Chivalrous Y and sexually selective X | Forum

Basically I agree with your analysis.

There are 10% of men women falls in love with and will sleep with them as women do not distinct between emotions and sexual desires (meaning that a woman's emotional perception on you decides her sexual desires or lack of). 

Therefore my message is to the rest 90%. If the 90% got a sex doll or whatever replacement the 10% of men will sleep with the women. Humanity will therefore not die out. It will be reduced yes but that would only be a good thing. 

I think that social darwinism and eugenics have shit to do with evolution. On the contrary, I would argue that they are against nature's way. And if that way was about the quality, as we humans understand it, then the poor and retards wouldn't breed like rabbits, intelligent women wouldn't end up choosing irresponsible twats for their husbands and worthy men wouldn't be dumped by stupid women. It's more random than we would wish it to be.

Most people associate eugenics with Nazis, forced sterilization, oppression and segregation. But I wonder if the selfish refusal to mate and breed for whatever reason, be it the inability to find a proper partner, financial struggling, putting yourself before others or simple dislike for children or the other sex, doesn't qualify as some sort of eugenics. For all this talk about selfish individualism the end result is pretty much the same; removing the individual from the game of passing on his/her genes. The only difference is that the individuals remove themselves rather than being excluded by some authoritarian regime.

Anna, some further thoughts:

- Eugenics is artificial selection, as opposed to natural selection, so yes, one could say it's against nature's way. Eugenics is humans breeding humans the way we breed dogs or horses, which one could certainly call unnatural. 

- One of the reasons people advocate for eugenics is the fact that "the poor and retards breed like rabbits," as you noted. Eugenics advocates want to put a stop to that. I have to say, I see their point.

- People of either sex doing a piss poor job of selecting mates is an indication that they've buried their animal instincts under a mental construct that's poorly designed. 

 

- Most humans build their mental constructs in a completely random way, in mindless response to the random stimuli of social interaction.

- When humans decide to consciously design their mental constructs, the question immediately arises as to what principles will form the foundation and framework. Grappling with that question is pretty much the definition of philosophy. Most humans never engage in philosophy.

- Your second paragraph is interesting. It aligns with the observed fact that the more affluent the couple, the fewer children they're likely to have. Modern society is engaged in what could be thought of as anti-eugenics. The worst specimens have the most kids.

Anna, further thoughts in response to what you wrote:

- I was focused entirely on optimizing the offspring, hence my preference for Olympian super-geniuses as the sole sperm donors. You zeroed in on another aspect entirely: optimizing the two generation household. The fact that I completely ignored that is, in retrospect, pretty ridiculous.  

- Optimizing the two generation household only matters if we opt for that arrangement to begin with. We could opt instead for communal child rearing.

 

- If we opt for the two generation household, and want to optimize it, then the traits we need in the older generation would include the pro-social ones, such as empathy, concern, reasonableness, honesty, patience, loyalty, protectiveness, thoughtfulness, cooperation, congeniality, and pitching in. People who don't exhibit these traits would be barred from reproduction.

- Here's the thing: optimizing the offspring and optimizing the two generation household both entail heavy handed social control, which is contrary to selfish individualism. People like me who are built to say "Fuck You" to society are not going to like a system where the social control is so heavy handed. Yet people like me who are built to tell dumbasses and jerkoffs to stop making more of themselves are not going to like our current system, where any two people with the right biological equipment can generate babies with mindless abandon. It's a conundrum.

  

Anna, after due consideration, I find I can't stomach totalitarianism, and so all I can do is leave society to its despicable experiment in reverse eugenics, selecting for optimum dumbassery and jerkoffishness. But I can also apply the insights of our conversation to a description of the Satanic household. And so I add a fifth writing to my Neo-Laveyan exposition. Five is a propitious number, the total count of sharp points on the pentagram.

I'm not really talking about the social control. I wonder whether an individual decision, for example, "I won't have children because I can't afford them" has anything to do with evolution and the natural order of things. Because I think nature just doesn't care about whether you're fit to bring up a child by social standards. The natural instinct just urges you to fuck and procreate. Have as many kids as you can. The more the merrier. Some of them will survive, some will die. Maybe all of them will live, maybe all will die. Who cares? The more kids you have, the better chance you have that some of them will survive. This is the nature's way. Eugenics is contrary to it. Individual interest is contrary to it too.

The selfish gene theory, yes. Richard Dawkins. But some biologists see validity in looking one level up, above the selfish genes of the one pair of testes and the one set of ovaries. This is highly controversial, of course, but there's a school of thought that says some elements of evolution can best be understood as optimizing the survival and propagation of the species as a whole. However, I agree, Anna, that if Richard Dawkins is correct and there is no valid level above the one pair of testes and the one set of ovaries, then everything you say is correct.

I haven't read the book but I'm glad to hear Dawkins after years of study came to the same conclusions as me after watching a couple of twats in my neighborhood. Contrary to Tom, I'm far from building the whole losers' ideology around childlessness but if people are struggling to make ends meet they should think twice about having children. Instead, they follow their instincts blindly and end up in poverty, unable to pay their bills. The state encourages mindless procreation by offering money for each child born. Only the sum they offer doesn't suffice to cover all the expenses connected to bringing up a child. And it's not only my area. My cousin's wife enforces debts. Once she visited a couple seeking for the property to seize. They had nothing except for five children. In ancient times, she could sell them as slaves. Now we have human rights, children's rights and all that jazz.

Perhaps, it's some way to live, the method to get sympathy and avoid responsibility but I don't really get the mindset. It's totally counter-productive if not self-destructive. Perhaps, the selfish gene theory could shed some light on it but it seems to be another (secular) variation of the Devil made me do it excuse. Shouldn't reason have some say here?