When repopulation remains unregulated, all political systems inevitably end in tyranny. Authoritarianism & tyranny are not a result of failed man-made socioeconomic systems, be it communism or capitalism. Tyranny is an emergent result of impacted human competition, of which even capitalism inevitably succumbs to (see: contemporary America).
Population regulation has been deliberately stained by the global elite with the knee-jerk term “Genocide”. Wealth inequality can only exist with human surplus, the greater the surplus, the greater the inequality. Repopulation management is a concept that is suppressed by those who have absolute dominance of the narrative-generating media and paradigm-constructing academia. Hypercriticality has been upon us for a while now, and there is only one single protocol that must be implemented to destroy the vast economic inequality that exists. That protocol is not pretty. It seems ominous and, on its surface, appears tyrannical in itself. It even has a sinister-sounding name: Protocide
-
[protocide ~adjective; def, Achieving environmental equilibrium by restricting the engenderment of those living under economic precarity.
~By utilizing the qualifying standards required of adoption applicants to those seeking a parenting license, an impacted population can achieve sociostasis within a few generations.]
-
By implementing a protocidal policy, the feedback of hypercriticality is used as a regulation mechanism that self-adjusts the spectrum of human asset value into the range of scarcity, where there is value across the entire spectrum. It will never be equal value, but there will never be a demographic with zero power, like where the 99% of us are currently at. If implementing such a form of regulation seems to appear tyrannical, think for a moment how over-regulated our entire world, especially the developed world, is. Everything is regulated, and new regulations are constructed and implemented every day. How many? There is a direct proportion of the number of laws that direct human activity and the size of the populace that those laws oversee. As our numbers grow, so do the number of permutations of human interactions, and as society expands in numbers, the sophistication and complexities of interrelations strain interdependence and proportionally weaken cooperation, leaving legislation as the typical means of stabilization. We breed ourselves into oppression. If we recede the size of humanity, we will diminish tyrannical controls. By implementing protocide, we are actually creating conditions more favorable to a laissez-faire society, where the individual can only exploit themselves instead of others, and in the case of the current model we live in, the untold masses.
After observing the last 200 years history it appears all political systems tend towards Monarchy and aristocratic, genetic hierarchies. Hypercriticality is achieved when the last frontier is populated and random societal pressures cannot escape. Human genetic hierarchies have an in-built failure mode however: Trophy wife syndrome. Our male ideal of female beauty does not facilitate passage of the same traits the successful Monarch or noble possessed to achieve his dominance. The hormone level in females necessary to produce the male ideal of female beauty tend to create a lessor male heir despite the DNA. Our literature is replete with stories of the heir not being the man his progenitors were. Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, Cyrus and Cambyses. This is the prime failure of these traditional, and inevitable systems it appears to me, and the impetus for the last 250 years of experimentation.
"Population regulation has been deliberately stained by the global elite" That's not the only efficacious thing that has been stained, Eugenics also.
It appears in these latter days that technological cultures tend to self regulate populations so THAT particular problem has it's partial cure. But what of the masses who do not understand the technology they use daily? We have achieved THAT future. I fear the wealth / power disparity will increase to absolute Morlock / Eloi levels at some point, though probably reversing Wells predicted aesthetics. Is it all inevitable, or shall we "unstain" these tools?
Repopulation management and eugenics are two completely different things, one being institutionally administered under economic criteria and the other being enforced under genetic criteria. The latter is ethically despicable, the former benignly utilitarian.
Eugenics should be stigmatized, as its history is filled with disasters. The key is to distance repopulation management from eugenics at all costs.
Communist institutionally administered economic criteria last century was responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. RACISM under the flag of Eugenics was responsible for a fraction of deaths in comparison, approximately 12 million at largest estimate.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on the disasters under an actual flag of Eugenics based on scientifically determined merits, not rank racism. As far as I'm aware it's NEVER actually been tried. Perhaps we are from different planets. Earth, RIGHT?
Let me give you a realistic argument FOR Eugenics: Hows your back feeling today? Knees? Pancreas failing to deal with sugar?
How about we fix all those autistic kids?
Eugenics encompasses genetic REPAIR as well as breeding control.
I see nothing remotely controversial at all with Hienlienian Eugenics: paying the intelligent to marry and breed.
The current trend towards larger and larger masses of humanity being marginalized and disenfranchised in an increasingly technological environment they are not evolved to adapt to IS an absolute disaster happening right now. What percentage of western population will be economically displaced by self driving vehicles? About 15%. That's one case. That number of people out of work is equal to the 1930s depression. Now crank in all those office jobs lost to AI in the next few years. Another 15% minimally? Amazon style warehouse automation? on and on.
In your first sentence you say "When repopulation remains unregulated," Who will regulate it and under what criteria? How can this "regulation" NOT become either the racism under flag of Eugenics of the 1930s and 40s OR a moral, scientific, merit based system that will allow the human race to proceed into the future without the apparent looming disasters? I understand the next argument is concerning the definition of the merits. The devil in the details. It all circles the question of morals vs expediency does it not? Do we breed super soldiers or super workers, or those flexible to be either like we are now? Super cooperative/passive? Ants?
I vote we allow human nature to stay the same, just up the general IQ, fix the obvious physical genetic issues and avoid the moral quagmires. Economic culture is downstream of genetics.
You clearly missed the criteria stated in the Protocide definition, which suggests that you did not follow the reasoning of my original comment.
"Communist institutionally administered economic criteria last century was responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths." Soviet megadeaths from communism is well documented and nowhere in the historical record does it show that REpopulation (intentional emphasis) regulation was at play. They deemed their human surplus as necessary expendables and determined that they needed to be removed from the breeding pool by starving them to death.
No one is killed in a Protocidal system. The disqualified components of society get to live & function just like everyone else, except that they do not have to bear the strain of a dependent that would exacerbate their economic circumstances.
It's a win-win. Their struggle is diminished, and society does not have to bear the consequences of a person raised in a home that's under financial duress. The grand majority of sociopaths that predate society-at-large are the product of financially precarious households. Protocide preemptively eliminates these detrimental human components.
In this system, over the course of a half dozen generations, those that are unable to reasonably operate in a society due to physical/psychological dysfunction, would be selectively distilled from the genetic pool. Ergo, genetics is actually downstream from economic culture in a Protocidal model.
I have not, but I know the gist. Sounds a lot like Game B talk. The rub is, of course, that at any given population level you can't abandon being a 'taker' without going back to a prior population level.
Ishmael is a book i quite love, but i see what you mean. Taker practices are the practices that result in an increased human population. It's a pretty problem. I tend to think through it terms of transitions into regenerative agriculture, permaculture food forests, edible city foodscapes, and aquaponic fish and vegetable food skyscrapers for cities. You know whatever works for a particular climate. If a food generating city is possible and implemented it wouldn't have to rip down the rural. If people become hooked into their ecosystems again you can get a lower birth rate than the natural death rate and population comes down, no genocides necessary.
Hey BJ: Your slack for paid subscribers doesn't work. Even having substack send an email login doesn't work. I suspect it's because I'm not paying the proper way. I've been sending you $10/month via Patreon since 2018 (time flies!). Regardless, I'm not a fan of Slack. I might suggest you set up a Discord channel. All the up and coming projects are there, and you can do subscriber-only access easily. Best of luck!
I dislike Discord for various reasons. Thanks for reminding, though, I need to put up an invite link over on Patreon. I'll do that now, and when I do, try it and report back.
When repopulation remains unregulated, all political systems inevitably end in tyranny. Authoritarianism & tyranny are not a result of failed man-made socioeconomic systems, be it communism or capitalism. Tyranny is an emergent result of impacted human competition, of which even capitalism inevitably succumbs to (see: contemporary America).
Population regulation has been deliberately stained by the global elite with the knee-jerk term “Genocide”. Wealth inequality can only exist with human surplus, the greater the surplus, the greater the inequality. Repopulation management is a concept that is suppressed by those who have absolute dominance of the narrative-generating media and paradigm-constructing academia. Hypercriticality has been upon us for a while now, and there is only one single protocol that must be implemented to destroy the vast economic inequality that exists. That protocol is not pretty. It seems ominous and, on its surface, appears tyrannical in itself. It even has a sinister-sounding name: Protocide
-
[protocide ~adjective; def, Achieving environmental equilibrium by restricting the engenderment of those living under economic precarity.
~By utilizing the qualifying standards required of adoption applicants to those seeking a parenting license, an impacted population can achieve sociostasis within a few generations.]
-
By implementing a protocidal policy, the feedback of hypercriticality is used as a regulation mechanism that self-adjusts the spectrum of human asset value into the range of scarcity, where there is value across the entire spectrum. It will never be equal value, but there will never be a demographic with zero power, like where the 99% of us are currently at. If implementing such a form of regulation seems to appear tyrannical, think for a moment how over-regulated our entire world, especially the developed world, is. Everything is regulated, and new regulations are constructed and implemented every day. How many? There is a direct proportion of the number of laws that direct human activity and the size of the populace that those laws oversee. As our numbers grow, so do the number of permutations of human interactions, and as society expands in numbers, the sophistication and complexities of interrelations strain interdependence and proportionally weaken cooperation, leaving legislation as the typical means of stabilization. We breed ourselves into oppression. If we recede the size of humanity, we will diminish tyrannical controls. By implementing protocide, we are actually creating conditions more favorable to a laissez-faire society, where the individual can only exploit themselves instead of others, and in the case of the current model we live in, the untold masses.
After observing the last 200 years history it appears all political systems tend towards Monarchy and aristocratic, genetic hierarchies. Hypercriticality is achieved when the last frontier is populated and random societal pressures cannot escape. Human genetic hierarchies have an in-built failure mode however: Trophy wife syndrome. Our male ideal of female beauty does not facilitate passage of the same traits the successful Monarch or noble possessed to achieve his dominance. The hormone level in females necessary to produce the male ideal of female beauty tend to create a lessor male heir despite the DNA. Our literature is replete with stories of the heir not being the man his progenitors were. Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, Cyrus and Cambyses. This is the prime failure of these traditional, and inevitable systems it appears to me, and the impetus for the last 250 years of experimentation.
"Population regulation has been deliberately stained by the global elite" That's not the only efficacious thing that has been stained, Eugenics also.
It appears in these latter days that technological cultures tend to self regulate populations so THAT particular problem has it's partial cure. But what of the masses who do not understand the technology they use daily? We have achieved THAT future. I fear the wealth / power disparity will increase to absolute Morlock / Eloi levels at some point, though probably reversing Wells predicted aesthetics. Is it all inevitable, or shall we "unstain" these tools?
Repopulation management and eugenics are two completely different things, one being institutionally administered under economic criteria and the other being enforced under genetic criteria. The latter is ethically despicable, the former benignly utilitarian.
Eugenics should be stigmatized, as its history is filled with disasters. The key is to distance repopulation management from eugenics at all costs.
WOW.
Communist institutionally administered economic criteria last century was responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. RACISM under the flag of Eugenics was responsible for a fraction of deaths in comparison, approximately 12 million at largest estimate.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on the disasters under an actual flag of Eugenics based on scientifically determined merits, not rank racism. As far as I'm aware it's NEVER actually been tried. Perhaps we are from different planets. Earth, RIGHT?
Let me give you a realistic argument FOR Eugenics: Hows your back feeling today? Knees? Pancreas failing to deal with sugar?
How about we fix all those autistic kids?
Eugenics encompasses genetic REPAIR as well as breeding control.
I see nothing remotely controversial at all with Hienlienian Eugenics: paying the intelligent to marry and breed.
The current trend towards larger and larger masses of humanity being marginalized and disenfranchised in an increasingly technological environment they are not evolved to adapt to IS an absolute disaster happening right now. What percentage of western population will be economically displaced by self driving vehicles? About 15%. That's one case. That number of people out of work is equal to the 1930s depression. Now crank in all those office jobs lost to AI in the next few years. Another 15% minimally? Amazon style warehouse automation? on and on.
In your first sentence you say "When repopulation remains unregulated," Who will regulate it and under what criteria? How can this "regulation" NOT become either the racism under flag of Eugenics of the 1930s and 40s OR a moral, scientific, merit based system that will allow the human race to proceed into the future without the apparent looming disasters? I understand the next argument is concerning the definition of the merits. The devil in the details. It all circles the question of morals vs expediency does it not? Do we breed super soldiers or super workers, or those flexible to be either like we are now? Super cooperative/passive? Ants?
I vote we allow human nature to stay the same, just up the general IQ, fix the obvious physical genetic issues and avoid the moral quagmires. Economic culture is downstream of genetics.
You clearly missed the criteria stated in the Protocide definition, which suggests that you did not follow the reasoning of my original comment.
"Communist institutionally administered economic criteria last century was responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths." Soviet megadeaths from communism is well documented and nowhere in the historical record does it show that REpopulation (intentional emphasis) regulation was at play. They deemed their human surplus as necessary expendables and determined that they needed to be removed from the breeding pool by starving them to death.
No one is killed in a Protocidal system. The disqualified components of society get to live & function just like everyone else, except that they do not have to bear the strain of a dependent that would exacerbate their economic circumstances.
It's a win-win. Their struggle is diminished, and society does not have to bear the consequences of a person raised in a home that's under financial duress. The grand majority of sociopaths that predate society-at-large are the product of financially precarious households. Protocide preemptively eliminates these detrimental human components.
In this system, over the course of a half dozen generations, those that are unable to reasonably operate in a society due to physical/psychological dysfunction, would be selectively distilled from the genetic pool. Ergo, genetics is actually downstream from economic culture in a Protocidal model.
Have you read “Ishmael” by Daniel Quinn? It may help refine your analysis.
I have not, but I know the gist. Sounds a lot like Game B talk. The rub is, of course, that at any given population level you can't abandon being a 'taker' without going back to a prior population level.
The long and short of it to me is: What does indigenous human 2.0 look like?
Ishmael is a book i quite love, but i see what you mean. Taker practices are the practices that result in an increased human population. It's a pretty problem. I tend to think through it terms of transitions into regenerative agriculture, permaculture food forests, edible city foodscapes, and aquaponic fish and vegetable food skyscrapers for cities. You know whatever works for a particular climate. If a food generating city is possible and implemented it wouldn't have to rip down the rural. If people become hooked into their ecosystems again you can get a lower birth rate than the natural death rate and population comes down, no genocides necessary.
-The Million Things
Hey BJ: Your slack for paid subscribers doesn't work. Even having substack send an email login doesn't work. I suspect it's because I'm not paying the proper way. I've been sending you $10/month via Patreon since 2018 (time flies!). Regardless, I'm not a fan of Slack. I might suggest you set up a Discord channel. All the up and coming projects are there, and you can do subscriber-only access easily. Best of luck!
I dislike Discord for various reasons. Thanks for reminding, though, I need to put up an invite link over on Patreon. I'll do that now, and when I do, try it and report back.