Seth Walsh
The man in the mirror is my only threat
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2020
- Posts
- 9,067
- Reputation
- 17,671
Why do the wealthiest class often produce average-looking kids, while beauty often emerges from lower or middle classes?
(the reality is there's no correlation - but this is hyperbole)
The answer isn’t genetics. It’s economics.
This thread destroys the eugenics-tier nonsense that “hot people just breed hot kids.”
Let’s get one thing straight:
Fertility is not distributed randomly. Nor is it evenly distributed across “good genes.” It’s distributed along economic gradients.
If you’re in the top 1–10% socioeconomically, your odds of reproducing drop sharply, especially for women.
Top-tier women delay childbirth for career, education, and lifestyle reasons—often into their 30s.
By then, fertility has declined. Risk of complications rises. Many never have children at all.
This is selection against beauty, not for it.
Meanwhile, middle-tier or working-class women with average or below-average looks often do have kids in their peak fertility window (20–25). No IVF. No freezing. No career deferment.
They’re not filtering their mate choices by income or resume to the same extent. Biology leads.
The class system inverts natural selection.
In lower strata, genes express early. In upper strata, genes are deferred, filtered, suppressed.
Economic conditions gate access to reproduction in a way that eugenicists ignore completely.
Take a hot upper-class girl:
Now take a lower-middle class woman:
Looks ≠ reproduction
In fact, extremely attractive women in the top decile of status are less likely to reproduce than plain women in the middle.
Why? Because economics blocks fertility at the top.
The elite reproduce ideas, status, assets. Not genes.
Add to this:
This is class-based dysgenics.
Compare that to rural, immigrant, or traditional communities:
This is why beauty often skips class borders.
In short:
The modern economic system selects against beauty by delaying, suppressing, or eliminating reproduction among the most attractive women and highest-performing men.
It’s not nature failing. It’s the structure failing nature.
The eugenics crowd misunderstands the game.
It’s not about raw genetics. It’s about who gets to reproduce, when, and under what conditions.
And economics—not beauty—is the strongest predictor of that.
(the reality is there's no correlation - but this is hyperbole)
The answer isn’t genetics. It’s economics.
This thread destroys the eugenics-tier nonsense that “hot people just breed hot kids.”
Let’s get one thing straight:
Fertility is not distributed randomly. Nor is it evenly distributed across “good genes.” It’s distributed along economic gradients.
If you’re in the top 1–10% socioeconomically, your odds of reproducing drop sharply, especially for women.
Top-tier women delay childbirth for career, education, and lifestyle reasons—often into their 30s.
By then, fertility has declined. Risk of complications rises. Many never have children at all.
This is selection against beauty, not for it.
Meanwhile, middle-tier or working-class women with average or below-average looks often do have kids in their peak fertility window (20–25). No IVF. No freezing. No career deferment.
They’re not filtering their mate choices by income or resume to the same extent. Biology leads.
The class system inverts natural selection.
In lower strata, genes express early. In upper strata, genes are deferred, filtered, suppressed.
Economic conditions gate access to reproduction in a way that eugenicists ignore completely.
Take a hot upper-class girl:
- Elite school
- Career pressure
- Birth control from 16–30
- Choosy about partners
- Surrounded by nepo men she finds sexually inert
= She often has 0–1 kids after 30.
Now take a lower-middle class woman:
- Less time pressure
- Attracts mates early
- Higher parity (2–3+ kids)
Looks ≠ reproduction
In fact, extremely attractive women in the top decile of status are less likely to reproduce than plain women in the middle.
Why? Because economics blocks fertility at the top.
The elite reproduce ideas, status, assets. Not genes.
Add to this:
- High-performing men are disincentivized from reproducing early (career focus)
- Attractive women are hyper-exposed to male attention, but less likely to settle
- IVF, egg freezing, or childlessness become normalized
This is class-based dysgenics.
Compare that to rural, immigrant, or traditional communities:
- Marry younger
- Lower economic ceiling
- But higher birth rates
- Genes passed on while they’re still young and fertile
This is why beauty often skips class borders.
In short:
The modern economic system selects against beauty by delaying, suppressing, or eliminating reproduction among the most attractive women and highest-performing men.
It’s not nature failing. It’s the structure failing nature.
The eugenics crowd misunderstands the game.
It’s not about raw genetics. It’s about who gets to reproduce, when, and under what conditions.
And economics—not beauty—is the strongest predictor of that.
Last edited:
