Economics, Eugenics, Dysgenics, And Feminism

Yes, I can. :slight_smile:

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.


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.