Hopefully, future generations will include some critical individuals who will determine that any system which requires endless growth in order to survive is by definition a cancerous dystopia.
However, how is it that the nuttier the eugenics scheme, the more likely it is to gain traction?
Theoretically, “uncivilized” women have more regular menstrual cycles than “civilized” women who are subject to a bombardment of artificial constructs: technology, “scientific” diets, isolation from nature, etc. However, somewhere along the line, eugenicists such as Hitler (and the Allied industrialists who funded him) decided that a high sex drive was somehow genetically “inferior” to rabid self-control, worship of female virgins, and dietary practices somehow attributed with lowering the disposition to masturbation (i.e., The Kelloggs’ obsession with a high-fiber diet of empty calories and enemas: http://mentalfloss.com/article/32042/corn-flakes-were-invented-part-anti-masturbation-crusade).
Somehow, these cretins associate high reproductivity with high sex drive because each “blessed event” is somehow beyond one’s control. Naturally, none of these brainiacs considered that alternative non-reproductive sexual behavior is something that can be intelligently selected during one’s regular and scheduled ovulation and would be an obvious choice for a person concerned about mobility and resources (a typical hunter/gatherer). Weston A. Price in his studies of “isolated peoples uninfluenced by the foods of modern commerce” in the 1930’s found these primitives to unaccountably space out their reproduction by four to six years and thereby ensure quality of offspring over quantity thereby denigrating the logic of the “civilizeds.” Meanwhile, Mr. Adolph Civilized was reportedly a Coprophiliac: https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/tag/hitler-sexuality/
At least such practices are non-reproductive. (Count me out but no judgment here.) Personally, I’m more concerned about the number of suicides among his female paramours and wonder if there is a relationship to Hitler’s over-romanticized vision of womanhood and their suicides.
It is my belief that some of the current disparagement about testosterone—associating an increase of it with violent behavior—is just more “sex-shaming” eugenicist behavior (or old men trying to attribute poor motivations to young men). Rather, I accept those studies which associate insulin—combined with high testosterone—as more violence inducing (and lifespan shortening). High testosterone is associated with high sex drive and high tolerance for risk. Such may include defending one’s territory from competing males but is unlikely to result in violence against women.
The high testosterone men who I’ve known have loved women—in every way imaginable. Healthy, happy, easy-going men tend to love sex—my observation—and be able to understand that although children may result from intercourse ideally unwanted children are prevented by obvious means (birth control, alternative sexual activities, etc.). There’s nothing magic or civilized about this notion.
However, a diet that depends largely on fruits, grains, and sugars would predispose one to higher insulin, which, in competing with anabolic hormones such as testosterone and human growth hormone might predispose one to conversion of testosterone to its more “violent” (or catabolic) derivatives. If Hitler was reportedly a vegetarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism) perhaps insulin can be blamed for his predisposition toward violence on a horrific scale. However, when population starts over-competing for resources, wouldn’t anomalous human behavior be natural?
So, who is doing the overbreeding nowadays? In a global recession it would appear that unwed motherhood is the last fail-safe survival method. Breeding more babies than one can feed oneself is a guaranteed meal ticket. What happens to these babies?
- They lower the cost of labor by contributing to an increasing pool of unskilled labor.
- They become inmates in the United States of Prisons—dwarfing all other imprisonment rates combined.
- They sign up for our bloated military industrialist complex.
- They have more fatherless babies.
Interestingly, all efforts to halt this tide of babies are met with strident criticism—from the left and the right. Why shouldn’t there be birth control made widely available? (Because that would tread on entrenched power structures from Planned Parenthood to The Religious Right).
Why shouldn’t taxpayer aid to children be predicated on the sterilization of the parents? Because that would be “eugenics” and besides a lot of women depend on this fail safe, recession proof, source of livelihood: irresponsible parenting. But wouldn’t obedience to this nonsense rhetoric—on both sides of the political divide—be a clear measure of inferior logic?
Perhaps our mysterious and unfathomable masters have that piece of the eugenics puzzle already worked out. Of course, a truly effective plan would have to be worked out over generations and be impervious to corruption, rebellion from within, etc. For example, creatures such as Laura Magdalene Eisenhower would have to be effectively placated and marginalized (such as by vegetarianism) while serving as a magnet for disruptive nutcases with money.
Climate hysteria, and hysteria in general, seem to be in great abundance. It is unfortunate that hysteria itself probably does not lower fecundity. Rather, Freud taught us that the cure for hysteria is sexual release. I contend that the far more longlasting guaranteed cure is to stop reproducing like bunnies. Not that anyone listens to me.