Precisely, it’s not enough to limit the activities of the poor from reproducing economically.
You have to go to to the root of the reproducers themselves (females) on a psychological level through behavioral conditioning and engineering. (feminism.)
To prey upon female weakness, vanity, and selfishness in evolutionary biological hypergamy to meet economic goals or motivations was the plan all along to initiate it. Just one problem, it’s always been the very poor who have reproduced the most as historically the middle and upper classes reproduce very little or not at all.
The unintended consequences of putting these plans in motion has created a fertility and sub population replacement crisis all the while indulging a large population mentally of privilege entitled women.
What’s that old saying again? You reap what you sew?
The root of the reproducers are both males and females. I guess you mean the current Occidental females (because most of the current Occidental males and females are told and thus falsely think that females are the only “reproducers”), not the others, especially not the black and islamic females, because black and islamic males and females reproduce themselves very much (because both still know that both are the reproducers) and are poorer than Occidental males and females.
The black and islamic people can be found at the top on the left, whereas the occidental people can be found at the bottom on the right.
Homo sapiens can and does select positively (eugenically) and negatively (dysgenically).
Homo sapiens has been playing God or, in the words of the selection priciple, the selector of the own species, of their environment, of other species, of the whole world. Many other living beings have become extinct just because of the human beings. These other living beings had not become extinct, if they would not have been negatively selected by the selector homo sapiens. Human beings are not like all other living beings. Their ecologlogical or/and social selection is a political selection and contradicts the natural selection, the sexual selection, the kin selection, … and so on and so forth. It contradicts the concept of adaptation and fitness, because it can and does make out of well adapted and fit living beings bad adapted (maladapted) an unfit living beings, out of bad adapted (maldapted) and unfit living beings well adapted (maladapted) an fit living beings.
This politics - as a political selection - has been existing since the beginning of the urbanisation, because urbanisation means an increasing density of towns, cities, megacities and an increasing danger of loss of control because of the increasing number of humans in those towns, cities, megacities. Today this is a problem of almost the whole globe. This danger of loss of control must be and has been replaced or compensated by a new kind of control. The so-called “(second) industrial revolution” was a machine revolution and led to a huge techno-creditism, to more wealth, to more human workers, later to less human workers, thus to more unemployment because of the nonetheless increasing human population. Considering this situation: what would you do, if you were one of the rulers?
Feminism is just one (but a very efficient one!) of the isms, and isms are ideologies. … One should know the purpose(s) or goal(s) of ideologies.
Feminism, sexism, genderism function like all other isms: a very few people ascend from the upper to the middle class, if there is one, but most people descend either from the middle class to the lower class or within the poorer becoming lower class to those who have nothing to eat, whereas the very few of the upper class become richer and richer, thus more powerful and more powerful. So feminism, sexism, genderism - like all other isms - serve the rulers and obey the orders of the rulers who want to become richer, thus more powerful than they already are.
Maybe the following chart can illustrate the prospective ratio of the TFR and the GDP per capita:
The reason women are chosen in all of this because they are more mentally weaker and deficient than males are regarding correlation to authority. Women are by far the more obedient sex to authority which is why there is extremely little dissension, revolt, or rebellion from them as a whole. Women are biologically hardwired to be followers rather than men and authority utilizes feminism with women to great effect in that. Women as a whole are more easily pacified.
By controlling the behaviors of women entirely you also subdue a majority of men who’s only weakness is a hyper sexual instinctual drive. A majority of men obviously since a minority of us remain unsubdued where male sexual dissension is increasing exponentially in our own present time.
The poor people in Occidental countries and almost all people in Non-Occidental countries are obviously not much or even not at all influenced by feminism. So poorness and feminism seem to be mutually exclusive, whwereas relative richness (richness of the middle class) and feminism seem to not be mutually exclusive.
I find most of the isms of socialism exists to serve the interests of the top ratio of society even contrary to when supposedly it suggests to serve the interests of the lower classes.
If you are poor or economically supported by a social state (see also my text below), then you have enough time to reproduce yourself. If you always work and make a career all day long, then you have not much time to reproduce yourself. If you are rich, then you can choose whether you are industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) or lazy, so also being rich in spite of having much time can but does not have to mean the lack of reproduction, because reproduction depends on the interest in it. So most of those who have no or almost no offspring are those who are very industrious (hardworking and making a career all day long). Who are very industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) and very career driven? … Of course: the occidental humans. That is why they can be found at the bottom on the right in my above chart.
[tab]The occidental people can be found at the bottom on the right:[/tab]
It is not merely industriousness (industry, diligence, smartness, business acumen) that works against the reproduction and especially against the interest of reproduction; it is also, for example, feminism (including sexism, genderism). Isms are modern ideologies, and almost all modern ideologies are based on main modern ideologies like cyniicsm and techno-creditsm (formerly known as “capitalism”) that are based on the machine revolution (formerly known as “industrial revolution”). The machine revolution did not cause the first cynics (cynics are much older) but cynicism (cyn[ic]ism) in combination with the techno-creditism, which both led to all other isms we had, have, and will have for a while. (Please note the suffix “ism”!) So the machine revolution caused what we can call the “occidental moderinity” in the narrow sense of the word, and - insofar as reproduction is concerned - modernity means a shrinking interest in reproduction. Feminism is just one of the great many cultural consequences of a great technical invention (which is certainly based on cultural skills, by the way). We should not overestimate but also not underestimate all this isms.
So the interest in reproduction can be influenced by many phenomena variously.
Without feminism the European numbers of the birthrates would be optimal (about 2,13 children per woman), but in reality they are suboptimal, disastrous: very much too low. In Europe very much too low, in the so-called “Thrid World” very much too high.
[tab]
[/tab]
Lazy people who are economically supported by those who are industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) and pay taxes (cp. “social state”) are not always but very often those who have children, many children, at least enough children. Industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) people are not always but very often those who have not enough children or even no children. This demographical fact means an economical tragedy: the so called “tragedy of the commons”.
According to the natural selection the fit species as the well or even best adapted species has enough offspring, thus survives, whereas the unfit species as the badly or even worst adapted or maldapted species has not enough or even no offspring and dies out. Political selection means that “social” politics can artificially make out of unfit humans as the badly or worst adapted or maladapted humans fit humans as the well or best adapted humans, so that they can have enough offspring, thus survive, and it also can artificially make out the of fit humans as the well or best adapted humans the badly or worst adapted or maladapted humans, so that they have not enough or even no offspring and die out. So natural selection and political (social) selection contradict each other. This is what I have been saying in many threads, especially in my thread called “Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?”, suggestively also in your thread called “Evolution and Maladaptility”.
What humans culturally create or select is, if you compare it with what nature “creates” or “selects”, artificial (cultural), although every culture is based on nature. Humans are capable of dissociating from nature, which does not mean that they are completely free from nature, but it means that they are relatively free from nature, thus also from natural selection.
The development of the human brain led to a huge intelligence and skills that made an isolation process possible, so that the humans could become relatively free from nature, thus also from natural selection.
Nature causes anti-nature (culture).
Culture is the artificial antipode of nature. In other words: Culture is the antithesis of the thesis nature. Guess what the synthesis is.
Yes, of course. Cynicism is one of the main isms and one of the main reasons why all other isms exist.
the 3rd reich experiment is pale in comparison to what has been done throughout history… however modern eugenics starts with Darwin and the huxleys, and Darwin got so much admiration as a way to legitimize the eugenics of the fittest and past and future genocides of the elites. People tend to turn a blind eye because they regard their own race as supremacist.
Supremacy is the root of all evil on this earth. As we can see it today, many agree with depopulation which will be caused by AI and its minions because admitting their support for a “grand fallacy” that has ruled over humanity since ever is too much of a stretch.
DARWIN/SUPREMACY = YOU HAVE BEEN CONNED=YOUR ARE NEXT
It is not possible to stop at the exact point of evil. If you think you have found one, you will soon find another one. It is no accident that the word “evil” can be found in the word “devil”.
The thing I dislike about Eugenics, is that most of the people who do them don’t have the power to make superior inferior judgements.
I mean, the 13 families are inbred. Do we want to make a bunch of George bush and rockefeller clones? I mean, according to them, if you have money, you are superior, if you don’t have money, you are inferior. This is very ghetto logic, like something you would hear from a rap song. Do you want people who have such minds deciding on our eugenics?
Putting toxins and chemicals in our environment is ignoble and such minds are unequipped to have the authority to carry out superior/inferior eugenics. Second of all, its not even a reliable method, people who drink Koolaid everyday often have lots of kids. Clearly the people behind the eugenics are unfit inbred lunatics.
My DNA machine will fix all that though. Simply step into the machine, put in the body you like and viola. Has different parameters you can adjust such as strength intelligence and body types. Also has a function to input defects and disabilities, to remind us of the old ways and still have a connection between past and nature. I figure most people will opt for the most beautiful bodies though.
