Curt Doolittle updated his status.
WHY KEEP DACHAS (VILLAGE FAMILY MICRO-FARMS)
—“The broader and stronger your confidence and capacity to sustain yourself, in all the various forms of sustenance, the fewer and weaker the incentives to parasitize, in all the various forms of parasitism.”— Luke Weinhagen
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 19:55:14 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
women fear to alter the status quo when it creates risk, men do not since it creates opportunity. This is why women perpetuate virtue signals like they do fashion signals or hen-pecking in female groups. It never ends. There is no optimum condition.
Women voted to alter the status quo as a virtue, fashion, pecking cycle. It’s endless (Suicidal, obsessive, precognitive).
Children and men are costly, so if they can marry the state and invite underclass opponents, and end marriage demands, they will do so (and have demonstrated it everywhere).
SO they have and do alter the status quo, they wll not vote and do not act or vote to produce scarcity even when scarcity of opportunity is the optimum intertemporal investment.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 19:03:53 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
—“Why should I be barred from contributing to the growth of another who would in turn contribute to my own growth?”— Bennard Ebanks
When doing so imposes costs upon others by externality, who tolerate your presence only under the condition that you do not do so.
Groups differ in the degree of suppression of externalization of costs. High trust high performance, homogenous polities are intolerant – and because they are, they have the choice. Low trust, heterogeneous, low performing are tolerant. Because they have no other choice.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 16:07:19 UTC
WHY KEEP DACHAS (VILLAGE FAMILY MICRO-FARMS)
—“The broader and stronger your confidence and capacity to sustain yourself, in all the various forms of sustenance, the fewer and weaker the incentives to parasitize, in all the various forms of parasitism.”— Luke Weinhagen
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 15:55:00 UTC
women fear to alter the status quo when it creates risk, men do not since it creates opportunity. This is why women perpetuate virtue signals like they do fashion signals or hen-pecking in female groups. It never ends. There is no optimum condition.
Women voted to alter the status quo as a virtue, fashion, pecking cycle. It’s endless (Suicidal, obsessive, precognitive).
Children and men are costly, so if they can marry the state and invite underclass opponents, and end marriage demands, they will do so (and have demonstrated it everywhere).
SO they have and do alter the status quo, they wll not vote and do not act or vote to produce scarcity even when scarcity of opportunity is the optimum intertemporal investment.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 15:03:00 UTC
How many of your ‘arguments’ are just excuses for doing nothing to alter the status quo? Adults don’t do that. Children and women do.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 12:42:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020650113876856832
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
How many of your ‘arguments’ are just excuses for doing nothing to alter the status quo? Adults don’t do that. Children and women do.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 12:41:54 UTC
How many of your ‘arguments’ are just excuses for doing nothing to alter the status quo? Adults don’t do that. Children and women do.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 08:41:00 UTC
EUGENICS VS. DYSGENICS
by Ely Harman
Eugenics is the tendency of genes to get “better.” It relates to politics because all policies are either Eugenic, they tend to make genes better, or they are “dysgenic,” they tend to make genes “worse.”
I understand the definitions of “better” or “worse” are going to be a stumbling block for most people, since they seem kind of subjective. But I believe they have more or less objective definitions, at least as related to policy. A policy is eugenic if it selects for the genes that enable the policy to be carried into effect. And it is dysgenic if it selects for genes that disrupt, retard or arrest the policy itself or against genes that the policy relies upon.
E.g. Insisting people feed themselves is a eugenic policy because it selects for people who can feed themselves, and against people who can’t. There is no systemic failure mode. Things only get better over time as individuals who fail to feed themselves remove their failure genes from the gene pool. But feeding people is a dysgenic policy because it selects for people who can’t feed themselves and against people who can feed them (the ability to feed people who can’t feed themselves becomes a burden, risk, and cost, because it carries the obligation to do so.) Thus, the latter policy will tend to break down over time as people who can’t feed themselves proliferate and the people who can feed them are consumed. But a eugenic policy can be maintained indefinitely and be built upon continuously.
Put another way, Eugenia is the gradual, sustainable, accumulation and inprovement of genetic capital, that can be built upon with further improvements, while dysgenia is its consumption for the short term propagation of defective garbage.
Accumulation vs. consumption. Production vs. parasitism. Eugenia vs. dysgenia.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 08:35:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
IS LEFTISM A DISEASE? WE ARE SPECIATING
(dividing into species)
—“Curt do you think that leftism is simply a mental illness or is there an actual reason why people adopt such an unreasonable belief system?”—
I think it’s a pre-cognitive genetic (evolutionary) strategy that some people have evolved just as conservatism is a genetic (evolutionary) strategy that others have evolved.
And I think the difference is caused by the female reproductive strategy that favors women and the lower classes, and male reproductive strategy that favors males and the middle/upper classes.
And this is confirmed pretty simply by the reproductive attractiveness of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to be more reproductively desirable, and have greater agency. These are genetic markers.
My view is that we WERE speciating regionally by race when we discovered metalworking.
My view is that we are wealthy enough to speciate by need for commons – and that’s what we are in the process of doing.
And that the mistake is to think that our interests are better served by the production of COMPROMISE commons versus SPECIALIZED COMMONS that suit our reproductive strategies.
All peoples are better served by the production of SPECIALIZED COMMONS. And we can (finally) afford to produce them.
And that is what we see across the world.
WE NEED TO SPECIATE.
WOLVES(conservatives) Packs, and SHEEP(liberals) Herd.
Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 22:13:28 UTC