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

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (5).
[–] • 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.