My Political & World View: Expanded

Many of you following my blog may have seen My Political & World View – if you haven’t yet, please go ahead and do so before continuing on. This post will be covering what I really meant, and expanding a bit on that with proper explanations in my own manner of speech and rhetoric.

Now: What I first want to point out is that if you hadn’t noticed it after reading my original blog on this, then I’ll say it now: That post was based wholly on a clip from an anime called Code Geass, and it is the speech of the Emperor Charles of the Holy Britannian Empire. He’s a hard right Social Darwinist. Following that line of thought, I realize I may have come off as a Fascist somewhat akin to Hitler, or Mussolini. This, is sadly a bad representation of my views due to the shock value of the political propaganda itself. While my views aren’t inherently different, they are in context, a fair shake apart.

With that said, let us begin. I will start out by outlining my Political & World View into two major categories, and I will expand on those along with my reasoning thereof.

1. Eugenics
2. Geniocracy

1a. I’m going to start us off with a quote from the brilliant inventor and one of the wisest minds of our current time, Nikola Tesla:

“The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man’s new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct. Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.”

Nikola Tesla was a brilliant man, and he was right – to a point, but probably not for the reasons you think. So first of all, just what exactly is “eugenics” you may ask? Some of you may genuinely not know. So let’s start out with a definition:

eu·gen·ics [yoo-jen-iks]
noun, ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

What we’re looking at here is basically an expansion on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Why do we evolve? How do we evolve? Why do we evolve in certain ways? In nature desirable traits are passed on, and undesirable traits are not. The undesirable traits are not passed on because the members of those species with said traits do not breed. If you do not breed you do not pass on your traits. Eugenics in a nutshell.

The inherent problem with Darwinism with the human species is that we are artificially and unnaturally breaking this cycle. As it stands now, some of the stupidest motherfucking assholes are the majority of the ones reproducing. And they’re good at it. They make a meteric fuckton of babies. Why? How did this happen? Does this mean that stupidity rather than being an evolutionary weakness is rather the desirable trait established by natural selection? Well, possibly. But that’s because of how we’ve allowed ourselves to be governed over the past several thousand years: A few powerful individuals are in control, while the rest of the sheepish masses follow. This has been the basic formula for the human social engine for quite some time now. But is that where we really want to take our species? A few intelligent… no, that’s wrong to say. The ones with power may not inherently even be intelligent or charismatic.

About an hour after this point I hit ctrl+z and subsequently lost a good hour’s worth of writing. I’m rather upset about that, mind you, and I’m not entirely sure where I went with this.

I went on to expand further on how this happened, and religion, and how religion was initially to explain seemingly supernatural phenomena that primitive man could not understand but then went on to be used as a control tool for controlling populations, and how this blog post will focus on negative eugenics rather than positive eugenics as positive eugenics would be unnecessary and blah blah, am I fucking pissed that I lost all of this or what…

1b. Now, unfortunately regardless of what you or I think on the matter, this will be necessary in about a century or two – and not for the reasons you or I would like for it to be. You see, our current growth rate along with our limited resources is unsustainable. This is not yet apparent, but it will be. Further, eventually as we work to combat aging and the effects of aging we will eventually have to choose between either a) having lots of kids, or b) longer lives. Given that A will be already in dire need of action, it will leave only the course of option B. Of course, things like space colonization and so forth are possibilities, but are inconvenient and unrealistic. It’s just like one of the major underlying issues with the American health system. It treats the symptom and not the cause.

These are the problems that we will face:

  • Inadequate fresh water for drinking, as well as sewage treatment.
  • Depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels.
  • Increased levels of pollution.
  • Deforestation and loss of ecosystems that sustain the global atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide balance.
  • Changes in atmospheric composition and consequent global warming.
  • Irreversible loss of arable land and increases in desertification.
  • Mass extinctions from reduced habitat of local populations due to human expansion.
  • High infant and child mortality.
  • Intensive factory farming.
  • Increased chance of epidemics and pandemics.
  • Starvation, malnutrition, ill health, and diet-deficiency diseases. Famine.
  • Low level of capital formation.
  • Low life expectancy.
  • Unhygienic living conditions.
  • Elevated crime rate.
  • Conflict over scarce resources and crowding.
  • Less personal freedom and more restrictive laws.

Any rate of growth is unsustainable in the long term, so we must stabilize population soon for the good of future generations. So it’s a problem for the future, right? We’re not there yet, right? Well, actually… 7 billion people, which is the current projected human population, may well be too many already. Research shows that about 2 billion people is the number the planet can sustainably support, if everyone consumes the same amount of resources as the average European (which is less than the average American). The world population is expected to increase to 9 billion by 2050. People are also living longer. At present there’s a ratio of about 5 births for every 2 deaths. Here’s the current growth trend:

Unfortunately, these past few centuries has seen a massive explosion in population, and that’s not good.

If the human race is to have an arbitrarily long future on this planet, then we must establish a society which is essentially static in nature. This is not open to debate…it is a simple mathematical fact. So while it’s all well and good and all to put ourselves in a moral position where we want to protect and support all life, unfortunately it’s a mathematical impossibility. If you want to call me insane, fine. But I get to call you fucking stupid.

So what do we need to do? Well, first of all… our population is already too high for sustainability. But… We need to have a higher death rate than a birth rate. In other words, we need to drop our population down to about 2 billion, or a bit less, and then sustain those numbers through the ratio of births and deaths. I’m not sponsoring slaughtering and genocide, I’m suggesting eugenics.

First we make it so that people with undesirable physical traits (as well as undesirable mental disorders) are sterilized. This won’t be popular, but it’s better for our species from an evolutionary perspective. And keep in mind, this isn’t murder – it’s a method of prevention and no more murder than a condom is. Next, we need to regulate who can actually parent children. Couples will need to go through parent licensing to be able to have a child. The new children that are born will be important, and we need to make sure they have good homes. I wouldn’t even really be against positive eugenics done artificially outside a womb and leaving the population sterilized that way we could breed desirable traits like intelligence. Overall, the most important thing though is population sustainability. We need to be under 2 billion and essentially static. The longer our lives are, the lower our birth rate needs to be. I’ll leave this at that for the time being.

2. Geniocracy. So what the hell is Geniocracy? The basic jist of it is that rather than an election by popularity contest, instead we would be electing geniuses of the population – thus the name. It ascribes basically to two main things: 1) To run for office you would need a certain IQ, and 2) to vote in elections you would need a certain IQ (albeit lower than the ones running). We wouldn’t just use IQ for the ones running, since Hitler could have been a genius for instance (albeit he was an idiot, though I digress). We’d also need some tests for some other things as well… But the basic premise is that we get the people in office who would be best for society, and we only let those capable of making good informed decisions and capable of proper logic and reason deciding this for society. Stupid people are all well and good, but they shouldn’t be deciding the fate of our species. They can just go sit in the corner over there. The whole thing was proposed by this alien cult leader guy named Rael who’s kinda batshit crazy, but the idea itself is nonetheless pretty sound.

I’ll now take it further:

3. Abolition of Religion

3. If you read one of my earlier blogs you know that Fundamentalism is directly linked to low IQ. While we can eliminate low IQ through eugenics, it also helps to not indoctrinate our kids. Religion was initially designed to explain seemingly supernatural things primitive man could not understand. But we can explain these things now, we no longer need to look up to some magical man in the sky. Sure, there are some things we can’t understand but can we really say that if you don’t understand something and a community of physicists don’t understand it then it must be god? If that’s the case then we could go ahead and list all the things in the past that physicists at the time didn’t understand, and say “yeah, that must be god” then come back 10 years later and say “well… I guess maybe it’s not.” If that’s how you want to invoke your “god” then your god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. It’s a bit pathetic, really, but that’s what it comes down to. It’s just a god of the gaps argument, and it’s been around forever. It’s stupid and if you believe it you’re a moron.

Now I’m not going to bother explaining further why religion is a bad thing. There are a lot of brilliant Atheist or Agnostics far more eloquent than I that have gone on at length regarding this, and I’ll just leave that up to them.

So with that said, this is the basic jist of my political agenda. It’s not so much about “aw shit, she’s crazy!” but moreso about the continuation of the human species in some form of meaningful way. We can’t do it how we are now, and it’s a problem. People are going to realize it’s a problem, and even if I don’t do anything personally and nobody listens to me, eventually something is going to have to be done or we’re done.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

2 thoughts on “My Political & World View: Expanded

  1. yerpirate says:

    This is really good research for discussion – superb work to chew on a debate.

  2. jaybug says:

    Some of the best bosses I have ever had were not high IQ people. And guess what? They didn’t make too many mistakes either. Why? Because they knew they didn’t know everything, unlike my current boss, so they took the time necessary to think things through. What a concept! Wish I used that one more! lol

    I would rather we did away with gullibility instead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: