Declining genes & the potential end of "modern" society: A short primer on dysgenics and the inevitable Malthusian decline

How many genocides against white people have happened since the 1900's in the U.S., Canada, Italy, France and predominantly white and well-developed countries?

Show me one similar to this one:



Keep ignoring the facts.
You ignore the genocide of white farmers in South Africa and Zimbabwe. You ignore those same people successfully creating functioning micro state (Orania) which governments are trying to nullify.
You ignore the 100+ European conflicts which have RAVAGED Northern and Eastern Europe. Yet these societies march on, often, with less aid than the multi billions in aid given to Africa each year.
You accuse me of ignoring facts. I now accuse you of ignoring all these facts! You are the one being dishonest.

21st century[edit]​


Damaged building during the Russo-Ukrainian war, in Lysychansk, Ukraine, 4 August 2014

Again, the original argument of the post, is cross-cultural, cross-racial dysgenics affecting everyone on earth (regardless of race/religion). This is caused by changing social, political, economic shifts post industrial revolution (which weakened selection pressures). I am discussing GENETICS (how the decline is precipitated from a genetic perspective), and merely provide a brief credo to environmental impacts discussed above. Then I provide evidence of this.

The elites, understanding that there will be an impending decline, seek to centralize power into the hands of the few (social credit score, carbon foot print tracking, digital ids, central bank digital currencies), to better manage this social collapse.
 
Last edited:
I going to keep pasting my original contention, as you seem to obsessed with what comes first, the chicken or the egg (genetics or environment and at what point and with what genetic impact, followed by ancillary racial considerations).
Environment is what comes first, ecosystems complexify when they are given ample resources by their environment, this produces a virtuous circle, where the organisms within it contribute to one another. Where did you come from? Where did your family and ethnic group come from? Where does humanity comes from?


You ignore the genocide of white farmers in South Africa and Zimbabwe. You ignore that those same people creating a functioning micro state (Orania) which governments are trying to destroy.
They are irrelevant, we are talking about well-developed predominantly white countries.

You ignore the 100+ European conflicts which have RAVAGED Northern and Eastern Europe. Yet these societies march on, often, with less aid than the multi billions in aid given to Africa each year.
You accuse me of ignoring facts. I now accuse you of ignoring all these facts! You are the one being dishonest.
Those are not well-developed countries. That actually proves my point.
 
Environment is what comes first, ecosystems complexify when they are given ample resources by their environment, this produces a virtuous circle, where the organisms within it contribute to one another. Where did you come from? Where did your family and ethnic group come from? Where does humanity comes from?

Yes and you are ignoring what I've written and the impetus behind the original post.

They are irrelevant, we are talking about well-developed predominantly white countries.
Nice selective bias.
We are talking about dysgenics and people across the world, irrespective of race, malthusian collapse (globally).
Then it progressed into environment v genetics with you favoring environmental influence and me saying that genetics can be engrained such that it may be difficult to change without strong selection pressures.

I'm going to state the same thing I stated in the original post: Dysgenics was due to weakening selection pressures due to shifting social, economic, political structures, post industrial revolution. This is a clear concession to environmental effects but is not the main point of the original post (highlighting genetic decline was).

Those are not well-developed countries. That actually proves my point.
They actually are and have a much higher standard of living than most countries in Africa, notwithstanding less aid from America as well as the noticeable destruction from conflicts across 1000+ years.
Regardless, even those developed, "white" countries that you highlighted, put up with immense historical suffering (the dark ages), and end up creating socially enduring, peaceful societies (modern society).
This doesn't discredit pollution/TNC/gang in African society, as the above post is a general comparison between societies. Further, these negative factors are/were present across 1000+ years of European civilization, to varying degrees. You can't just arbitrarily discount 1000+ years of history when discussing generational trends.
I'm done. We are just going in circles. Nothing knew is being said.
 
Last edited:
Nice selective bias.
We are talking about dysgenics and people across the world, irrespective of race, malthusian collapse (globally).
Then it progressed into environment v genetics with you favoring environmental influence and me saying that genetics can be engrained such
The main point shifted towards 'race' and how wealthy countries have higher average IQ than poor ones.

In 2006 we published a further study of national IQs and their
correlates in our book IQ and Global Inequality (Lynn and
Vanhanen, 2006).
In this we presented measured IQs for 113
nations and estimated IQs for 79 nations, giving a total of 192
nations, comprising all the nations in the world with populations
over 40,000. Following the method in our first study, we used the
measured IQ of the 113 nations to estimate the IQs for the
additional 79 nations that were ethnically similar to those for which
we had measured IQs. We found a correlation of .64 between
national 1Q and per capita income measured as GDP (Gross
National Product) in 189 nations, and thus closely similar to the
correlation of .62 reported in our 2002 book. In our 2006 book we
extended the analysis beyond economic development and showed
that national IQs explain substantial percentages of the variance in
national differences a number of other phenomena including
literacy (.65), life expectancy (.75), infant mortality (-.77) and
democratic institutions (.53).

In 2012 we published a third study of national IQs and their
correlates in our book Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the
Social Sciences (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2012). In this we gave revised
and updated measured IQs for 161 nations and territories, and
estimated IQs for an additional 41 smaller nations and territories,
giving IQs for all 202 nations and territories in the world with
populations over 40,000. We found that national IQs were
significantly correlated with GDP per capita in 2003 at
.71,
significantly higher than our two previous correlations of .62
and .64, and showing that national IQs explained 50 percent of the
variance in national per capita income (.71 squared = .50). We also
found that national IQs were significantly correlated with adult
literacy (.64), income inequality assessed by the Gini index (47),
the rate of unemployment (-.76), researchers in research and
development (.67), gender inequality (-.86), corruption (-.59), life
satisfaction (.63) , religious belief (-.48), life expectancy (.76),
malnutrition (-.52), tuberculosis (-.57), quality of water (.62) and
quality of sanitation (.71).
These additional correlates validated our national IQs and a
number of scholars came to accept our work on national IQs and its
contribution to the explanation of a wide range of national and
social phenomena. Heiner Rindermann and Steve Ceci (2009, p.
551) described it as “a new development in the study of cognitive
ability: following a century of conceptual and psychometric
development in which individual and group (socio-economic, age,
and ethnic) differences were examined, researchers have turned
their attention to national and international differences in cognitive


that it may be difficult to change without strong selection pressures.
So genes can change?

I'm going to state the same thing I stated in the original post: Dysgenics was due to weakening selection pressures due to shifting social, economic, political structures, post industrial revolution. This is a clear concession to environmental effects but is not the main point of the post (which is highlighting genetic decline).

They actually are and have a much higher standard of living than most countries in Africa, notwithstanding less aid from America and noticeable destruction from conflicts across 1000+ years. Regardless, even those developed, "white" countries that you highlighted, put up with immense historical suffering (the dark ages), and end up creating socially enduring, fairly peaceful societies (modern society).
I'm done. We are just going in circles. You are not making you points. I've sufficiently restated everything.
The dark ages happened more than 700 years ago.

Good riddance then.
 
So genes can change?
I already stated this:
"Then it progressed into environment v genetics with you favoring environmental influence and me saying that genetics can be engrained such that it may be difficult to change without strong selection pressures."

"I'm going to state the same thing I stated in the original post: Dysgenics was due to weakening selection pressures due to shifting social, economic, political structures, post industrial revolution. This is a clear concession to environmental effects but is not the main point of the original post (highlighting genetic decline was)."

Yes wealth is one factor. But again, there are other factors as well (compare interracial crime rates, adjusted for wealth).

Those factors are:
dysgenics caused by weakening selection pressures due to shifting social, economic, political structures, post industrial revolution, but also, pollutants/pesticides/herbicides/mutational load from vaccines/ halogens/fluoride/chlorine /bromine/ radiation/atrazine/glypos/xrays. The list goes on and on. However, that was not the point of this post (which was expository and concerns genetic decline).


The dark ages happened more than 700 years ago.

Good riddance then.
Wtf does this even mean lol.


I'm not going to respond after. We are just repeating the same things.
Now I'm going to go into the offtopic board and complain about being a 6'1 ugly manlet with a negative orbital vector and retruded zygos who needs to get a canthoplasty and lower bleph ASAP.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Crusile and Nina Power
  • +1
Reactions: Crusile and sub6manletnozygos
lawl, coping because race believers had 100 yrs to prove racism and #failed. "Race" and "intelligence" doesn't exist in the brain, and behavior can't be evolutionaryly selected for.

Nina powers explained the environmental reasons and you failed to prove sufficient within-group genetic causality, for between-group differences to exist

@Reconstitution rate discussion
 
Last edited:
lawl, coping because race believers had 100 yrs to prove racism and #failed. "Race" and "intelligence" doesn't exist in the brain, and behavior can't be evolutionaryly selected for.
You are blind to all that I wrote. I'm not getting baited by you again.
Nina powers explained the environmental reasons and you failed to prove sufficient within-group genetic causality, for between-group differences to exist

@Reconstitution rate discussion
You should go and live in South Africa or Zimbabwe. Bonus points if you call yourself a farmer. While you are at it, you should donate some of your yearly salary for projects in Africa. I'm sure with yet another billion more in aid, Africa will change for the better (the past 100+ billions weren't enough). The key is more aid. We need arguably $1 trillion+ a year in aid to Africa; then there will be change and perhaps the provision of laptops, specifically macbooks - 1 for each person. Finally, I hope you and your family are culturally enriched by a "progressive" fellow from another country, with a penchant for taking what he wants (from you or your friends, with force)! You won't be able to criticize him, demographically or regarding governmental policy, because that is not progressive. You are an honest guy, and I hope that life meets you with honesty!
 
Last edited:
You are blind to all that I wrote. I'm not getting baited by you again.

You should go and live in South Africa or Zimbabwe. Bonus points if you call yourself a farmer. While you are at it, you should donate some of your yearly salary for projects in Africa. I'm sure with yet another billion more in aid, Africa will change for the better (the past 100+ billions weren't enough). The key is more aid. We need arguably $1 trillion+ a year in aid to Africa; then there will be change and perhaps the provision of laptops, specifically macbooks - 1 for each person. Finally, I hope you and your family are culturally enriched by a "progressive" fellow from another country, with a penchant for taking what he wants (from you or your friends, with force)! You won't be able to criticize him, demographically or regarding governmental policy, because that is not progressive. You are an honest guy, and I hope that life meets you with honesty!
I support open borders and mass migration, not country development. What "is" african aid, what is it allocated to? Pretty sure it's random bs like vaccines and Healthcare, not investments
 

Similar threads

Nazi Germany
Replies
32
Views
1K
(In)CelibatePsycho2
I
proibitio
Replies
44
Views
1K
bennyben23
B
heightmaxxing
Replies
56
Views
5K
lurking truecel
L
D
Replies
2
Views
513
Milosz
Milosz

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top