Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:32:55 UTC No. 16104672

>>16104669
Industrial revolution in england happend because of genetics. In the olden times marriages were arranged. For some reason arranged marriages mixed higher IQ spicimens with low IQ so there was no rise in intelligence. Christian ideologies in England and some other European countries abandoned arranged marriages at the same time women had the opportunity to be educated at home. Result of that was that high IQ people married each other and low IQ married amog themselves.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:33:58 UTC No. 16104674

>>16104672
But there was one more crutial factor. Women didn't have rights yet so high IQ women produced more children because they had more resources and their spouses were smarted more able to provide and care for offspring. It all ended at the end of 19th century when women got more and more rights. High IQ women with rights and freedoms didn't want to produce a lot of children but low IQ women kept reproducing. That is why now IQ is falling.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:41:15 UTC No. 16104682

One solution could be legalization of surrogacy everywhere. Programs that will increase willingness of high IQ women to sell their eggs. Only able males could pay for surrogacy and eggs so there would be opportunity for creation of new surrogacy master race.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:41:39 UTC No. 16104684

>>16104669
>high population to increase probability of mutation
>accelerate genetic drift by allowing people to rise or fall, giving them the freedom to self-improve or self-destruct, according to their nature.
Porn, drugs, goyslop, all of these things act as filters. You don’t need every single human to be healthy and intelligent. When humans evolved from their monkey cousins, they didn’t force every single individual in the population to go down the human path. You don’t need to eliminate bad genes. You just need to make it harder for the bad genes to mix with the good genes. And you do that by allowing those genes to be expressed much more distinctly.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:45:37 UTC No. 16104687

>>16104684
Yes but we have a problem good genes that mix now have very low fertility rate because of womens freedom. Low IQ women are much more willing to reproduce and their offspring is protected by social welfare programs

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:52:17 UTC No. 16104691

>>16104687
perhaps it’s good to allow those women not to reproduce. There are plenty of intelligent women who still value reproduction. They are clearly superior.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 13:02:21 UTC No. 16104699

>>16104669
You can't choose better than letting it happen.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 13:12:10 UTC No. 16104713

>>16104682
What do you think of this are you against having a children without a mother?

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 13:24:47 UTC No. 16104722

>>16104699
Isn't human evolution sculpted by rationalty and thoughtful action and not just letting it happen

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 13:50:11 UTC No. 16104752

>>16104669
Gene editing?

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 14:03:20 UTC No. 16104768

>>16104752
Yes but I think this is first step >>16104682

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 14:50:38 UTC No. 16104826

>>16104669
Create a monetary incentive, also there's more to raising a child than genes. Alas here are my suggestions:
>Remove or reduce gibs for single mothers.
>Remove or reduce the idea of child support.
>Seriously consider euthanasia for children nobody wants to raise.
>Tax breaks for couples with children.
(marriage is dead, old man!)
>Extra gibs for couples with children from artificial selection.
>Extra tax breaks for couples with children from artificial selection.
>Make parenting a required class in highschool/secondary education.
>Provide extra gibs to gays for reproducing via surrogate or gamete donation. (iirc gays are prone having higher IQ, be fitter, and look better)

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 14:53:20 UTC No. 16104832

>>16104669
Looks a bit communistic
Which is funny because of how badly they fucked up seeds and agricultural genetics

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 14:54:54 UTC No. 16104836

>>16104682
Does seem like a bit of a waste for good potential mother's to waste their eggs

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:48:34 UTC No. 16104903

>>16104768
I would think in terms of utility the gene editing would eventually outweigh it

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:02:34 UTC No. 16104919

>>16104826
You are correct, but those incentives will never be set up because 1 person = 1 vote. Democracies function by mass breeding and pandering to the retard horde majority to secure votes. Removing gibs for the 50% of people under 95IQ is political suicide.

What has to happen first is that democracies need to collectively fail and weaken due low IQ retards becoming a larger % of total pop and then dictatorships need to dominate them and introduce policies that produce high IQ. Democracy leads to lower IQ, always.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:06:55 UTC No. 16104926

>>16104919
I think this >>16104682
is possible in democratic society

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:29:23 UTC No. 16104952

>>16104926
I think it will have minimal impact in nation populations that number in the tens of millions.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:23:27 UTC No. 16105211

>>16104672
yes

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:26:27 UTC No. 16105215

>>16104691
superiority is defined by usefulness to maintaining complex civilization. Low intelligence but high fecundity woman are less valuable to the maintenance of complex civilization than high intelligence but low fecundity, because smarter babies are more useful for the maintenance civilization than dumb ones.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:27:49 UTC No. 16105218

>>16104826
>Create a monetary incentive
Romans tried fining smart people when they realized dysgenics was going on. Smart people valued having less to zero kids more than the fine.
I think only free market eugenics via genetic engineering is viable.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:28:59 UTC No. 16105221

>>16104919
>but those incentives will never be set up because 1 person = 1 vote. Democracies function by mass breeding and pandering to the retard horde majority to secure votes
this is why we must have libertarianism, it's far less dysgenic than democracy

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:47:20 UTC No. 16105247

You're gonna hate to hear it, because it's against individuality for the sake of betterment and sustainment of a system too big for individuality to be fully considered anymore to prevent inevitable collapse.
Mandatory IQ tests required with a baseline standard established in order to be able to legally reproduce with heavy persecution to the parents of said creationism if not obeyed as a law. It is the solution for idiocracy and it should absolutely be put into practice today. We need to cut this planet's population down massively otherwise. Better to go out with a whimper than global scale mass depopulation occurring anyways when these industrial systems can no longer sustain their growth.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:55:20 UTC No. 16105262

>>16104682
Same sex couples have zero business raising a child and you will not change my mind. A child's development should be only in optimal conditions that don't give the potential for mutation to occur. You are objectively indoctrinating your own kids with your ideas to literally shape them. Thus you have no business being a parent if you're not High IQ, attractive, straight, and partnered.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:11:00 UTC No. 16105466

>>16105218
Rewarding good behavior will train a dog better than punishing bad behavior. We humans are not much different, despite our arrogance.

Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 07:43:32 UTC No. 16105995

>>16104722
It used to be through things like morality, ir honor. You can't replace those with some kind of IQ test.

Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 07:55:09 UTC No. 16106000

>>16105247
>>16105262
High IQ always comes with mental defects. It's not a good thing.

Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 22:48:26 UTC No. 16106930

>>16104674
I'm not sure if it has more to do with women's IQ than the bombardment of propaganda not to have children aimed towards well-to-do women as well as the decline of religion. Gabriela from Mexico is a devout Catholic whereas Ashley is an atheist who believes in white guilt and overpopulation. Ashley is not necessarily smarter or freer.
>>16104684
I love this. The goyslop, mRNA injections, LGBTQ+ acceptance, Tiktok, etc. is modern natural selection. While their current population size may be less than ideal, those who rise above the degeneracy are certainly moving the human race forward. What's holding back progress and the best humans significantly is the welfare state.
>>16105221
I agree.
>>16104691
>perhaps it’s good to allow those women not to reproduce.
Yeah. It's easy to find modern couples who don't want children because climate change/nihilism/whatever. A child of such couples would share a similar predicament to a child of trailer trash parents, i.e. toxic conditioning from the get-go.
>>16105262
Agreed.
>>16104919
I believe dictatorships could also work, but central-planning puts too much responsibility on potentially unqualified decision-makers. Engaging in WWII turned out horrible for German and Japanese people.
>>16106000
I see this too. A holistic view is required for determining the ideal humans.