Form: Mini Essay

These terms – “pervert and perversion” – are moral terms (shaming) used (evolved) in the pre-scientific eras, to inarticulately describe the normative, traditional, institutional and genetic costs of loss-inducing behavior and genetics. Those costs exist. The question is only whether or not we can afford them (temporally), and if we can afford them, what are the unseen costs of affording them(inter-temporally)? Diversity (normative, cultural, and religious) is disastrously costly over the long term. Tolerance turns out to be a terrible idea. The most intolerant group always wins. So the question isn’t the use of these moral terms (perversion, tolerance, diversity) it’s the scientific (economic) fully accounted costs that replace those moral (imprecise) terms with scientific (precise) terms. As far as I know the principle difference between the standards of living of people is cultural, and the reason for cultural differences is genetic, and the reason for genetic differences is in the scale of the underclasses. And the scale of the underclasses force the norms, traditions, culture, and institutions of the group by dragging them down to the median. It may be true that in the period of transition from subsistence farming to market economies in the industrial era, that we can afford many luxuries of tolerance, but it is increasingly obvious that once technological differences are equilibrated, that the standard of every group of people is determined by the size of their underclass in relation to their middle and upper classes. And worse, it’s increasingly apparent that this trend will continue and keep pace with the gains in reasoning ability that we obtained from the institution of aristotelianism (scientific thought). Meaning that the current employment concerns that can be solved by credit expansion will end shortly, and the only competitive advantage and therefore standard of living of any group will be determined by their genetic distribution relative to other genetic distributions, and the normative, traditional, cultural, and institutional means by which those different groups cooperate. Ergo, pretentious virtue signaling talk alluded to in the original post is nothing more than failing to account for costs both seen, unseen, temporal and intertemporal. There are no free rides. Only temporary gains and losses, the accumulation of which must in the end limit itself to that balance sheet we call the universe.

These terms – “pervert and perversion” – are moral terms (shaming) used (evolved) in the pre-scientific eras, to inarticulately describe the normative, traditional, institutional and genetic costs of loss-inducing behavior and genetics. Those costs exist. The question is only whether or not we can afford them (temporally), and if we can afford them, what are the unseen costs of affording them(inter-temporally)? Diversity (normative, cultural, and religious) is disastrously costly over the long term. Tolerance turns out to be a terrible idea. The most intolerant group always wins. So the question isn’t the use of these moral terms (perversion, tolerance, diversity) it’s the scientific (economic) fully accounted costs that replace those moral (imprecise) terms with scientific (precise) terms. As far as I know the principle difference between the standards of living of people is cultural, and the reason for cultural differences is genetic, and the reason for genetic differences is in the scale of the underclasses. And the scale of the underclasses force the norms, traditions, culture, and institutions of the group by dragging them down to the median. It may be true that in the period of transition from subsistence farming to market economies in the industrial era, that we can afford many luxuries of tolerance, but it is increasingly obvious that once technological differences are equilibrated, that the standard of every group of people is determined by the size of their underclass in relation to their middle and upper classes. And worse, it’s increasingly apparent that this trend will continue and keep pace with the gains in reasoning ability that we obtained from the institution of aristotelianism (scientific thought). Meaning that the current employment concerns that can be solved by credit expansion will end shortly, and the only competitive advantage and therefore standard of living of any group will be determined by their genetic distribution relative to other genetic distributions, and the normative, traditional, cultural, and institutional means by which those different groups cooperate. Ergo, pretentious virtue signaling talk alluded to in the original post is nothing more than failing to account for costs both seen, unseen, temporal and intertemporal. There are no free rides. Only temporary gains and losses, the accumulation of which must in the end limit itself to that balance sheet we call the universe.