Historically they focused on their differences, but if they are high IQ, they should realise that they are upset about the very same thing:
Our society is collectivistic when it comes to welfare, while sex and reproduction are ultra individualistic.
What this means: People are allowed to freely set copies of their genes into the world, and they feel entitled about society taking care of them, while we never talk about the impact of said copies to society. The status quo is nothing but an invitation for short term mating, religious fundamentalism and unproductive members of society to spread and take advantage of the system, as children of criminals, single mothers and children of religious fundamentalists arguably contribute less than average back to society.
Incel: Why should I pay taxes for a single mother who chose to get pumped and dumped by Chad, knowing that society will have to take care of the fallout.
Libertarian: Taxes are theft. Why should I give my hard-earned money to someone else who did nothing for it? The less taxes the better.
Anti-Immigration conservatives (if they are high IQ): I don't mind the programmers from Asia that work hard to make it in my country, but why should the government allow [immigrant high fertility social group] to benefit from our country, pay almost no taxes into it, and replace the native population?
Environmentalists (if they are high IQ): The world population keeps growing and it destroys the planet. Even if there are other things to do to save the planet (adapting green lifestyle), the world population can't keep growing indefinitely. Even if most people follow the norm to make less babies nowadays, the fertility rate of [high fertility social group] makes them grow exponentially, causing overpopulation.
Since we give all copies of genes (=children) the same rights to benefit from our society (welfare, public services), society should be allowed to decide who qualifies to push a high number of copies into said society. E.g (as a sociably acceptable compromise):
Not more than 4 children for a couple, 2 for biological parents that don't raise their offspring together. You can qualify for you (and your spouse) to make more than 4 children by:
All kids will automatically be tested for biological father at birth.
If an individual develops some hereditary disease, goes to prison for a felony, makes too many children, divorce their partner while they have 4 young kids, or it turns out they faked research or stole the money to qualify for making more kids or something like that, they will get castrated, and the children will only be allowed to have half the children.
"But Mountainbikecel, you can't do this, you are taking away people's personal freedom to choose their number of kids
."
- Well, I guess that's why they call it politics. It's a trade-off. It's a small price to pay in my opinion for not fucking up our planet, and be able to use more resources to face humanities existential threats.
"Mountainbikecel, you will go to hell for being discriminatory against my religion!!!"
- Same rules for all people, and I never said anything against any belief. I'm just arguing it should be the quality and persuasiveness of religious ideas that should spread a religion, and not its norm to shit out as many children as possible.
Who would be the only kind of people who oppose to this? Closed-minded equality-of-outcome (but only when it comes to welfare) ideologists, and those who want to put copies of their genes into societies care, without contributing to said society.
Comment and share my ted talk, thank you! I hope some normies read it on r/IT and have to agree with me
Our society is collectivistic when it comes to welfare, while sex and reproduction are ultra individualistic.
What this means: People are allowed to freely set copies of their genes into the world, and they feel entitled about society taking care of them, while we never talk about the impact of said copies to society. The status quo is nothing but an invitation for short term mating, religious fundamentalism and unproductive members of society to spread and take advantage of the system, as children of criminals, single mothers and children of religious fundamentalists arguably contribute less than average back to society.
Incel: Why should I pay taxes for a single mother who chose to get pumped and dumped by Chad, knowing that society will have to take care of the fallout.
Libertarian: Taxes are theft. Why should I give my hard-earned money to someone else who did nothing for it? The less taxes the better.
Anti-Immigration conservatives (if they are high IQ): I don't mind the programmers from Asia that work hard to make it in my country, but why should the government allow [immigrant high fertility social group] to benefit from our country, pay almost no taxes into it, and replace the native population?
Environmentalists (if they are high IQ): The world population keeps growing and it destroys the planet. Even if there are other things to do to save the planet (adapting green lifestyle), the world population can't keep growing indefinitely. Even if most people follow the norm to make less babies nowadays, the fertility rate of [high fertility social group] makes them grow exponentially, causing overpopulation.
Since we give all copies of genes (=children) the same rights to benefit from our society (welfare, public services), society should be allowed to decide who qualifies to push a high number of copies into said society. E.g (as a sociably acceptable compromise):
Not more than 4 children for a couple, 2 for biological parents that don't raise their offspring together. You can qualify for you (and your spouse) to make more than 4 children by:
- Deliver significant contributions to research in a field of importance (like safe A.I. or green technology), showing that society will likely benefit from your genetic offspring.
- Paying for all the societal expenses your additional kid will cause (e.g. 200k $)
All kids will automatically be tested for biological father at birth.
If an individual develops some hereditary disease, goes to prison for a felony, makes too many children, divorce their partner while they have 4 young kids, or it turns out they faked research or stole the money to qualify for making more kids or something like that, they will get castrated, and the children will only be allowed to have half the children.
"But Mountainbikecel, you can't do this, you are taking away people's personal freedom to choose their number of kids
."- Well, I guess that's why they call it politics. It's a trade-off. It's a small price to pay in my opinion for not fucking up our planet, and be able to use more resources to face humanities existential threats.
"Mountainbikecel, you will go to hell for being discriminatory against my religion!!!
"- Same rules for all people, and I never said anything against any belief. I'm just arguing it should be the quality and persuasiveness of religious ideas that should spread a religion, and not its norm to shit out as many children as possible.
Who would be the only kind of people who oppose to this? Closed-minded equality-of-outcome (but only when it comes to welfare) ideologists, and those who want to put copies of their genes into societies care, without contributing to said society.
Comment and share my ted talk, thank you! I hope some normies read it on r/IT and have to agree with me
Last edited:
