Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competit

    It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competition, and males have cheap opportunities and infinite competition; and that women are trying to capture better opportunities and men are simply trying to increase the number of opportunities. ( Ergo, larger testicals for polyamorous apes and smaller testicals for dominant apes. )

    There is nothing natural about*lifetime* monogamy, and everything natural about serial pairing off. The reason being *classes*. Pairing off provides Nash Optimums, just as much as markets produce Pareto Distributions.

    The problem with lifetime monogamy is that it evolved with and is dependent upon PROPERTY. For some people that property is part of the shared attraction (status). For others it is not so – they lack marginally sufficient productive ability to produce status signals, or to alter their sexual, social, economic, political, and military market values.

    Ergo we should see Power Couples at the top with lifetime marriages, affairs in the mature middle class, but preservation of lifetime monogamy, serial relationships in the lower classes.

    Which is what we see.

    One of the consequences of post industrial wealth (caused by the capture of energy) is that we can afford to pursue our preferences rather than have those preferences constrained by the previous conditions.

    This is what we see. We see vast exploration of preferences because we can afford to explore them (conduct research protgrams, and either succeed or fail) but at some point we have to measure the externalities produced, and that is what conservatives do…. we measure the intertemporal consequences. We are the long term ‘limiters’ that defend the gene pool – or fail to.

    The economic consequences of pairing off are substantial. The economic consequences of lifetime monogamy are substantial. The economic consequences of homogeneity and eugenic reproduction are substantial. In fact, they might be the most substantial. The way we restore these very-high-returns is simply *to stop funding alternatives thru redistribution* and let meritocracy reign again.

    That will produce families, and suppress underclass reproduction, and as a consequence produce greater wealth.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:55:00 UTC

  • I try to write natural law of reciprocity not presume a good. In my view all mon

    I try to write natural law of reciprocity not presume a good. In my view all monopolies are false *(bad)*. Instead, how do we provide a suite of market solutions that generally solve the problem without fighting human incentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:47:00 UTC

  • My presumption of best way = continuous competition (empiricism), and continuous

    My presumption of best way = continuous competition (empiricism), and continuous success at competition (dynamic markets), which requires continuous defeat of the red queen (regression to the mean), by continuous improvement of the gene pool (kin group eugenics.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:44:00 UTC

  • “Mutual agreed upon contracts spelling out reciprocal arrangements is all the “d

    —“Mutual agreed upon contracts spelling out reciprocal arrangements is all the “diversity” human kind has ever needed and does a mighty fine job of it. … One key esoteric or side-benefit is that these voluntary arrangements tends to make all parties smarter, making such arrangements better and better, evolving to enrich and benefit even more, amassing more and more wealth. … Civilization.”—Richard Nikoley

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:40:00 UTC

  • (diary) You know, while my ambition was to emulate the visualizations of Becker,

    (diary)

    You know, while my ambition was to emulate the visualizations of Becker, when I write, try to emulate Hayek, because I see my work as the continuation of his.

    But like Spinoza and Wittgenstein who ‘sensed’ the format of the future of philosophy – they just couldn’t solve the underlying problem of measurement – they understood that the argumentative structure was that of law. Unfortunately, Jews adopted idealism as a means of improving pilpul and they just couldn’t escape it.

    That’s where I’ve made my mistake. I’ve been trying to emulate Hayek who argued from history, information, and incentive, rather than Spinoza and Wittgenstein that tried to (and failed) write proofs – when, de facto, all I write is proofs, even if unlike them, I work, like hayek from history, information, and incentives. You cannot write proofs from idealism. The measurements don’t exist like they do from actions.

    Greater parsimony. Historical parables. And eliminate the intermediate narrative, rather than attempt to construct the intermediate narrative.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:33:00 UTC

  • “Diversity transforms specific racial hatred into universal hatred. It already h

    —“Diversity transforms specific racial hatred into universal hatred. It already happened in most western countries.”– Danny Seis

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:14:00 UTC

  • The nuclear family lets itself to a village where extended family is nearby and

    The nuclear family lets itself to a village where extended family is nearby and children move between households to provide labor rather than paying the cost of slaves. (really, that’s the answer).

    The nuclear family requires very cheap land. This is probably the most overlooked cost.

    The benefit of the nuclear household and shared labor, is that (a) it’s possible for family capital to be mobile, (b) it prevents dysgenia from slavery, (c) delays childbirth, and (d) prevents dysgenia from underclass reproduction.

    The nuclear family is also superior under early capitalism where we move people to capital. The problem is, it’s destructive.

    Move capital to people rather than people to capital.

    END IMMIGRATION OF LABOR.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:08:00 UTC

  • THE COLLAPSE MODEL OF HISTORY As far as I know the ‘Collapse’ model is correct:

    THE COLLAPSE MODEL OF HISTORY

    As far as I know the ‘Collapse’ model is correct: civilizations expand – like all human opportunities – until the underclasses, now enabled, conquer them.

    This is true for 3500 bc, 1200bc, 400ad, and 1900ad.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:04:00 UTC

  • “The choice is between suppressing the underclass via propertarian methods, or w

    —“The choice is between suppressing the underclass via propertarian methods, or watching society return to high infant mortality, ignorance, want and disease, never to rise again.”— Ryan Williams

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:01:00 UTC

  • by Ely Harman Women participating in economic production, (beyond a very low lev

    by Ely Harman

    Women participating in economic production, (beyond a very low level where their specializations are most helpful, or until marriage) are not participating in production but participating in consumption – especially the consumption of their genetic inheritance, in exchange for a single lifetime of careerism and sensation seeking. But all the status and memories they accumulate that way will die with them.

    I don’t see what was wrong with the post agrarian norms, where men were responsible for all of the war and politics and most of the economic production, while women were responsible for most of the reproduction and caretaking. That worked well enough for thousands of years.

    I think the main reason it’s been abandoned is that defection is individually rational, but collectively irrational.

    Nearly everyone would be better off, in their own estimation, if defection were effectively barred, though they may be better off still if they were able to defect while no one else could (fails existential possibility and reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 15:43:00 UTC