate what corruption or degeneracy remains it's going to become exponentially more expensive to remove the same unit of corruption or degeneracy.

Associated with this problem of diminishing returns is also the fact that you must sacrifice other values for the ability to combat degeneracy; for example you will need to sacrifice the values of free speech, free expression and free association, since plenty of speech, expressions and associations will be considered by you to be degenerate. Once you in principle violate these values it becomes a slippery slope to the erosion of the value entirely.

Another problem is that most people don't want to live in a society where the government has the kind of power to mandate speech, expressions and associations to the degree that would be required to "stamp out degeneracy". Most people would prefer to live in a society that values their freedom to choose for themselves what speech, expressions and associations they personally want to be around or not be around. Your sort of society would be highly draconian and authoritarian, requiring that the government determine what kinds of speech, expressions and associations are best for everyone to want to be around; the obvious logical problem with that is that these government mandated estimations of what people should want to be around or not are almost always going to be inaccurate to what a person really wants to be around or not.

A better way to form society is to center the legal principle as close as possible to the individual person who is going to be making determinations of value. I would prefer a society more formulated so that individual people have maximum personal freedoms but must also bear the consequences of their choices without offloading those consequences onto others; for example if someone wants to engage in some degenerate thing like making public vagnia egg art then they have every right to do so, but they are also required to pay any costs associated with doing that, such costs could include social ostracizing, ridicule, losing one's job, losing one's good friends who want nothing to do with someone who would engage in something that retarded, etc. In other words, a person who makes idiotic choices is going to be both already partly defined by idiocy as well as trending more toward idiocy in their future. That future trend of their life is the precise consequence of their present idiocy, and in my ideal world such people would be required to bear that cost directly. For example, if you decide to make vagina egg art rather than get a job, and you end up with no money, then you're not getting any social welfare at all. If you end up in the street dying of starvation that's pretty much the direct consequence of choosing to spend your life making shitty degenerate "art" rather than getting a real job of some kind.

When you make people bear the costs of their choices, and prevent them from offloading those costs to others, you get an immediate benefit to your society whereby people will start taking their choices more seriously, and the ones who don't will simply get weeded out naturally anyway. In terms of economics this makes obvious sense, but it also makes sense politically and culturally, because 1) you avoid the problem of ending up expending exponentially increasing amounts of resources trying to reach near perfect elimination of degeneracy, 2) you avoid the problem of differing and incompatible ideas of what constitutes degeneracy and what doesn't, 3) you avoid the problem of needing to give your government absolute authoritarian power over every little aspect of people's lives, which also means you avoid the problem of having a society in which almost everyone who lives in your society hates it there, and 4) you avoid the problem of people offloading the negative consequences of their bad decisions onto others.

Of course you get the new problem of "what happens if a large number of people start valuing degenerate stuff?", such as has arguably occurred in our modern western societies. I agree this is a problem. Ancient Greece and Rome had similar problems before their own ends. But we should examine the source of the problem. What causes it?

In short, success and wealth leads to apathy and degeneracy. Eating a lot of food makes you fat; having a lot of material comfort and luxury makes you mentally and emotionally fat (degenerate). This is just the way it is. It isn't the large size of our western societies that is the cause of degeneracy being such a problem, rather it is the fact that western societies are so successful that they lead to larger societies (larger in terms of people, wealth, production, ideas, technological power, material comforts) as well as to the general trend to degeneracy that also comes with that success.

Another thing to consider is that a lot of degeneracy is simply people experimenting with the limits of meaning and value. Teenagers do this, and so do adults. Some people do it more than others. There are significant personality differences with regard to traits such as openness to experience and orderliness that go a long way in determining to what degree a person will experience with pushing against and transgressing the limits of accepted-established categories of meaning and value. And not all such experimentation is inherently bad, in fact a lot of it is quite beneficial and productive in the long run, since by doing it we learn about the limit and what is on the other side of the limit, thereby better understanding the purpose of the limit itself. Creative discovery involves some destruction, and true philosophy involves some transgression of your own accepted categories of meaning and value. A lot of people experiment with some degeneracy for a while and then abandon it for a more 'conservative' position, now having gained personal experience with both sides of the limit. Such a person and their choices will be a lot more informed than those people who never risked transgressing their own 'moral' standards.

But I agree with you that the degeneracy of modern societies in the west has reached a dangerous level. I'm in favor of doing something about it, but the question is what to do that would really fix the problem without making things a lot worse in other ways.

Another thing to consider is that maybe it's a natural process where civilizations peak in power and degeneracy and then decline, making way for another civilization that is a step higher on the continuum of being but will also ultimately track that same progression; Ancient Greek city-states, to Rome, to Medieval Europe, to America and colonial Europe, for example, all represent more or less this kind of explosion and then erosion progression, with one civilization as it declines gifting a lot of its progress and values to the next.
I am your master.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby AutSider » Fri May 05, 2017 12:51 am

I never said the ultimate goal is to eliminate degeneracy completely, but to have a healthy, functional society. In order to do that degeneracy has to be reduced to manageable levels, basically to the point where, as you say, diminishing returns would occur and seeking out more degeneracy to destroy would not be worth it. People will have different ideas of what degeneracy is, true - more accurately, some people will have false ones. Degeneracy is, simply put, dysfunctional behavior. Another way to put it in terms of physics is that it is behavior which results in a greater energy expenditure than it produces/contributes to society, in terms of biology, unfit behavior in relation to the standards of nature and natural selection, behavior contradicting the production of high quality/quantity offspring.

Associated with this problem of diminishing returns is also the fact that you must sacrifice other values for the ability to combat degeneracy; for example you will need to sacrifice the values of free speech, free expression and free association, since plenty of speech, expressions and associations will be considered by you to be degenerate.


Indeed, I do not value free speech, I value true speech, and even then, some true speech can be damaging as well. Nobody really values free speech, people just say they do because they've been taught it's a good thing so they virtue signal that they're good and open-minded (I'll hear out your bullshit if you hear out mine).
An example of how lies can be damaging - an adult tells a child to drop an electric device in a pool full of people because it will give them happy feelings. The child proceeds to do it and kills these people. Are you in favor of such free speech?
An example of how even true speech can be damaging - A pedophile has found out effective methods to abuse children while evading the law. Should he be free to share his methods with other pedophiles by freely talking about them? If he presents them in a PDF format on internet, and you have the opportunity to destroy them, thus preventing other pedophiles using these true methods and abusing children, would you do so?

So no, FUCK your free speech, FUCK the freedom to be degenerate and destructive. If you want to be destructive, be destructive to the enemy, not to your own society. You should be promoting this degeneracy in an enemy society you want to conquer, to soften them up, not in your own society... unless you want to be conquered, that is, or if you accept being conquered as a cost to your... "freedom".

Another problem is that most people don't want to live in a society where the government has the kind of power to mandate speech, expressions and associations to the degree that would be required to "stamp out degeneracy". Most people would prefer to live in a society that values their freedom to choose for themselves what speech, expressions and associations they personally want to be around or not be around.


Isn't that pretty much how most societies through history have been? This retarded idea of freedom and free speech is a new, Jewy concept, possibly (IMO very probably) invented to weaken the society in which it is implemented.

Your sort of society would be highly draconian and authoritarian


Damn right.



A better way to form society is to center the legal principle as close as possible to the individual person who is going to be making determinations of value. I would prefer a society more formulated so that individual people have maximum personal freedoms but must also bear the consequences of their choices without offloading those consequences onto others; for example if someone wants to engage in some degenerate thing like making public vagnia egg art then they have every right to do so, but they are also required to pay any costs associated with doing that, such costs could include social ostracizing, ridicule, losing one's job, losing one's good friends who want nothing to do with someone who would engage in something that retarded, etc. In other words, a person who makes idiotic choices is going to be both already partly defined by idiocy as well as trending more toward idiocy in their future. That future trend of their life is the precise consequence of their present idiocy, and in my ideal world such people would be required to bear that cost directly. For example, if you decide to make vagina egg art rather than get a job, and you end up with no money, then you're not getting any social welfare at all. If you end up in the street dying of starvation that's pretty much the direct consequence of choosing to spend your life making shitty degenerate "art" rather than getting a real job of some kind.

When you make people bear the costs of their choices, and prevent them from offloading those costs to others, you get an immediate benefit to your society whereby people will start taking their choices more seriously, and the ones who don't will simply get weeded out naturally anyway. In terms of economics this makes obvious sense, but it also makes sense politically and culturally, because 1) you avoid the problem of ending up expending exponentially increasing amounts of resources trying to reach near perfect elimination of degeneracy, 2) you avoid the problem of differing and incompatible ideas of what constitutes degeneracy and what doesn't, 3) you avoid the problem of needing to give your government absolute authoritarian power over every little aspect of people's lives, which also means you avoid the problem of having a society in which almost everyone who lives in your society hates it there, and 4) you avoid the problem of people offloading the negative consequences of their bad decisions onto others.


You have a fundamental misunderstanding about the very nature of a society. The purpose of a society is to increase internal cooperation resulting in synergy, and for this purpose it must decrease internal competition and direct it externally - towards other societies. So a society by its very nature will fail to force an individual to fully face the costs of his/her actions, since internal competition (natural selection) is forbidden to express itself fully. The kind of society you advocate will ESPECIALLY fail to do so because you literally advocate for freedom of people to be degenerate, aka, people should be permitted to behave in degenerate (naturally unfit ways) and this right of theirs should be enforced by police/military. If you permit people to choose the path of least resistance (degeneracy), that's exactly what you'll get, and they'll simply become parasitic on others by manipulating sympathy (charity) and the inherent flaws in your system which enable them to obtain resources whilst not doing anything useful, or possibly even by doing something that is detrimental.

This is why measures taken against degenerates must be active (since the degenerates themselves are actively fucking things up), not passive. That is why I argue for executions. Why should not an execution be considered the cost for degeneracy?

And let's not forget that since the society which enables degeneracy bears the extra burden of useless/destructive degenerates, ceteris paribus it will be less fit to compete with other societies which do not enable degeneracy, so although WITHIN society natural selection (competition) is reduced/postponed, these competitive energies don't and can't disappear - they are just are redirected to conflict BETWEEN different societies instead of between individual organisms, so the society which enables and permits degeneracy is more likely to be conquered.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby UrGod » Fri May 05, 2017 2:27 am

AutSider wrote:I never said the ultimate goal is to eliminate degeneracy completely, but to have a healthy, functional society. In order to do that degeneracy has to be reduced to manageable levels, basically to the point where, as you say, diminishing returns would occur and seeking out more degeneracy to destroy would not be worth it. People will have different ideas of what degeneracy is, true - more accurately, some people will have false ones. Degeneracy is, simply put, dysfunctional behavior. Another way to put it in terms of physics is that it is behavior which results in a greater energy expenditure than it produces/contributes to society, in terms of biology, unfit behavior in relation to the standards of nature and natural selection, behavior contradicting the production of high quality/quantity offspring.


Thanks for your reply, I can tell you have thought about this a lot. So have I.

The only problem I have with any of this is that it is not always easily apparent if a behavior, or idea, or product is going to end up being net beneficial or not. You have to wait a while to see the effects of some things, and to determine if there is a gain of functionality or dysfunctionality. Often things result in gains on either side, an easy example of that is the internet, which is used both to increase functionality and to increase dysfunctionality. This relates to the problem of valuation which I mentioned in my previous post: values comes from individuals, because to say "x is of value" is also and necessarily to say "x is of value to whom and why", and it is only possible to impose universal values upon everyone in a society to the extent that those values are indeed as universal as possible. Imagine trying to enforce a value like which fruit drink is better or healthier, and making a law which stipulates that only that kind of drink can be consumed while other kinds may not be consumed because they are less efficient in producing bodily health; such laws assume that the only reason drinks ought to be consumed or are consumed is for nutrition, which is clearly a false assumption. And if such laws think they can change human nature, biology and psychology into making people only care about nutrition and not, for example, also about taste or personal idiosyncratic preference, then such laws are deeply irrational (unfounded in reality).

I am in full support of a society that enforces certain universal values, but only a minimum number of such values and only those which are indeed most universal, and only because it is necessary to enforce them like that at least sufficiently; if you enforced no values at all then a society wouldn't even exist, you would have some sort of anarchic non-society which is also irrational. But then on the other side, if you enforce too many values and values that are not truly universal then you end up with another kind of irrationality. It is a game of trying to balance both sides in the middle, which is never going to be perfect; it is a gray area, and this fact bothers a lot of people who want things to be black and white, either/or.

Associated with this problem of diminishing returns is also the fact that you must sacrifice other values for the ability to combat degeneracy; for example you will need to sacrifice the values of free speech, free expression and free association, since plenty of speech, expressions and associations will be considered by you to be degenerate.


Indeed, I do not value free speech, I value true speech, and even then, some true speech can be damaging as well. Nobody really values free speech, people just say they do because they've been taught it's a good thing so they virtue signal that they're good and open-minded (I'll hear out your bullshit if you hear out mine).
An example of how lies can be damaging - an adult tells a child to drop an electric device in a pool full of people because it will give them happy feelings. The child proceeds to do it and kills these people. Are you in favor of such free speech?
An example of how even true speech can be damaging - A pedophile has found out effective methods to abuse children while evading the law. Should he be free to share his methods with other pedophiles by freely talking about them? If he presents them in a PDF format on internet, and you have the opportunity to destroy them, thus preventing other pedophiles using these true methods and abusing children, would you do so?

So no, FUCK your free speech, FUCK the freedom to be degenerate and destructive. If you want to be destructive, be destructive to the enemy, not to your own society. You should be promoting this degeneracy in an enemy society you want to conquer, to soften them up, not in your own society... unless you want to be conquered, that is, or if you accept being conquered as a cost to your... "freedom".


Yes, I anticipated this response. I could tell that you probably dislike freedom and the idea of legally guaranteed political rights to free speech.

You should note that most conceptions of free speech, including mine, do not include into "free speech" statements like telling a child to drop a radio into a pool. The idea of freedom of speech is a rational principle that is delimited by another rational principle, namely not to cause harm/death to others. It is the case that both of these principles are at work, with the principle of freedom of speech/expression/association being the general case and then admitting exceptions where situations contradict the other principle of not causing harm/death to others. But again, some people are unable to handle the level of subtlety of two conflicting principles interacting like that on a case by case basis, they would rather have a metaphysical/religious sort of Perfect Approach that admits of no exceptions at all -- a kind of Kantian Categorical Imperative. The problem is, not only does life, societies and human beings not work that way, but even reason and logic themselves do not work that way. Ontology isn't about metaphysical-religious certitude and Oneness, rather ontology is about competing and cooperating beings and attributes of beings taking place within contexts of finite resources, including finite space and time parameters. It is simply not possible for any kind of Kantian CI to exist. Conflict, exceptions, case by case examination are always going to be needed, because there exist a plethora of rational principles that are not possible to be brought into some kind of divine perfect alignment with each other wherein every principle gets to enjoy itself without any exceptions.

So if we stipulate that a society which values freedom of speech/expression/association should also be a society that has limits around those freedoms, namely when they would come into conflict with another rational principle, how much would you agree that having the legal-political structure of a society enshrine a right to freedoms in the general case is a good thing, again provided that in certain specific cases there are clear exceptions where we do not enjoy that right to freedom?

As for true speech, I agree with you. And I also know that the only way to arrive at the ability to have true speech is to allow for freedom of speech, so that truths can ultimately be ascertained. It takes a long time and a lot of trial and error, many mistakes and bad ideas, before we are able to finally arrive at something true. Why is this? Because we are not born with perfect clarity of vision, thought, or knowledge, and we must TEST everything out in a kind of warfare of ideas and concepts, which war takes place in the domain of discourse, as dialogue both internal and external. Without establishing a situation wherein the free and open exchange of ideas is permitted, there would be no way to arrive at truths because there would be no way to test anything.

It isn't bad that people have false ideas. What is bad is when people do not examine those false ideas and improve them over time. In fact, everyone, including you, has had false ideas at one point and continues to have some false ideas. It is inevitable because we are not divinely perfect minds with divinely perfect access to divinely perfect information. We all are somewhere in the middle and ought to be doing as best we can to gradually improve the quality of our ideas over time, which is what philosophy is for.

So to sum up this point, and then I will let you reply, I do not value freedom intrinsically, I do not think freedom is inherently valuable for its own sake, rather I think that freedom is valuable as a means to an end: freedom is a high means to the even higher end of truth. And this is not only important because the individual such as you or I wants to know truth, but because we want society in general to be made out of a large number of people who share dialogue amongst each other which is truthful. And if there is a difficulty for the individual to discover truths, which difficulty is in part that this process of discovery requires first having a lot of illusions and errors that must be overcome, then this same problem is even more so the case for multiple individuals together in shared social dialogue with each other.

Another problem is that most people don't want to live in a society where the government has the kind of power to mandate speech, expressions and associations to the degree that would be required to "stamp out degeneracy". Most people would prefer to live in a society that values their freedom to choose for themselves what speech, expressions and associations they personally want to be around or not be around.


Isn't that pretty much how most societies through history have been? This retarded idea of freedom and free speech is a new, Jewy concept, possibly (IMO very probably) invented to weaken the society in which it is implemented.


Yes, I agree that most societies have never had a political-legal guarantee of freedom of speech, expression, or association. And I would not wish to live in such a society. And again, freedom of speech is neither absolute nor a "for its own sake" sort of value; it is a general value that admits of exceptions, and it is a value because it is a means to the ends of even higher values, including your stated value of social cohesion and efficiency.

Freedom is really a double-edged sword, but then again so is life itself. Anything real and powerful is going to cut both ways -- a knife or a gun or a fist can be used either to defend life or take life, machinery can be used to either build something or tear it down. The difference between you and me seems to be that I do not shun away from this contradiction of the double-edged nature of such things as freedom, rather I embrace this as part of the ongoing and active struggle in which outcomes are determined and truths discovered. I accept that life, human society, human individuals, and even the world and nature/reality itself is 'imperfect', because I reject the notion of a Universal Perfect God, either as an actual deity or simply as a logical principle. In other words, fuck Kant and his whole moral project.

Your sort of society would be highly draconian and authoritarian


Damn right.


Again, I anticipated this response. I won't add anything here, since no matter what I could say about the terrible nature of draconian authoritarian societies it is certain you will simply bite the bullet and act as if you like those things. And who knows, maybe you have even convinced yourself that you really do like them and would want to live in such a place.



A better way to form society is to center the legal principle as close as possible to the individual person who is going to be making determinations of value. I would prefer a society more formulated so that individual people have maximum personal freedoms but must also bear the consequences of their choices without offloading those consequences onto others; for example if someone wants to engage in some degenerate thing like making public vagnia egg art then they have every right to do so, but they are also required to pay any costs associated with doing that, such costs could include social ostracizing, ridicule, losing one's job, losing one's good friends who want nothing to do with someone who would engage in something that retarded, etc. In other words, a person who makes idiotic choices is going to be both already partly defined by idiocy as well as trending more toward idiocy in their future. That future trend of their life is the precise consequence of their present idiocy, and in my ideal world such people would be required to bear that cost directly. For example, if you decide to make vagina egg art rather than get a job, and you end up with no money, then you're not getting any social welfare at all. If you end up in the street dying of starvation that's pretty much the direct consequence of choosing to spend your life making shitty degenerate "art" rather than getting a real job of some kind.

When you make people bear the costs of their choices, and prevent them from offloading those costs to others, you get an immediate benefit to your society whereby people will start taking their choices more seriously, and the ones who don't will simply get weeded out naturally anyway. In terms of economics this makes obvious sense, but it also makes sense politically and culturally, because 1) you avoid the problem of ending up expending exponentially increasing amounts of resources trying to reach near perfect elimination of degeneracy, 2) you avoid the problem of differing and incompatible ideas of what constitutes degeneracy and what doesn't, 3) you avoid the problem of needing to give your government absolute authoritarian power over every little aspect of people's lives, which also means you avoid the problem of having a society in which almost everyone who lives in your society hates it there, and 4) you avoid the problem of people offloading the negative consequences of their bad decisions onto others.


You have a fundamental misunderstanding about the very nature of a society. The purpose of a society is to increase internal cooperation resulting in synergy, and for this purpose it must decrease internal competition and direct it externally - towards other societies.


I disagree, because competition is not unhealthy, rather competition (and cooperation) is the basis of everything. You have both competition-as-cooperation and cooperation-as-competition, and every aspect and area and level of life, world, and being are constituted by this kind of dynamic struggle and duality, this kind of ontological irreducibility. However, in general of course I agree with you that a society should try to increase internal cooperation resulting in synergy, as much as possible while not fatally sacrificing other values and concerns. But this isn't the only purpose of a society, nor is it a purpose that trumps everything else, as if "perfect efficiency of energy use" or however you want to formulate that were the only Telos of human existence. No, it is far more complex than this, there are, again, many competing forces, values, ideas, meanings, and truths. You don't get to just pick one line of these and establish that no others ought to exist; well I mean you can do that if you want to, but it would be irrational (not in conformity with the way reality really is) to do so.


So a society by its very nature will fail to force an individual to fully face the costs of his/her actions, since internal competition (natural selection) is forbidden to express itself fully. The kind of society you advocate will ESPECIALLY fail to do so because you literally advocate for freedom of people to be degenerate, aka, people should be permitted to behave in degenerate (naturally unfit ways) and this right of theirs should be enforced by police/military. If you permit people to choose the path of least resistance (degeneracy), that's exactly what you'll get, and they'll simply become parasitic on others by manipulating sympathy (charity) and the inherent flaws in your system which enable them to obtain resources whilst not doing anything useful, or possibly even by doing something that is detrimental.


Degeneracy is only the path of least resistance for degenerate people. For the rest of us, functionality, strength, nobility, and truth are far easier than degeneracy. I do not base my values upon what things are like for degenerate people, rather the opposite.

And yes, people should have some political-legal capacity to act in degenerate ways, for all of the reasons I have already been discussing here. But that capacity cannot be absolute (obviously), and must be carefully contained in important ways. The problem with society today is that it has suffered a blow to the mechanisms by which it naturally contained-limited the capacity of people to be degenerate. Most of this blow is due to the infestation of communist/leftist ideology, which came over from the USSR in the early-mid 20th century and is still haunting us today even though there is no longer a USSR left. Marxism is a scourge upon humanity, and it is because of Marxism (and its natural affinity for totalitarian, authoritarian systems and people, and their natural affinity for Marxism) that we see such degeneracy around us today.

This is why measures taken against degenerates must be active (since the degenerates themselves are actively fucking things up), not passive. That is why I argue for executions. Why should not an execution be considered the cost for degeneracy?


I'm not opposed to executions. And yes sometimes you need active measures against degenerates. But, again, this is about balancing out differing rational principles against each other, weighing pros and cons, finding a subtler balance in the middle. I know you want to forsake that subtlety in order to have no balance at all and just enforce a rigid authoritarianism in terms of how you see valuation and what is or is not degeneracy, but what I am saying to you is that not only would implementing that be impossible (because that is not how reality works), and not only would it not work (because that is not how reality works) even if you could implement it, but even if you did it and it somehow worked out, as soon as one or two generations down the line someone else comes into power in the authoritarian system they will simply use what you have created to enforce different values than your own. This is the inevitable problem with authoritarianism (communism is just another form of authoritarianism, by the way), that even if you get the most wise and rational person to be in charge it is only a short matter of time until someone new is in charge and uses that authority for totally different, perverse, and yes degenerate purposes.

And let's not forget that since the society which enables degeneracy bears the extra burden of useless/destructive degenerates, ceteris paribus it will be less fit to compete with other societies which do not enable degeneracy, so although WITHIN society natural selection (competition) is reduced/postponed, these competitive energies don't and can't disappear - they are just are redirected to conflict BETWEEN different societies instead of between individual organisms, so the society which enables and permits degeneracy is more likely to be conquered.


The problem with this idea is that today the societies which we could deem to be more fit are actually those societies which tolerate and sustain the most degeneracy within them -- namely the United States and European countries. As I said before, the power and scope of a society, its rise and "fitness", tends to go hand in hand with rising degeneracy. That doesn't mean it must always be like this, or has always been like this, only that there is a logical relationship between fitness and allowable/tolerable degeneracy; namely, that degeneracy is a kind of excess and remainder upon fitness, which fitness can tolerate up to a point.

But here we also run into another deeper problem which has not come up yet: the problem of the fact that degeneracy is not only subject at least a little bit to personal perspective and interpretation but even more significantly that there are different kinds of degeneracy. Degeneracy as a concept or as a word is insufficient to explain itself, because not only are there different scopes/quantities of degeneracy but there are also different kinds/qualities of degeneracy. The United States might have an extremely high amount of a certain kind of degeneracy while having a relatively lower amount of a different kind of degeneracy, compared to someplace more authoritarian like China or Saudi Arabia for example. This is a serious problem that will ultimately prove fatal to your theorizing, because your use of the concept/term 'degeneracy' does not yet admit of this fact of the differences in both degree and kind (unless you can redefine or elaborate the concept/word 'degeneracy' in such a way that explains and includes these different degrees and kinds, so that when you say something like "X society has more degeneracy than Y society" you will actually know precisely what you mean (you would not therefore be hiding a fact like how X society may have more of one kind of degeneracy but less of another kind of degeneracy than does Y society)).
I am your master.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby Pandora » Fri May 05, 2017 8:19 am

Live in order to survive or survive in order to live?
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3839
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby AutSider » Sun May 07, 2017 4:44 pm

Void

The only problem I have with any of this is that it is not always easily apparent if a behavior, or idea, or product is going to end up being net beneficial or not.


True, there are same borderline cases where it's difficult to determine if something truly is degenerate or not, and then another cases which we already mentioned when the degenerate thing is so irrelevant it wouldn't be worth it to pursue its destruction. I'm not perfect myself, but unlike many others I know at least I recognize some of my shortcomings and seek to correct them when I can.

However, sometimes degeneracy is very easy to spot.

Image

INTO THE OVENS WITH ALL OF THEM

Yes, I anticipated this response. I could tell that you probably dislike freedom and the idea of legally guaranteed political rights to free speech.

You should note that most conceptions of free speech, including mine, do not include into "free speech" statements like telling a child to drop a radio into a pool. The idea of freedom of speech is a rational principle that is delimited by another rational principle, namely not to cause harm/death to others.


Yeah, and I anticipated the typical classical liberal/libertarian response of "freedom of speech until it causes harm/death to others", or "until it incites violence against actual person/s". The thing is, just because some claim doesn't cause immediate harm, like lying about electricity and then immediately after dropping an electric device into the pool, doesn't mean it isn't harmful and doesn't cause death in future, or prevent birth. Saying that the sexes are equal is such a claim which has destructive consequences when adopted and practiced in reality (destroying sexual dynamics between the sexes -> diminishing possibility of healthy relationship -> destroying the family unit, which is the basis of society -> lower quality/quantity of children, birthrates below sustenance rates (<2.0) -> death of society) and it is also an obviously false claim so there truly is no reason at all to permit its expression.

Basically my goal would be to create a society which has built in measures against self-destruction in future, this means some pretty strict principles have to be imposed on the population. I am fine with that, it's not perfect but it's better than pretending to value freedom only to then let yourself be infiltrated by all sorts of filth who justify themselves by appealing to the "freedom" of expression and action you give them. While I'm aware of the downsides of an "authoritarian, draconian" society, if it is set up the Reich way I am willing to accept that lack of freedom and a no mercy policy towards opposition as a price to be paid for having a healthy, strong, functioning society.

I disagree, because competition is not unhealthy, rather competition (and cooperation) is the basis of everything


Again I don't think you quite understand what I mean by competition. In order to exist society necessarily must limit internal competition, it must impose order violently, and people are then allowed to compete within the restrictions determined by the system. Competition is good, yes, but it's not good when it's taken to the extreme and applied out of context (inappropriately), just like cooperation. Anyway, it's also worth mentioning that cooperation exists only within the larger scale of competition - entities cooperate in order to compete more successfully.

Degeneracy is only the path of least resistance for degenerate people. For the rest of us, functionality, strength, nobility, and truth are far easier than degeneracy. I do not base my values upon what things are like for degenerate people, rather the opposite.


If you don't fight against it actively degeneracy grows and spreads simply because it is easier, as I said, path of least resistance, and thus most people will choose it over non-degeneracy/health if the environment is right (if they are given the choice to do so without bearing the full consequences of their behavior). The rest of us, who value functionality, strength, and nobility, are a minority. I would say that for this reason it is our task and duty to impose our will upon the masses. Not purely for their sake, but for our sake too - to avoid the constant contamination degeneracy brings with it.

I'm not opposed to executions. And yes sometimes you need active measures against degenerates. But, again, this is about balancing out differing rational principles against each other, weighing pros and cons, finding a subtler balance in the middle. I know you want to forsake that subtlety in order to have no balance at all and just enforce a rigid authoritarianism in terms of how you see valuation and what is or is not degeneracy, but what I am saying to you is that not only would implementing that be impossible (because that is not how reality works), and not only would it not work (because that is not how reality works) even if you could implement it, but even if you did it and it somehow worked out, as soon as one or two generations down the line someone else comes into power in the authoritarian system they will simply use what you have created to enforce different values than your own. This is the inevitable problem with authoritarianism (communism is just another form of authoritarianism, by the way)


It did work. Third Reich worked. Fascist Italy worked. Ceteris paribus these were the most powerful countries at the time.

It took the entire world to defeat them and Japan and even then the allies suffered more than twice the military casualties even though they won the war:

Image

That is precisely why all European, more precisely, WHITE nationalist movements are now shunned by Jews, while other races can take pride in their own and Jews' Zionism is deemed good. They saw the power of the white man. They know what we can do and how functional and powerful we can become with an authoritarian, nationalist movement that cuts degeneracy in its roots, and they are doing their all in terms of brainwashing and propaganda to stop us from doing it once again.

Image

The greatest problem is this part:
even if you did it and it somehow worked out, as soon as one or two generations down the line someone else comes into power in the authoritarian system they will simply use what you have created to enforce different values than your own.


This is why I'm saying that the system needs to have in built unchangeable principles, to prevent this sort of stuff from happening.

The problem with this idea is that today the societies which we could deem to be more fit are actually those societies which tolerate and sustain the most degeneracy within them -- namely the United States and European countries. As I said before, the power and scope of a society, its rise and "fitness", tends to go hand in hand with rising degeneracy. That doesn't mean it must always be like this, or has always been like this, only that there is a logical relationship between fitness and allowable/tolerable degeneracy; namely, that degeneracy is a kind of excess and remainder upon fitness, which fitness can tolerate up to a point


USA and Europe as they are, are going to shit. I already gave some examples of fit societies which shun degeneracy - Third Reich, Fascist Italy. Maybe they weren't perfect, but they were a decent enough example.

Degeneracy can be fought, it's not that hard to do it physically, the most difficult part is overcoming memetic indoctrination which you are still obviously struggling with.

ut here we also run into another deeper problem which has not come up yet: the problem of the fact that degeneracy is not only subject at least a little bit to personal perspective and interpretation but even more significantly that there are different kinds of degeneracy. Degeneracy as a concept or as a word is insufficient to explain itself, because not only are there different scopes/quantities of degeneracy but there are also different kinds/qualities of degeneracy.


That is only a problem if you have no ultimate baseline, aka a guiding principle.

My guiding principle is the modified version of the 14 words - existence of our people and a future for white children - high quantity and quality of white people. This is not up to interpretation. The number of people, or how strong and intelligent they are, isn't up to interpretation at all. Another quality which I value, beauty, might be said to be up to interpretation to an extent, but in the end we all know which one of these is beautiful, and which isn't, regardless of how much we pretend it's all mysterious. Even if it is subjective, apparently almost all of us, like 99% (all of us who are healthy is another way of putting it) instinctively know what is beautiful, and what isn't, so let's not bullshit each other:

Image

Image


Your appeals to moderacy, carefulness, skepticism, etc. are nice and all, but you don't understand what kind of extreme sickness and degeneracy we are dealing with atm. You cannot argue with it reasonably, and pretending as if such filth is on our level is, in my mind, equivalent to conceding defeat and means you've already lost. I mean, these people will, with a straight face, tell you such extreme and obvious bullshit as "all races and sexes are equal and should be treated equally".

How about this (idea loosely based on awesome political spectrum I read about in Daily Stormer which I can't find anymore):

Extreme leftist position: Equality between kikes, whites, and niggers and sandniggers
Moderate left: Kikes expelled from white countries, niggers and sandniggers made into slaves, whites the superior master race
The most moderate of moderates (centrist): Race war now, gas the kikes
Moderate right: Persecute every living nigger, sand nigger and kike, and torture them before killing them
Extreme right: Persecute every living nigger, sand nigger and kike torture them before killing them, then build cloning factories, clone niggers, sand niggers and Jews only to torture and kill them all over again until the end of times

I mean, if that's how the Overton Window was framed, sure I would be a moderate centrist, fuck I'd even be willing to compromise and settle for the moderate left position and I'd agree that both of the extremes are a bit excessive.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby captaincrunk » Mon May 08, 2017 5:02 am

Void_X_Zero wrote:Sex is almost the most meaningful, valuable thing we humans can experience.

This explains a lot about your philosophy.
captaincrunk
BANNED
 
Posts: 2394
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon May 08, 2017 7:19 am

Void can't get laid. Sex is like a beer, or a candy bar or a bite to eat. You just get it and move on with your day. Maybe like a back rub, or something like that. Dude's a little backed up it seems. Probably because he's got such controversial political opinions that he can't be cool and keep to himself, so bitches think he's weird. Very sad.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 24691
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby Pandora » Mon May 08, 2017 8:33 am

Yeah, and I anticipated the typical classical liberal/libertarian response of "freedom of speech until it causes harm/death to others", or "until it incites violence against actual person/s". The thing is, just because some claim doesn't cause immediate harm, like lying about electricity and then immediately after dropping an electric device into the pool, doesn't mean it isn't harmful and doesn't cause death in future, or prevent birth.

Hate speech is also protected under 1st Amendment (in US), even if it's racist, anti-semitic, or homophobic.
(It becomes hate crime when it turns to physical action, or imminent lawless action, or contains "true threat")

Brandenburg v. Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenbu ... on_test.29
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V29rN-5FoDU
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3839
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby UrGod » Mon May 08, 2017 8:47 am

captaincrunk wrote:
Void_X_Zero wrote:Sex is almost the most meaningful, valuable thing we humans can experience.

This explains a lot about your philosophy.


Pretty funny when I see someone deny that sex is a meaningful part of human experience. Guess the 99.99999% of people for whom this is true don't particularly matter to you? Just because you're castrated doesn't mean everyone else is.
I am your master.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby captaincrunk » Mon May 08, 2017 8:57 pm

Void_X_Zero wrote:
captaincrunk wrote:
Void_X_Zero wrote:Sex is almost the most meaningful, valuable thing we humans can experience.

This explains a lot about your philosophy.


Pretty funny when I see someone deny that sex is a meaningful part of human experience. Guess the 99.99999% of people for whom this is true don't particularly matter to you? Just because you're castrated doesn't mean everyone else is.

Lol. Castrated? As long as we are throwing shit on the wall, how many gerbils have you sexed to death lately?

At any rate, sure sex is nice and often meaningful. But to say something so pathetic as "sex is the most meaningful, valuable experience" sure does cheapen everything else you will ever say.
captaincrunk
BANNED
 
Posts: 2394
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby UrGod » Tue May 09, 2017 3:35 am

captaincrunk wrote:At any rate, sure sex is nice and often meaningful. But to say something so pathetic as "sex is the most meaningful, valuable experience" sure does cheapen everything else you will ever say.



Pretty good thing that I never said that, then, isn't it?

You're a fucking clown who can't even quote correctly. Shows you don't care one fuck what you're talking about.

Congrats. You're retarded.
I am your master.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby captaincrunk » Tue May 09, 2017 5:42 am

Void_X_Zero wrote:
captaincrunk wrote:At any rate, sure sex is nice and often meaningful. But to say something so pathetic as "sex is the most meaningful, valuable experience" sure does cheapen everything else you will ever say.



Pretty good thing that I never said that, then, isn't it?

You're a fucking clown who can't even quote correctly. Shows you don't care one fuck what you're talking about.

Congrats. You're retarded.

You literally said it. And I suppose you are right about one thing, I do not give any fucks about you. lol!
captaincrunk
BANNED
 
Posts: 2394
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby UrGod » Wed May 10, 2017 2:41 am

captaincrunk wrote:
Void_X_Zero wrote:
captaincrunk wrote:At any rate, sure sex is nice and often meaningful. But to say something so pathetic as "sex is the most meaningful, valuable experience" sure does cheapen everything else you will ever say.



Pretty good thing that I never said that, then, isn't it?

You're a fucking clown who can't even quote correctly. Shows you don't care one fuck what you're talking about.

Congrats. You're retarded.

You literally said it. And I suppose you are right about one thing, I do not give any fucks about you. lol!


I wrote:Sex is almost the most meaningful, valuable thing we humans can experience.


Wrong.
I am your master.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby captaincrunk » Sat May 13, 2017 5:19 am

Splitting hairs there chump
captaincrunk
BANNED
 
Posts: 2394
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby Amorphos » Sat May 13, 2017 6:44 pm

True, there are same borderline cases where it's difficult to determine if something truly is degenerate or not, and then another cases which we already mentioned when the degenerate thing is so irrelevant it wouldn't be worth it to pursue its destruction. I'm not perfect myself, but unlike many others I know at least I recognize some of my shortcomings and seek to correct them when I can.

However, sometimes degeneracy is very easy to spot.



INTO THE OVENS WITH ALL OF THEM


Really! Thing is e.g. communism or commune based living existed long before the Jews became a state from a collection of tribes. Are you going to put all those tribes [Persians, arabs and Europeans [e.g. Palestinians have italic/greek genes mixed with those of the lavant] into the ovens? People want freedom and that’s not something the Jews have any right to appropriate, or for you to say that those things [feminism, anarchism etc] belong to them.


It did work. Third Reich worked. Fascist Italy worked.


They used up the money gained from capitalism and the banks [the jews - to them] and then ran out and failed. Secondly they failed because people want freedom and so reacted to nazism with force and destroyed it. You could take the jews completely out of the equation and all of that would still have happened, after all we didn’t know the nazis were mass killing until later - after the war had started. It wasn’t the idea of jews being cast out of germany and/or killed, which prompted us too fight them, it was them. We know what people like that are like, because we have had enough of similarly minded individuals. We have been fighting them since the peasant revolt, and the american and french revolutions, and throughout history.

All people like you are doing is giving the jews possession of everything we have fought for. Well done, that’s like handing them a gun and saying shoot me lol.

_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retard

Postby Gloominary » Wed May 31, 2017 11:10 pm

Strong and smart men tend to create good times for, themselves, their kith and kin, at least in the short term, cause what goes up, tends to come down sooner or later.
Strong and smart men tend to create bad times for others.

You don't need austerity to produce strength and smarts, in fact, I would say austerity produces the opposite, cause the worse your environment is, the less nutrients you'll have, the more toxins you'll have, the more genetic mutations will occur, and mutations are almost always bad.

Hard times also tend to produce primitive, physical and instinctual organisms, that have to mature quickly, where as soft times tend to produce advanced, psychological and intellectual organisms, that can take their time maturing.

The strong and smart will still do better than the weak and dumb during good times, cause even if there's less threats killing the weak and dumb off, there'll even be less threats killing the strong and the smart off, cause they'll be able to avoid them even better, and have the time and energy to find ever more ways to maximize the quantity and quality of their offspring, and if they don't do this, well then they weren't very strong or smart to begin with, or their strength and smarts were relative to austere environments.

But if it doesn't pay to be strong and smart, than why be strong and smart?
If machines do all the work, we can afford to get dumber and weaker, so long as this doesn't affect survival/procreation, and as soon as it does, again the weak an dumb will tend to be weeded out.

Now if the strong and smart start caring for the dumb and weak, to the point where it begins significantly compromising societies survival as a whole, than this is rather dumb, and either the strong and smart weren't all that strong and smart to begin with, or they've been temporarily deceived somehow, perhaps their emotions under these circumstances have overcome their reason to their detriment, and maybe that is occurring presently, and maybe it can be corrected.

Is that what's occurring today?
Difficult to say.
Are people with severe mental and physical deficits being taken care of today more than yore?
I would say probably, but perhaps the smart and strong are also being taken better care of, and so these two things cancel one another out.
It would be interesting for a sociologist to really look into this in detail, do some investigating.

Myself I'm not a mean person, unless necessary, I wouldn't advocate killing cripples and retards cause their useless, anymore than I'd advocate killing dogs and cats cause they're useless, but at the same time, if the mediocre and superior are at risk of being overtaken by the inferior, than something has to be done, like forced sterilization, or contractual sterilization (if you want permanent disability/welfare, than you have to get sterilized first), or forced one child policies, or contractual one child policies policies.

But who is superior?
If you're rich, or a rich capitalist, does that make you superior?
It doesn't necessarily, althou the rich tend to be a little smarter on average, and some of this can probably be attributed to genetics, it doesn't guarantee anything, and it certainly doesn't make you or your activity more benevolent.
The capitalist class has profited off of nature's, and in many cases, societies expense.
I don't think the rich should automatically be deemed superior, if you own casinos, or have shares in fast food or arguably the pharmaceutical industry, or you're selfish, stupid and inherited your selfless, smart grandpas money, than you too might be just as or more parasitical than a disabled/welfare person.

I think if we are too target anyone, we ought to target the underclass, not for extermination, cause that'd be unnecessarily cruel and many people of all classes would rebel, but for regulation of their birthrates, cause I'm pretty sure almost all of them have little-no productive value, and they're dependent on government, but as for the other classes, I don't think we should assume you have value, just cause you're rich, if we are to target all or some members of the working or middle classes for regulation of their birthrates, we should target all or some of the rich too.
The working and middle classes are arguably the backbone of our economies.
If anything, conditions for the working and middle classes need to be improved.
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Consumerism is sin.
User avatar
Gloominary
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Next

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users