Topic: Economic Devastation - page 60. (Read 504811 times)

They do not have the moral authority to do eugenics, but they will still do it, if they have the power to do so.

Socialism indeed messes up the gene pool, and low IQ people are subsidized to reproduce in masses, while high IQ people have 1 or max 2 children, some of them don't even get children.

It's also noted that nerds, are underisable for women, yet they have the highest IQ, so it's obvious why humanity is so stupid, because nerdness is not sexually attractive. So they wont reproduce.'

While big macho grunts with no brains are attractive to women, and they will have 5-10 children, so the gene pool gets downgraded.

===

Of course it's horrible to cleanse the population because it violates basic human rights, yet the current model is also unsustaineable.

So what will happen in the future?

An interesting back an forth. This is a deep and complex issues that is complicated by the horrible history of eugenics.
TPTB is correct in that no individual, government, or IQ test can top-down decide which individuals in which situations will be worthwhile.

This was the primary failure of Nazi Germany. They top-down defined what was superior "tall, blond, blue eyed and Aryan" and top-down decided that everyone else was inferior slated either for servitude or liquidation. The Nazi's subsequently liquidated millions of very high IQ Ashkenazi Jews, millions more high IQ "inferior Slavs" and their actions in the end lead to millions of German deaths.  It is interesting but not surprising that everyone advocating for "elimination of the undesirables" places their group in the role of the superior cast.

Today we have vast social welfare systems that discourage productive work and encourages government dependence. A single mom in the US is better of earning a gross income of $29,000 then to earn a gross income of $69,000 due to the government benefits provided to low income mothers.



Our system discourages work and encourages government dependence. There are undoubtedly some individuals living off of government who are entirely incapable of a productive contribution to society. There is likely a much larger portion that is capable of some contribution to society who are currently following the logical path of government dependence as this is easier, less risky, and involves less work.

The argument that socialism is eliminates natural selection on the population is flawed as it assumes that our current models of welfare will continue as they are today. This will not happen. Social Security and welfare in the US date back to 1935. Medicare and Medicaid are far more recent and date back to 1965. These are historical blips. These programs are unsustainable and thus will end or more likely be significantly changed long before they result in a significant effect on population genetics. As government finances deteriorate they will continue to pay these obligations but will do so with increasingly devalued currency reducing the overall subsidy over time.

In regards to dysgenic fertility in high IQ women I believe this will also prove to be a transient phenomena. Right now we are living through perhaps the most profound shift in natural selective pressure since the development of agriculture 8000+ years ago. In 1960 the birth control pill was approved by the FDA. Since that time women who wish to control their fertility do so and women who do not desire children do not have children. This is unprecedented in human history and represents a profound shift in selective pressure from males to females. We have decoupled sex from reproduction and in doing so have displaced male success at sexual relations as the primary driver of human evolution. Today the primary driver of human reproduction is the desire of women to have children. A substantial portion of the female population is not adapted to the new environment and are in the process of selecting themselves partially or completely out of the gene pool. After a few generations this will leave us with a population that prioritize children and I believe that the trend towards dysgenic fertility will dissipate.

Yes it is a private bank, many other countries have private central banks. So what? Stupid monkeys on the street get upset that their central bank is private?

Is that the real issue here? Some butthurt nationalists complaining?


Let me tell you the real problem. The real problem is that there exist a central bank in the first place. It doesnt matter if its public or private, the mere fact that there is an entity that controls the money supply and financial system is outrageous, because it gives it unlimited power over the citizens.

Power corrupts, and unlimited power corrupts in unlimited ways!

So the mere concept of central bank, centralization, central planninng, is a communist doctrine, and doesn't fit a civilized capitalist society.

I assert that there is a remedy, that you can use the lawful currency that already "circulates" debt-free and tax-free, and in this way reduce the national debt.

What are you asserting?

(Note: the post cited below is reproduced with the egregious misquote, original thereto, corrected.)

(Colorization mine.)


(Colorization mine.)

Just remember the central bank aka federal reserve is a private bank.

Its a bank that has share holders for only with banks, and that itself is crazy. So when we pay our taxes we are only paying back the banks in a different form which then goes to the actual private banks.

In the US, the people are the gold that backs the currency, and the currency is the signature.
By using an endorsement before the signature and on the face of the bill, you can qualify the instrument being negotiated.
For example, discharging bills (which are really credit vouchers in disguise) and receiving your pay in tax-free notes.
In the US, it is only a presumption that the people are debtors; they are really the creditors but too few are asserting their rights!

That article looks more like leftist propaganda, just do a basic google search about IQ correlation and business , I mean it's obvious, but looks like it's only me who understands basic logic, reason, and scientific method.

So just go live in your land of fairytales, propaganda and euphemisms, i`m out of this thread, looks like i cannot reason with people here, i`ll just stick to other topics, this one is too sensitive for readers as it seems.

(Colorization mine.)


(Blue colorization added.)

(Colorization mine.)


"[J]ob performance" (Penn State University) was (at least, in part) the subject of discussion (theretofore), not "career success" (Simmons). (Note: your post [tacitly] equates the two.)

(Citation abridged. Colorization added.)

Thank you. So much for RealBitcon's IQ delusionary bullshit.

You are confirming it in spades. The usual symptoms are glaringly apparent and smart readers see it (they private message me advising me to ignore you).


Well then since I've designed a system that 10X better than Bitcoin then I guess that means my IQ is 2000, lol (I know IQ is statement about rarity in the population and in that case every person's IQ is a zillion, because every human is unique but you'll never understand this)



Computer programmers are artists. We are not insignificant.

You entirely missed the point which is that utility of people is due to their unique fitness to a myriad of circumstances. The world of work is much more fucking diverse than you have been exposed to. Get off your sofa and go out into the world and learn. You are severely lacking of real world knowledge.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelsimmons/2015/01/15/this-is-the-1-predictor-of-career-success-according-to-network-science/



This is all to say that you cannot cancel out a debt with another debt; you cannot make payment on a debt with a promise to pay (bank note); that is not a payment and discharge of the debt.
Demand lawful money and full discharge, and start utilizing the alternative currency that is in place. See my earlier posts here.

Well i`m not living in hallucinations, i analyze the real world based on real data, so my intelligence is what it is, I can use my mental capacity to analyze the world correctly, perhaps with a little ego, but this Dunning-Kruger effect is just your excuse to cover up the fact that you can't refute my points.


No no no, hold on a second , now you spin my words. I was implying that the elite don't need them.

I`d be happy to live in a harmonic society with every person, but that is not where the current progression of technology will lead us.

A terminator type future is more likely.




So you deny that the current elite are preparing also for the collapse?

I get that they became wealthy from this money printing ponzi scheme, it's obvious. But they were intelligent, not necessarly moral people, but intelligent enough to scam the whole world.

And the whole world was so stupid to fall for their scam. How is that not intelligence when you can scam 7 billion people and besides a few hundred thousand educated economists, nobody else bothers?

Yes they are not moral people, but they are intelligent because they achieved that.

See intelligence is a double-edged sword, it can be both used for good (bitcoin, satoshi probably had IQ over 200), and evil (atomic bomb), etc.

SO:

They now scammed the whole world with fictional money, and they are now saving their phony wealth, by buying up real assets, so guess what:
When the economy get's reset, they will still be the financial elite!  (and they will be even wealthier)




I didnt said that humanity will go extinct because of that. In fact I havent even said the reason why.

So let me say now, the reason why humanity will go extinct if the current world order dissapears, is because in a possible financial meltdown globally, the elite will start to distrust eachother. And everybody will start to grab power for himself. Whereas today the limits of power are somewhat constrained, in a totally chaotic world it would be not.

So a nuclear apocalypse is more likely in a devastated world, than today with American - Russian minor conflicts.


Ah c`mon now you intentionally deceive yourself.

I told in a previous post that artists make up about 0.1% of the job market, so they are insignificant in the global economy. Why is it so hard to understand?

Guess what the other 99.9% of people do (except the intellectuals, and "authority" figures, and elite), they live the average life: eat ,drink, shit, get a mate, and make children. It's a very average way of living, and except a few % of them, they actually don't contribute anything significant to society.

With your 138 IQ, please choreograph some hip-hop, Zumba gym sessions for the Brunei hotel patrons. Leverage your vast sensibilities of Asian culture, so that it doesn't make the patrons turned off.

My 95 IQ ex-relative is able to do this, and neither you nor A.I. can.

You fundamentally don't understand that economy is locally annealed fitness, and IQ is not the only variable at play.

Your simpleton Malthusian (the sky is falling) conceptualizations are banal enough to make eating chalk a more pleasant proposition than reading your posts.

I addressed your points but ostensibly you are not astute enough to grasp that.


To a person with apparently such low conceptual IQ as yourself, signal appears to be noise. It may be that the subject matter is new and so if you were astute, you'd realize you are stumbling into a Dunning-Kruger effect because you assume your conceptualizations are complete and don't even bother to delve deeply into the concepts I am teaching.

I am intentionally berating you by now, because you've demonstrated that you are a fascist moron.


Dunning-Kruger effect. You didn't refute.


I guess you can't read. You specifically wrote that only 1-2% of the people would be employable and the rest would be on welfare.


You seem to confuse monetary digits and political power with real capital.

As Warren Buffet said, "You'll know who wasn't wearing underwear when the tide goes out".

The old world industrial capitalists can print international dollar debt to the tune of $9 trillion and cause filipinos to build redundant gas stations every 500 meters where a few years ago there was none, but misallocation of real capital destroys real capital and leaves those leaders with a dying NWO system of starry-eyed fools. The real capital that is working away like busy bees almost unseen is gradually taking over the world. Have you ever contemplated that all the systems those dumb asses employ depend on us[1].

[1]	"nobody can take it away from us any more, we have the internet" https://www.ted.com/talks/danny_hillis_the_internet_could_crash_we_need_a_plan_b?language=en http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4155 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4213 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4441

First you argue that low IQ persons are worthless. Now you argue the antithesis of what you argued before, that humanity will go extinct if we cull the low IQ people.

Your logic has gone away. It appears your rational pre-frontal cortex may be have been subjugated by your innate "primitive, post-paleozoic, hunter-gatherer ... fight-or-flight adrenaline spike".

For the second time, I refer you to my summary of the future that lies ahead. Actually try reading it slowly and clicking all the links and reading them. And try to learn.

"AI" (RealBitcoin) could come to be to Homo sapiens what Homo sapiens came to be to Homo erectus.

I`m talking about general problem solving intelligence.

The guys who have photographic memory and other "gifts" can easily be replaced by AI, but the problem solving one can't be because an AI doesn't necessarly work on the human desire level, and you end up with a SKYNET terminator apocalypse.

We know that AI run world will come eventually, the question is, how are we going to integrate it with humanity to avoid humanity's destruction?