Politics equals eugenics
This thread is about discussing a thought, which not only I but many other philosophers have expressed, one of them being the great Aldous Huxley, who mentioned it briefly in passing in his famous Berkley speech.
Known facts:
- Eugenics is a process akin to breeding, but applied to humans, in which certain traits are selected for.
- Selection in nature is, in short, caused by the environment. Different environment, means different selection pressure. That is why Norse and Masai, who drank a lot of milk became more tolerant for lactose, for example - it was part of their environment. There are all sorts of differences between ethnical groups in how they adapted to their local conditions, but there are also all sorts of differences between individuals as they found niches within their own etnicity, within their own system of evolutionary pressure factors around them.
- With the advent of civilization, not only nature dictated what factors determine selection. While before civilization we were only affected by pressure factors from nature, we now had control over society, and what evolutionary pressures it created.
- Selection can be performed by whether a person dies or survives until reproductive age
- It can also be done by how many kids persons with certain traits tend to have
- It can also be done by affecting how attractive a person becomes in the eyes of others, i.e. whether he dies a single, or not
- Finally, it can be done by selecting who a person will have offspring with - whether that person is a suitable match or whether the combination of their genes will create a weaker offspring who is de-selected in the next generation by any of these 5 points.
The claim:
- All political ideologies and moral systems are definitions of evolutionary selection pressures, i.e. eugenics.
Even systems like socialism, which claims to not be, is. Why - because those who survive in socialism who would otherwise die, now form a greater percentage of the whole population in the next generation, than they would otherwise do (0%). That is, indeed, a matter of affecting selection. So if 1% who would die because of improper survival capability and improper capability to help create food or other things important to the population survive due to socialism, they can compete with the productive males for women, if they would happen to still appear attractive despite their parasitic nature (parasitic i.e. not productive, yet still consuming what the society produces). Because there are 1.06 males per female born, for each child this unproductive guy would make with a woman, he would cause one less offspring for one productive man, regardless of whether monogamous marriage or decandece is practised.
Now that isn't to say it would be more natural to not give unemployment subsidies to people who don't get jobs and let them die, because if society hadn't been here they might have been excellent hunters, and survived easily - who knows? So society does have some sort of duty anyway, to provide for them whom they are forbidding to get food from nature, because hunting is regulated. And indeed one may ask if ability to get a job in today's society, is indeed a more valuable trait than being a good hunter.
The point of the argument is rather (let us not discuss the details of the example above, which is only meant to be illustrative and not part of the overall point) - we ARE affecting the selection pressure and the prevalence of certain traits with socialist systems too, and thus the direction which mankind is taking through evolution. This is true for ALL political systems.
There are way more ways in which we affect evolution. As urbanization increases, our gene pools grow, meaning the threat of inbreeding is virtually gone. Then suddenly, what reason do we have to avoid having 1% of males sleeping with 100 women while 99% of men are degraded to drones? Through rudimentation, most males will become obsolete when urbanization and free movement of people is too heavily deployed. We we develop into insect-like structures, where there is genetical separation between an upper class and lower class? Will disease resistance become a more important survival trait than physical strength and intelligence, when urbanization increases? Will evil shrewdness and prima noctra of financial and massmedia elite, triumph over altruism? Will genetical disposition for altruism disappear, when the gene pool is so large and the free movement the globalists want, ensures that a bad parasitic guy can just move around and parasite off of different cities and still not be eradicated from the gene pool by punishment such as imprisonment, death penalty, fines or whichever punishment that decreases likelihood of a more numerous offspring, that he would otherwise get?
This thread is about discussing the factual accuracy of the claim that all politics are eugenics, implicitly or explicitly, please stay on topic and preferably avoid lengthy discussions about individual examples unless they're related to the main subject. It is also about discussing the consequences of this conclusion. Should we strive to make the pressure more like that in nature, since that is a pressure chosen by a neutral third party? Or can we ever agree upon a choice of pressures defined by humans as being the most reasonable one?
Originally Posted by snuggans
Besides Aryans aren't dominating media any more. Nor are alphas beating the financial elite, from what I know. I'd say monogamous marriages with sex that actually means something is the most beautiful way for human love to transpire. 
. Hell, the tag truth... automatically means you are a POS.
