Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Teleportation, and other r-selected disasters

A brilliant man with naive ideas, (probably White or Asian) invents a teleportation device. Unlike the Star Trek transporter it works by swapping the space of two locations using a wormhole. It's totally safe, even safer than a transporter would be. It uses exotic matter or something. Totally reliable. Even works if the power fails mid-transport.

The authorities approve the device and it starts showing up on every street corner. It looks like a telephone booth.

Half a billion untouchables (Dalits) get it in their heads that they would like a better life in America.

Hutus from Rwanda who think it's perfectly acceptable to walk around the streets with a machete decide that New York looks like a fantastic place to live.

Everyone in Bangladesh moves to London. EVERYONE. ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE.

Housing prices skyrocket. Even middle-class whites are evicted from their apartments because they can't afford the rent. Even a mediocre apartment cost tens of thousands per month.

Crime rates soar. Women get chased, raped, and butchered by Hutus wielding machetes. Our prisons fill up. Good people start committing suicide. Drug overdoses increase among the middle class. Alcoholism levels among women climb to astronomical levels. People form militias. Terrorism happens every week.

"Principled" liberals accuse everyone who is against it of racism. "Rational" libertarians support open borders.

Moralfags decide for the rest of us what is acceptable. "Morality" and "equality" and "economic and social justice" make policy.

This is obviously just a more extreme version of what is already going on with immigration.

They say that America is built on White supremacy.

Yes it is. And if you destroy White Supremacy you will destroy America.

Actually it is more fundamental than that. All civilizations — ya know, the ones you want to live in, are built on discrimination. "Nice communities" only exist because of the barriers to entry that maintain them. Societies that are nice are nice because they keep out stupid / poor / low-class / foolish / R selected elements.

They keep someone out. That is why they are successful.

Stupidity is a crime. Giving birth to children you cannot afford is evil. The right to reproduce is the right to commit a crime in the hands of the poor — a crime against children. The solution to poverty is to have less poor people. The solution to the poor is reproductive licensing. Rabbits, hamsters and other R selected creatures often eat their babies. R selected humans just neglect and abuse them, or give them up for adoption.

Dhaka Bangladesh, where r-selection has occurred unchecked

The problem is too much equality, not inequality. The problem is that Third World hordes are allowed to reproduce. Want Dhaka to become London? Stop the poor from maintaining their own poverty by breeding faster than their resource base can sustain. Poverty is what happens when a population of people have children at a faster rate than their ability to accumulate wealth. The only way, literally the only way to make a Third World into a First World is to slow reproductive rates so capitalist production can catch up. If the Third World climbs out of poverty it will because urbanization of the world lowers birth rates: children are an economic liability in the cities and an asset on the farm. By the grace of Gnon, billions of people are moving to the cities all over the world, and birth rates are plummeting everywhere as a result.

"Discrimination" isn't the problem. The problem is that the point of discrimination occurs after birth has occurred when a couple is deciding where to raise their children. It would be better if that point of discrimination, that barrier to reproductive entry, occurred earlier and the couple did not even have children to begin with. Third World hordes should not reproduce.

The solution is to make reproduction a property right that you must buy, and to make it expensive enough to eliminate the poor, but not the middle class or rich.

To reproduce you need a license. The number of licenses is made artificially scarce to raise the market price above the ability of the poor to pay. A special program grants free licenses to middle-class members of various church congregations that can document income.

Poverty is little more than an a problem of ratios. The middle class remains that way be delaying reproduction until income has been saved to the point of affording children. They pay for their children to receive the kind of education that results in high income for their children. This may be either a trade school or a college degree. If the child chooses the wrong degree then that family falls back into poverty with the next generation. If the parents are stingy and the child cannot get student loans for a proper STEM / medical / law degree then the child probably falls into poverty. Basically, wealth has to be rolled like a snowball before children are born and then that snowball of wealth has to be rolled by every successive generation without any screw ups. The money has to be passed from one generation to the next without being wasted. The educational level, (or ownership of a profitable business) has to be maintained and passed on. It all has to be kept up to a certain level. A child who wants to be "free" of this obligation is just a foolish selfish ass who is screwing over his own future children.

So to sum it all up, world poverty will end when everyone who is too carefree to roll the snow ball is prohibited from reproducing. Or at least, it will reduce to is minimum possible extent. Reproductive licencing is the way to get there. I say to the "minimum extent" because the world may always need ditch diggers.

Lastly, some technologies / policies create r-selected disasters by either enabling massive population increases, (modern agriculture, vaccines, and antibiotics), or enabling horde migration (planes, trains, autos, and transporters), or reducing k-selected reproduction levels, (high real estate costs, degree inflation). The kind of technology you create is hugely important to the future of the world. The kind of social policy is hugely important. High real estate costs are due to artificial restrictions on city growth. High housing prices are in-turn driven by the need to get away from violent high crime hordes of non-Asian minorities. Degree inflation is driven by college subsidies and the insatiable greed of the Cathedral.

No one has the right to reproduce.

Believing you have the right to increase the demand side of the supply and demand equation without a corresponding duty to increase in the supply side is an r-selected way of thinking.

That is why all positive rights are morally bankrupt except where the children you have already created are concerned. They, and only they, have positive rights.

Believing you have the right to increase the supply side, and to institutions that increase the supply side, (right to work, right to open a business, secure property rights, rule of law, right to invest, etc.) is a k-selected way of thinking. It is the only mature way of thinking for adults.

People who think in r-selected ways have no rights. They can't have rights. That is a statement of bald fact. They make resource claims on society that they are unwilling to fulfill themselves. By their very nature they will be dependent on others for their survival, and hence, can never actually gain any rights. Their dependency will make them slaves to the generosity of others.

But no one can have the right to reproduce for even more basic reasons.

If a pedophile has the right to reproduce he will abuse that right by abusing the child. If an addict has the right to reproduce he will abuse that right. It can't be helped. Just witnessing the adult take hard drugs will do damage to the child. Holding mommy's head above the toilet will do the child damage.

If a poor person has children, she cannot help but fail to meet all its needs. Can she afford the child's healthcare? It's college education? No one has the right to create a life only to then abuse or neglect it. That violates the non-aggression principle. Children have positive rights, even though adults do not. The parent chose to create them.

Libertarian bromides ignore the fundamental reality that creating a libertarian world requires matching the people to the resources and environment, and not just matching the policy and environment to the people. In a world of massive overpopulation your negative rights are simply not going to be respected at all. Are are you supposed to have rights when your corpse is worth more to the food production industry that you life? Even a human body is subject to the law of supply and demand during times of mass starvation. Soylent Green is people! Call a tasty corpse an "inferior good."

Third World hordes are simply not going to read Atlas Shrugged and wake up to the awesomeness of rule of law, property rights, capitalism, and "muh" constitution. If they were capable of doing something like that they would have done it already. We would then call them "Chinese" instead of "Bangladeshi."

The "nice societies" (social democracies, libertarian societies) are only arrived at through the harsh societies first, (monarchy, fascism, slave owning timocracy, one-party illiberal democracy, etc.). You must go through there to get to here. Then once you have arrived at prosperity you have about two generations before your lazy spoilt grandchildren take a lot of drugs, do some free love, and waste everything you have gained with bad fiscal policy and mass immigration.


  1. Excellent piece, Axel, as usual!
    You said that, in cities, children are a liability, not an asset. How would you solve the falling birth rate amongst developed countries?

    The best solution I found is taxing children's labour to grant it to their parents. Do you have a better idea which wouldn't rely on the state?

  2. Thanks. I don't know about a better answer that doesn't rely on the state. However, some decrease in birth rate is due to feminism and feminist propaganda. Depressing white birth rates helps get Democrats elected. Doing the reverse, (propaganda to increase birth rates), might work. A wage matching subsidy where the spouse that stays at home with the children is paid to do so might also work but would be more expensive. You could also peg social security benefits to the number of children people have. Having children was historically the poor man's retirement plan. It could be that way again.


All spam will be deleted