Thursday, July 14, 2016

Right-Sizing and Quality Adjusting Human Populations to Economic Requirements

In a previous post, I asserted that automation will make most people economically redundant and that the elite will not for long tolerate the existence of an unproductive population:
They will destroy them, just as the European elites prior to World War II fantasized about killing off the useless eaters, an idea that Hitler and Stalin, and later Mao, applied on an industrial scale.
Some remarks along the same lines that I made over at Unz.com drew the following comment:
It is remarkable that we can see what’s coming, but we can’t do anything about it. It is like a disease we can’t cure, or a machine too complicated to fix.
Which prompted the following thoughts:

Yes, what we face is a bit like both "a disease we can’t cure" and "a machine too complicated to fix."

The disease we cannot cure stems from the fact that the elite has the power, and we do not.

And this is not the power of a bunch of knights in armor trashing a mob of angry peasants armed with pitch forks. It is the power of people who can eavesdrop on every phone call, scan every email, and who can destroy you, your family, your city or your country in a multitude of ways, covert or overt. That's pretty incurable.

There's also the problem of an evolving civilization that is so complex that no one really understands what's coming next or can, therefore, know what's best to do for us, the people, or them, the elite. Which means there's scope here for the imaginative revision of elite plans.

What's really gone wrong between the classes is that they are no longer of one family. At one time, the poor raised few children to adulthood, due to poor housing, inadequate nutrition, etc. The rich, on the other hand, were able to more than replace their own numbers. Thus the rich were downward mobile, replacing the reproductive deficit of the poor with their own surplus progeny. This meant that the rich had poor relatives and viewed the poor with a degree of sympathy, while the poor had rich relatives and viewed the rich with a degree of respect. Hence there was, in every country, one nation.

Since the industrial revolution, the relationship between rich and poor has been radically altered. The poor, fed on cheap grain from the New World, and clothed with cheap garments from the cotton spinning and weaving mills of Manchester, multiplied freely. Thus emerged Disreali's two nations:
...between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor.
But the industrial proletariat was tolerated because it worked the industrial machine, and because it provided the mass of men ready to lay down their lives for their country in times of war.

But now automation and advanced tech have eliminated the need for the mass man. Robots are taking over the workplace, and all that the military require to operate their stupendously expensive hardware are a few highly trained technicians.

So how can this end other than badly for the mass of mankind?

In the West, one way forward would be to downsize populations without genociding them by mass replacement immigration, a process I outlined in my last post. But this idea will not fly so long as the dumb, ill-educated, more or less degenerate mass of the Western population out-breed the elite, as happens now.

(The claim that the lower socio-economic classes outbreed the upper socio-economic classes may seem inconsistent with the claim that the Western nations are being genocided by a combination of suppressed fertility and mass replacement immigration. But the fact is that all classes in the Western world have a below replacement fertility*, but those with the most education, and in general the highest IQ's, i.e., the elite, have the lowest fertility of all.)

A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females.

With such a policy, the Western nations would once again be unified, and would experience the benefits of positive selection for intelligence, responsibility, education, business competence, etc., while gently adjusting population size to whatever is deemed optimal. The exact intelligence profile of the population might be adjusted by modification of breeding incentives to insure a good fit between individual capabilities and employment opportunities.

6 comments:

  1. “In the West, one way forward would be to downsize populations without genociding them by mass replacement immigration. But this idea will not fly so long as the dumb, low information, more or less degenerate mass of the Western population out-breed the elite, as happens now.”

    First, American whites rarely characterize their civilization as being “the West” or “western”. Second, you are misusing the term “genocide”. Mass replacement immigration does NOT equate to that term. Third, you do realize that your own elitist views regarding the “common people”, who are also WHITE, will not sit well with them, so how do you expect them to cater to your every whim?

    “A way forward, therefore, is a rational population policy that restores the old relationships among the classes. This can be done in a variety of ways, e.g., significant, and if necessary massive, tax breaks for high earners with children, combined with a strictly enforced one-child policy for non tax payers. Enforcing the latter policy would probably require universal DNA fingerprinting, to ensure that penalties for breaching the one child policy (or a no child policy for some) applied to males as well as females.”

    How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation? Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate–whom you characterize as being “dumb, low information, degenerates”–or ruling “elites”? What courses of action to counter the inevitable widespread dissension over these policies IF they were to enacted?

    “while gently adjusting population size to whatever is deemed optimal.”

    Gently, ha! More like bludgeoning. Moreover, what population size to YOU is “optimal”? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

    ReplyDelete
  2. You made this comment at unz.com where I replied as follows:

    You say:

    First, American whites rarely characterize their civilization as being “the West” or “western”.

    Who cares how Americans, white, black or khaki, characterize their civilization, if you can call it a civilization. I’d rather call it a byproduct of the commercial system.

    For those who are more or less educated, Wikipedia provides a definition of “the West” consistent with my usage and the usage of most modern historians and political commentators:

    Historically, Asian and Islamic nations have been regarded as East, while Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Latin America and the United States are regarded as West.

    You say:

    Second, you are misusing the term “genocide”. Mass replacement immigration does NOT equate to that term.

    Try not to shout, or use all caps for emphasis, it adds nothing to your argument.

    The term “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin a Polish Jew and legal scholar who wrote thus:

    The crime of the [German Nazi] Reich in wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world. It is only new in the civilized world as we have come to think of it. It is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it.

    It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.” The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that.

    More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.


    So, yes, mass replacement immigration combined with repressed reproduction and enforced multiculturalism and political correctness does “equate to the term” genocide.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Re: Corvinus:

    Re: population policy

    You ask:

    Do you even have the necessary support from the current electorate–whom you characterize as being “dumb, low information, degenerates”–or ruling “elites”?

    First, you misquote me. I did not refer to the US electorate as “degenerates,” although I did speak of the “more or less degenerate mass.”

    I think that is a fair and accurate characterization, though as a generalization it is certainly subject to many exceptions.

    Degenerate means “having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.” By that measure, the mass of TV-watching, junk-food-guzzling, coke-snorting, hash-smoking, porn-addicted masses, would, I believe, be considered “more of less degenerate” by their forebears. The same is true of all Western nations.

    Second, democracy in the West is a fraud, therefore the question of electoral support is irrelevant. The elite decide, the mass are then compelled to think in conformity, the means of compulsion including:

    State-controlled K-to-early-middle-age education, with its mandatory components of multiculturalism and political correctness;

    Unfree print and broadcast media, including book publishing and entertainment, controlled by a handful of like-minded corporations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Corvinus

    How do YOU propose this policy be enacted and implemented in light of Constitutional protections and current legislation?

    I discussed the question of population downsizing here.

    As I am not an American I am not concerned to discuss how such a policy might be implemented under the particular constitutional constraints that prevail in the United States, assuming that the United States still has a constitution in any form other than “a goddam piece of paper.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And by "here", I meant in this post!

      Delete
  5. Great to know you are not serious about debating the issues, but rather serving as an echo chamber.

    ReplyDelete