Twitter cuts (#32)

November 2, 2015admin 16 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Fertility

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

16 Responses to this entry

  • Saul Solex Says:

    “not just selfish losers, but dumb ones as well”

    so they are intelligent, these women, or not? Surely they would be having kids if they were really smart enough to see the consequences of not doing so? Doesn’t this raise some questions about what counts as intelligent behaviour in the first place?


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Defecting against a society that already defected on them by obsoleting women. The dysfunction runs deep.


    0987654321 Reply:

    A lot of confusion dissipates if you have a proper grasp on language: Intelligence and wisdom are not one and the same thing. These women are intelligent, but they are not wise. To be intelligent is to properly perceive patterns in existence. To be wise is to properly apply them to your own. The theory of evolution, the grand pattern behind life, would suggest that it is worse to be a fool than to be stupid. Consequently, clever fools simply produce what they are due.


    R. Reply:

    To be intelligent is to properly perceive patterns in existence.

    Then most high IQ people aren’t intelligent either.

    Not seeing what would make one emotionally uncomfortable seems more common than the reverse.


    Patri Friedman Reply:

    I don’t see anything obviously unwise about choosing not to reproduce. We are not our genes; our goals need not be their goals. It is wisdom to choose to analyze alternatives to your biological imperatives. Even if the goal is human survival, one might devote oneself to researching genetic engineering techniques that can scale to help everyone, rather than having a few kids.

    If all humans devoted all their resources to having kids, rather than developing our interstellar armada, we would be a poor Malthusian world and humans would be guaranteed to go extinct when the first aliens with better marshmallow-test scores came along and nuked us from orbit. Clearly the wise course is to limit resources invested in reproduction. So why is “zero resources” always the wrong choice?

    That said, selecting for lower intelligence and lower marshmallow-test scores in the who-reproduces-filter also has serious issues. It’s a hard problem.


    sviga lae Reply:

    It’s no problem at all, when properly conceived. The solution, which has always been available and sometimes practised, is systematic downward social mobility. All that suffices is a large differential in fertility between the self-assortedly most capable, possessed of the best genomes (in practise, likely firmly mapping to a low mutational load), and the least. The assortation mechanisms are already firmly in place and evidently effective, all that is lacking is the will to practise it, whether purely biologically, or enhanced with technological techniques. The extant technological base is certainly sufficient.

    The result is a downward-flowing fountain of superior genetic quality (as well as directly transmitted wealth and cultural accoutrements), a grand entropy pump of organically selected capacity. The worker drones need not be totally infertile; something like Sailer’s touted ‘one and done’ would serve to protect whatever dormant recombinant potential they possess, and improve social stability. Historically, this kind of downward social mobility has created problems of its own peculiar nature (‘elite overproduction’ etc.), however these pale into insignificance compared to the swathes of social problems that it solves at a stroke, and the future benefits of raising the genotypic intelligence baseline.

    To the extent that it has found historical practise, as mediated by institutions that governed reproduction and (now vanished) scarcity effects, it is responsible for everything of value that we have in the developed world.

    Erebus Reply:

    The question they’re all asking is: What consequences?

    In this modern world, where everybody who isn’t a member of the permanent underclass is expected to work — and where skilled, ambitious, high status people are expected to work most of all — raising children is either an expensive luxury or a tremendous hassle… when it isn’t both.

    Having a large family used to signal high status. If it still did, we’d see larger families among the intelligent and successful. As it now signals precisely the opposite — as it is associated predominantly with welfare recipients, migrant scum, and the unfashionably religious — people who attain or aspire to high status are not going to have large families.

    “Smart women not having kids” isn’t the problem. These women are simply reacting to the modern ethos, which is a sort of existential/nihilistic hedonism. Working a high-power job, making money, status signaling, apparently makes women a lot happier than rearing a brood of loud, cranky, ungrateful brats.
    …The vast majority of people, men and women alike, have simply lost any transcendental instincts they might have had — and they certainly have no real loyalty to any national, religious, or ethnic group — so they’ll only do whatever seems pleasurable or profitable. Raising children isn’t either one of those things.


    Reactionary Expat Reply:

    Is that correct though? Quite a few really high status people have lots of children. Three is not uncommon or looked down upon at all. Those women don’t actually have careers either. They have glorified hobbies and social activities such as philanthropy. Big difference there. They also have a lot of help.

    The middle and upper middle class don’t have many children, but they’re not even remotely high status. A lot of what they do involves pursuing what they have been told is high status but actually isn’t.


    Erebus Reply:

    By “high status” I mean the white-collar professional classes & the working rich. Corporate lawyers, McKinsey consultants, financial institution “Vice Presidents,” media firm executives, venture capitalists, and so on, along with the millions who hope to attain that sort of career — those “pursuing what they have been told is high status but actually isn’t.” Whether or not you consider this sort of thing high status is utterly irrelevant, as 99.9% of the business school students out there are made to believe that such careers do reflect extremely high status. (And demand quite a lot of work, and many sacrifices!)

    I know a few women who started as lawyers and corporate management-trainees, married wealthy men, quit their jobs, and then became professional busybodies and housewives. But this sort of thing can’t be common enough to reflect in birthrate statistics, and so it doesn’t appear to be relevant. Old Money — along the lines of the Vanderbilts and Astors — is surely irrelevant.

    I don’t think that “high status” and “vast wealth” are necessarily the same thing, either. The former is typically tied up in one’s career or personal accomplishments. (Raising many children to adulthood used to be a real accomplishment, a good investment, and virtuous from a religious perspective. No longer.) There are old Chinese dowagers who may possess vast wealth and patronize the arts, but I would not say that they possess high status, as they lack the barest hint of personal or professional accomplishment.

    …There are some issues with this, and I don’t think that it is entirely accurate, but for illustrative purposes… I’m talking about the gentry, striver, and elite servant classes — you’re talking solely about the national elite. (Who are, if anything, overestimated at .19% of the population.)

    Patri Friedman Reply:

    Having & raising (smart, future positive productivity) children is a contribution to a public good; it ensures the survival of the human race. Individually it combines huge private benefits (enjoyable time, satisfaction, passing on genes) with huge private costs.

    As with any public good that requires individual sacrifice, a healthy society will honor, celebrate, encourage, and incent (productive class) natalism. A society that mocks, discourages, and loser-izes a critical part of its ongoing survival is clearly one that is dying.


    Posted on November 2nd, 2015 at 4:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    in hindu version of paradise, woman living for sexual pleasures only for 10000 years then at the end of life gives birth to one child.


    Posted on November 2nd, 2015 at 4:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    At the deeper level, the failure of what passes for the “intelligentsia” these days to have children is just another symptom that we have entered Mouse Utopia….


    Posted on November 2nd, 2015 at 4:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Twitter cuts (#32) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on November 2nd, 2015 at 6:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • jay Says:

    Meanwhile intelligent men are reproducing:


    Posted on November 2nd, 2015 at 8:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:


    admin I think you want to check out and follow Martin Van Crevald.

    He is definitely not PC.

    He’s the only Military Historian that’s not British or American on US MIL mandatory reading lists.

    Here’s his blog.


    admin Reply:

    He’s linked in the last Chaos Patch.


    Posted on November 2nd, 2015 at 11:42 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment