Low Biological Quality of Humankind

infoterror

Member
Apr 17, 2005
1,191
2
38
Low Biological Quality of Humankind

It's taboo to even mention a range of topics, because they'll make some people feel uncomfortable. Having seen how well this empire of not offending some people has steered us into an ecocidal evolutionary dead end, I'm not inclined to care: their empire failed, in a way that ancient civilization and the NSDAP could not (you'll recall that many great artists are only discovered after life has defeated them and buried them in pauper's graves; so it will be with tradition).

How did their empire come about? Impetus toward creating civilization was lost, because civilization itself got wealthy and powerful. The parasites came in, and seduced the women and compassionate men, who rapidly gave way to "new" ideas (there are no new ideas, only good ones or bad ones; originality is a separate concept, and applies to how well you describe an idea in art or discourse). These "new" ideas consisted mainly of vast profit to be made by manipulating hordes of dumber people.

Over time, because the fundamental assumption of these "new" ideas was a lack of responsibility to the unitive whole of nature and cosmos and humankind, as was provided by the religion-philosophies of ancient civilizations, these philosophies expanded scope (as all philosophies tend to do; it's a "slippery slope" argument that applies in every case) and came to include the empowerment of the general masses. This meant giving them a vote equal to that of people who were smarter, healthier and of better moral character than they.

Herein was the disaster.

At this point, you have a society which promotes dumb, ugly and destructive people over those who have more beneficial traits, simply because dumb, ugly and destructive people have a need to disunitively make profit at the expense of others. Most people who were born into a bad body/mind tend to be destructive, and if they're smarter than the absolute bottom, they become shrewd because that allows them to be remarkably intellectually effective - albeit within a narrow and meaningless space. They become experts at making money, usually through sleazy means, as did the Snopes family in Faulkner's "The Hamlet."

Soon the dumb, ugly and mean guys get the pretty girls, because no matter how disgusting you are as a person, if you have wealth, well, in a society of equals that's the most important thing, and therefore you'll be a good parent. Your kids will probably be wealthy too. Over many generations, this equates into a dying out of the better people and the promotion of the greedy, stupid, violent, etc. In short, it's counter-evolution, or a destruction of what evolution has done through greed and egoism, which as you can see are the motivating forces behind "equality."

At this point, most people are of low biological quality, as measured in the three indexes:

# Intelligence. Whether you measure it with an IQ test, or watching them in a revelatory activity, intelligence can be measured, although you usually have to be at least as intelligent as what you're measuring to get any kind of exact figure (this explains high school guidance counselors and their destructive, weird and revengeful decisions, doesn't it?). However, intelligence is an inborn property. You do not get a genius out of a turnip-picker, no matter what the popular media says. Find some genius born "magically" to two stupid parents and you'll either find an adoption or a genius grandparent.

# Health and Beauty. People who are well-formed, who are naturally healthy and who tend toward healthy decisions are usually the most physically able. They may not be great athletes in a specialized sport, but in terms of general ability to do things like get around and survive in a forest or battle, they're absolutely qualified (note that many major league players would not qualify, as the history of athletes in combat bears out). People who are well-bred tend to have health and beauty as well as intelligence and moral character.

# Moral character. This is a difficult definition, but a good starting point is this: one's natural inclinations and values are inborn, although they can be changed by post-birth treatment, especially abuse. These inborn tendencies where they touch on ethical questions form one's moral character. By moral, I do not mean the binary "don't kill, hurt or offend any person" morality of Judeo-Christianity, but the holistic morality of the ancients: doing what is right by the order of the cosmos. In some cases this means killing; in other cases, healing. There is no clear absolute rule for it, and that's why the ability of the individual to perceive it - this ability varies widely between individuals - is quite important, and complex enough that it can only be conveyed by years of positive breeding.

When I look around the average American community, there's a very clear low biological intelligence factor. People waiting in line at McDonalds for twenty minutes, wasting gasoline and paying high prices for very bad food. People who cannot drive, even though it's a simple process, mainly because their attention spans wander and they exist in a slow-motion dream of their own distraction. What about all the true idiots one encounters in offices and stores, who can be guaranteed to miss the obvious and thus take the long way around to solving any problem, wasting tons of your time?

Even further, look at what people buy. That most people will buy a $3.99 plastic widget instead of a $5.99 metal one of the same function that will last twice as long shows not only a basic ignorance of math (6/2 = 3, not 4), but a total lack of moral character, in that they prefer cheap garbage that clogs landfills to something of enduring presence. Maybe they don't trust themselves not to destroy it? And what did they spend that "saved" $2 on, anyway? Oh: beer and DVDs.

Something tells me this people will never be appreciating Beethoven, or even Emperor. They aren't going to read Conrad, or even Crichton. They're never going to see past the lies of Bill Clinton, or of George Bush. They're consumers, pure and simple, and they cannot appreciate anything subtle in life, or anything that demands knowledge of structure and not merely external form. Yet we're breeding more of these and squeezing out the smart people, because even a total fool can narrow his sights on commerce and make a lot of money in a specific area - and plenty of them do.

Bill Gates, for example, couldn't survive a night in a forest armed with only a pocketknife. Steve Jobs wouldn't last as long as Bill would. And Paris Hilton? John Kerry? Britney Spears?

We're descending in not only ideology and lifestyle, here on planet earth, but also in terms of biological quality. We're failing it on the "producing better humans" front, and because so many people are dumb as rocks and without moral character, we deconstruct and simplify and abstract anything we write, see, hear, do so that everyone in the room can get it, in the process obliterating meaning for the few who actually matter.

As our current society begins to fall apart, starting first with its higher functions and moving into all aspects of its homeostasis, it at the same time confronts some obvious truths that people have been ducking since the 1950s, namely that pollution, energy depletion, overpopulation and entertainment culture really do turn us into elaborate hamsters who are guaranteed to die of cancer in some crime-infested hole of a city. This process has inspired new impulses toward purging the world of waste.

Our best ecological experts, namely the ones who are alert to the full depth of the problem, suggest 500 million people on earth. If we're going to trim back people, when we grow up and get over our pretense, it makes sense to select the best 500 million by intelligence, health/beauty and moral character, so that humanity as a whole improves instead of staying at the same level of mediocrity with simply lower numbers. In this respect, it's fortunate that our society is falling apart, as it gives us a chance to clear out the dummies and start working toward higher biological quality again.

Interestingly, a eugenic society would require almost no internal changes. If suddenly we moved up a grade, the people who would be left would use our extant social and political systems for sensible goals, because there would no longer be hordes of morons to manipulate with demagoguery and fancy products. We wouldn't even have to change religions, as smart people interpreting Christianity would start it off on a more realistic, nature-friendly footing.

Now that we've gone so far into the void, it doesn't look like we could come back, but it's entirely possible we can, especially if our first step is to upgrade our genetics by slaughtering fools, morons, criminals and other blockheads who impede sensible living for those fortunate enough to be well-bred. I have a strange feeling that in this future society, there'd be a lot fewer taboos about discussing intelligence and biological quality of humankind.

July 20, 2005
http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/quality/
 
Wow I love it when claims are made about biology and genetics that have no scientific backing beyond what David your friendly neighborhood LARP'er told you.
 
I don't believe in eugenics or slaughtering anyone based on their physical or mental shortcomings. Period. Sorry.

But from an evolutionary standpoint I have to agree that genetically speaking we as a species have never been weaker. For better or worse, advances in technology and medical care are allowing the survival (and thereby reproduction) of individuals who would not have survived fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand years ago. Every new generation has more potential defects (albeit ones that are frequently treatable) floating around its gene pool. The variety of substances that we're figuring out how to abuse probably isn't helping either :Spin:
 
No way. Drugs... like...open up your mind... and make you a more... chill person.
On another note I've been drinking a lot of rum lately.
 
The species may well be getting "weaker" as it been put above.
Advances in medicine have made people who'd be dead if this were 1800 live till they're 50 as said above. This is in my opinion, almost fighting against evolution and the whole survival of the fittest idea.
Also from seeing TV programmes about people who have about 20-odd allergies i get the feeling we are also screwing our selves up as well. Lot of people are now allergic to things they would never be if wesern society was not so obsesed with being "ultra-clean, eat only low calory food and don't do anything even slightly dangerous"
That's just my opinion.
I think we may be advanced but we still have a hell of a lot of problems, most of them mentioned in the first post.
 
NeverIsForever said:
I don't believe in eugenics or slaughtering anyone based on their physical or mental shortcomings. Period. Sorry.

But from an evolutionary standpoint I have to agree that genetically speaking we as a species have never been weaker. For better or worse, advances in technology and medical care are allowing the survival (and thereby reproduction) of individuals who would not have survived fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand years ago. Every new generation has more potential defects (albeit ones that are frequently treatable) floating around its gene pool. The variety of substances that we're figuring out how to abuse probably isn't helping either :Spin:
i totally agree. we've learned to fashion thousands of crutches to make ourselves weaker. where before anti-bacterial soap was used when it was necessary, now its frequent habitual use to maintain "cleanness" has caused a weakening of immunity to sickness which the body had previously fought. why should the body work when it can expect medicine to work for it instead? people take painkillers like candy and wonder why their pain never really goes away.
 
This article has a point, but that talk about survival in the forest cracked me up.
 
and who would judge what constitutes significant intelligence?

what if two stupid people had a genius child?
what if someone was "below the mark" yet a genius in another respect?

i see all such classifying systems as extremely flawed. you can't force "unnatural selection", we as a species don't even know what to select!
 
slaughtering people because they aren't as "good" as others? i don't agree with that. not allowing certain people to breed? i think that is sick. deny someone the right to bring a new life into this world because they don't pass an intelligence test, or they have a strong line of heart disease in their family tree? everyone in this entire world...stupid, insane, sick, demented, genious...etc.. has something in common. they are all human beings that love, hurt, feel joy, celebrate, and have a purpose in mind. someday a limit will probably be put on number of births. i can see that happening. it will have to!

i agree with a lot of the points that you made. this world is driven by $, egoism, greed...etc. a lot of people are so stuck on themselves, and their culture, that they become defensive...and start fights and wars.

billionaire's...i don't understand why someone would ever need that much money. inequality based on $$$ is unfortunate. thats not the way it should be.

humans really are the dumbest animal on the planet. when it comes down to the true meaning of life, every single one of us is an idiot. we need so much to be happy. i was chilling with my cat today. i asked him what he did all day...no answer...i pet her a bit, she purred, then went and played with her new kittens...then they went to sleep for a while. this is what every species on this planet does...besides us humans. we have to sit here and bad-mouth society, and talk about metal to make ourselves feel better. we have to have our "place" in society...we can't just exist.

then again, that is what sets us appart...humans have a thirst for knowledge...humans have drive...every human has this common. weeding out the "weak" and denying the "dumbies" the right to reproduce will only create more inequality...the mindset that certain people are better than others and have a right to experience life above others is sick. someone else had the same sort of mindset...hitler. he believed strongly in what he was doing...that it was in the best interest of mankind.

someday, this world is going to reach a point where a change has to be made. a lot of people might die...global warming? WWIII? WW92? disease? who knows? something extreme will happen...maybe this is when people will learn.
 
Silent Song said:
and who would judge what constitutes significant intelligence?

Somebody whose best interests are in keeping harmony with the environment - somebody with a leader's mind, preferably. Their choices would be practical for the most part (and practicality would surely be the reason for these actions in the first place, so it would have to be the template upon which we'd work), even if not infallible. Nobody really believes a 100% mistake-free regime or "chooser" would be possible, but even a 90% one would be so so much better than what we have currently.

what if two stupid people had a genius child?

Once again I think the issue here transcends the odd slip-up; the majority of the time this isn't going to be the case. Besides, perhaps grandparents as well as parents could be looked at, this would probably allow for a greater degree of accuracy.

what if someone was "below the mark" yet a genius in another respect?

Obviously, if a person has something to offer in a certain useful field then they have value, regardless of whether they're defective in other departments. For example, ask me how to build a house and I'll be lying in a crumpled heap covered in cement within the hour, but I certainly feel that I have other uses.

you can't force "unnatural selection"

Ah, but that's basically what we're doing already, we're merely selecting everybody.
 
I was talking about retards. Bad genes weakening our gene pool. I think we should interbreed, and have superior genes that incorperate the best of all the races, that way, everyone will be connected to everyone else, and violence and wars could be adverted, because everyone would have relatives everywhere on the planet. What i think makes humans great is the ability to come together and do good things. We have lost the sense of the good family, the one where everyone was treated sternly but fairly. And I believe that people without the cappablities to raise children should not be allowed to, and that goes for people who put $$ over family because they choose to. If you don't want to raise children then don't. Im sick of this notion that everyone is equal, but the truth is, not everyone should be able to do whatever they want. They should only be able to do what they can.
 
This is a lot like another thread I saw elsewhere.

I think the human species is becoming weaker, and I think it began [in Europe at least, I don't know much about Asia, the Americas, and Africa] when the Roman Empire spread, conquering and "taming" the barbarians and teaching them a sedentary life with less pressure to survive. When the lifestyle becomes easier, those that would have succumbed to whatever are now allowed to breed, and since the pressure to survive isn't really as strong, mates are selected based purely on aesthetics and "love", rather than "Does he/she have traits I want passed onto my kids?" Today, after 2000-some years of human domestication [though it would have happened at one time or another] people with recessive traits or traits not condusive to survival are allowed to pass these traits on to another generation. Scientists claim that the average brain size is getting larger, people are getting taller, and humans are even starting to lose their pinkie fingers [guitar playing would be somewhat harder without them, methinks] but there's a genetic biproduct of the modern lifestyle who aren't as intelligent and are, as this thread discusses, of low biological quality.

Sometimes, the humans from a heritage that hasn't been recently "tamed" are recognisable for having larger teeth and longer jaws, larger hands, broad shoulders [wide hips for women], longer legs compared to those with more dillution of their bloodline, and they are taller by comparison and have slightly coarser features.
 
Saying that certain people shouldn't breed is pretty fucking stupid. If they have bred and you have not, it means you fail, and natural selection has picked them over you. Bad luck chump.
 
I also find it hilarious in this thread that somehow the measure of aptitude of surviving in forests and living by primitive standards is somehow equivalent to "strength". Jee, I wonder what'd happen if we pit a modern regiment against an army of hunters with bows & arrows?
 
I don't think we should stop people breeding even if they are idiots, or that we should cull off the weak and old etc.
But i;'m strongly in favour of at least controlling access to stuff like drugs that control ageing, painkilllers and also all the other aspects of modern life that have resulted in people who would have died 300 yrs ago living till they're 100.
Most people on the planet have aright to live, and reproduce but the way medical advances are going we're going to end up with only those who afford treatments surviving and as a result maybe a weaked species.
It is definately interesting to think that maybe if we hadn't all been tammed and moved towards the current ways of life we might be stronger than ever.
Look at ancient tribes in Africa or the rainforests, they have not modern technology or medicine and survive very well. They only suffer those diseases spread in their local area and often have immunity the rest of the world dreams of.