Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

612

There is a deep problem in civilization:

Genetic defects grow in closed populations. Usually this means an increase in disease, deformities, mental disorders, a lowering of mean IQ, greater aggression in the population, poorer impulse control, crime, antisocial behavior, and general social dysfunction.

The solutions we've found as a species are:

  1. war, which the most dysfunctional are easily recruited into. They die off, so does their traits, antisocial behavior, criminal/destabalizing habits, and defective genes. They are marshalled through fear ("military discipline") into an effective fighting force. Order and stability is imposed in their lives, where before maybe many of them couldnt hold down a career or a stable livelihood beyond subsistence living. Once dead, this leaves the genetically fit in tact, to begin the boom-bust cycle all over again

  2. Immigration, regardless of the excuse

  3. Slavery and caste systems

  4. State-imposed eugenics, which like centralized market systems, don't and cant know what traits to best optimize for, and so, lead to dysgenic societies

  5. Mass die-offs from collapse due to engineered famines, disease, civil wars (e.x. south american death squads) or economic collapses.

  6. Female or male hypergamy: genetic colonialism as it were. See the mormons and christian missionaries for details

  7. Cultural marixm - which is really genocide through cultural mixing till the old cultures and genetic groups vanish.

Number seven is monoculture, but for humans.

Unironically a gattaca-style society, but one with gene editting in living people, will likely solve most of these "solutions" (problems).

It's why I begrudgingly endorse the technocrats. Well no thats not correct. Rather, I endorse the technocratic approach.

Imagine if the dysfunctional in society could be fixed with a simple injection?

I mean thats what they're already persuing, but in this case, its mostly just about eliminating the stupid an gullible.

Imagine though, it was used for actually fixing people? A shot that increases work ethic? Or an injection that fixes alcoholism?

Or a vaccine that increases in-group preferences and eliminates pathological altruism?

Leave it up to the people to decide what problems they eliminate or what traits they select for.

Essentially its distributed eugenics.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. And I think I'm starting to accept eugenics as a premise for a better society.

Obviously theres a lot of problems with the idea, state-enforced "eugenics" which are just as dysgenic as anything else today, persecution of political opponents using eugenics, and a raft of other issues.

Yet I see this and I can't help conclude that maybe its time to start reconsidering old ideas.

There is a deep problem in civilization: Genetic defects grow in closed populations. Usually this means an increase in *disease*, deformities, mental disorders, a lowering of mean IQ, greater aggression in the population, poorer impulse control, crime, antisocial behavior, and general social dysfunction. The solutions we've found as a species are: 1. war, which the most dysfunctional are easily recruited into. They die off, so does their traits, antisocial behavior, criminal/destabalizing habits, and defective genes. They are marshalled through fear ("military discipline") into an effective fighting force. Order and stability is *imposed* in their lives, where before maybe many of them couldnt hold down a career or a stable livelihood beyond subsistence living. Once dead, this leaves the genetically fit in tact, to begin the boom-bust cycle all over again 2. Immigration, regardless of the excuse 3. Slavery and caste systems 4. State-imposed eugenics, which like centralized market systems, don't and *cant* know what traits to best optimize for, and so, lead to dysgenic societies 5. Mass die-offs from collapse due to engineered famines, disease, civil wars (e.x. south american death squads) or economic collapses. 6. Female or male hypergamy: genetic colonialism as it were. See the mormons and christian missionaries for details 7. Cultural marixm - which is really genocide through cultural mixing till the old cultures and genetic groups vanish. Number seven is monoculture, but for humans. Unironically a gattaca-style society, but one with gene editting in living people, will likely solve most of these "solutions" (problems). It's why I begrudgingly endorse the technocrats. Well no thats not correct. Rather, I endorse the technocratic approach. Imagine if the dysfunctional in society could be fixed with a simple injection? I mean thats what they're already persuing, but in this case, its mostly just about eliminating the stupid an gullible. Imagine though, it was used for *actually* fixing people? A shot that increases work ethic? Or an injection that fixes alcoholism? Or a vaccine that increases in-group preferences and eliminates pathological altruism? Leave it up to the people to decide what problems they eliminate or what traits they select for. Essentially its distributed eugenics. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. And I think I'm starting to accept eugenics as a premise for a better society. Obviously theres a lot of problems with the idea, state-enforced "eugenics" which are just as dysgenic as anything else today, persecution of political opponents using eugenics, and a raft of other issues. Yet I see this and I can't help conclude that maybe its time to start reconsidering old ideas.

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

I have a few comments:

>Genetic defects grow in closed populations. Usually this means an increase in disease, deformities, mental disorders, a lowering of mean IQ, greater aggression in the population, poorer impulse control, crime, antisocial behavior, and general social dysfunction.

This is only true absent any evolutionary selection pressures. In the past, the stupid or short-sighted would starve during winter, the selfish or short-tempered would not have anyone's support, etc.

>4. State-imposed eugenics, which like centralized market systems, don't and cant know what traits to best optimize for, and so, lead to dysgenic societies

>Imagine if the dysfunctional in society could be fixed with a simple injection?

This is little different than option 4. It's moving the personal locus control into an institutional one, but in this case the institution is a university or pharmaceutical corporation rather than a government.

Really, personalized euthenics is what people had when they simply selected their spouse based on good criteria. The manners novels like Jane Austen and others wrote were personalized eugenics, ie don't marry the smooth talking heart breaker but marry the dependable guy instead. Fix the culture and you'll get that anyways.

As for what's wrong with state eugenics, if we can stop the state dysgenics which has been rampant for the past 70+ years we'll solve 90% of our problems. Hang criminals quickly and cut off all welfare to their children, and forbid private charity to them, and there you go, problem solved.

The problem of future unpredictability is true of everyone, state or individual. But an individual can also benefit at the expense of society, ie a high functioning sociopath like Stalin can leave lots of bastards, whereas a state may have interest in suppressing that. In the end, the state must be fixed one way or another.

[–] • 0 pt

It's moving the personal locus control into an institutional one, but in this case the institution is a university or pharmaceutical corporation rather than a government.

I am not arguing in support of option four, only laying it out. Whether a "eugenic" solution is truly eugenic or not, is besides whether the state may be or currently is in pursuit of it or not.

The manners novels like Jane Austen and others wrote were personalized eugenics, ie don't marry the smooth talking heart breaker

The future, it seems to me, is about converting the nature of a thing, including cultural processes, from implicit to explicit. It is a matter of "what is the will of civilization? What is it intentionally moving toward?"

Without which, we're all just adrift in history.

Fix the culture and you'll get that anyways.

Excellent, couldn't agree more.

[–] • 0 pt

>I am not arguing in support of option four, only laying it out. Whether a "eugenic" solution is truly eugenic or not, is besides whether the state may be or currently is in pursuit of it or not.

I know. What I'm saying is that the state, so long as it exists, will have an effect on the reproductive success of some groups of people, and whether it's eugenic or dysgenic is dependent on the goals of the people involved. Setting no goals is only an option if there is no state.

Carol Quigley in Tragedy and Hope even argued that the fundamental goal of a state is to further the reproductive aims of those that control it. The jews that control our state now see dysgenics for us (reduced IQ, slavish obedience, dependant thought) as eugenic for themselves.

>The future, it seems to me, is about converting the nature of a thing, including cultural processes, from implicit to explicit. It is a matter of "what is the will of civilization? What is it intentionally moving toward?"

100% agreed. Much of our enemy's power has come from distorting our implicit rules into the opposite of their intended goals. Make it explicit and it becomes very hard to do that.

[–] • 0 pt

what happens when the company that owns the shots switches certain things out so you can be more easily controlled. playing god is a huge problem because there can really only be one god at a time and he does not share power

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

playing god is a huge problem because there can really only be one god at a time and he does not share power

This is well and good, and true.

Humanity has been playing god though, for a long time.

Again, everything we do, every aspect of society, every single choice, is either eugenic or dysgenic.

In this light we can see that not having strict controls on medicine, and lack of transparency, are therefore existential and dysgenic liabilities or risks.

The question is not whether this can be achieved, or whether this is feasible.

The question is only is this the right way to run civilization or even a nation?

If it is, then we ought to. If its not, then we shouldn't.