Testing
10hr ago
I did say in the post itself that I wasn't serious.
Note I am not serious here
I mostly wrote it to hear intresting moral arguments against it or for it.
I am not posting it to convince anyone to do it but because it's a good starting prompt for philosophy and a fun writing excercise.
Aren't there very few women promiscuous which have sex with chads? Most women have relatively few dating partners. The promiscuous women are selecting for superficial features since they are in for sex and pleasure. Normal women are just not having that much sex and are not available on dating apps since they are taken.
So it gives an appearance that all women are very shallow since only the very shallow women are available for dating.
| Number of Partners | Men (%) | Women (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 1 | 16% – 17% | 22% – 23% |
| 2 to 4 | 21% – 22% | 30% – 31% |
| 5 to 9 | 20% | 25% – 28% |
| 10 or more | 42% | 19% – 22% |
How would an incel uprising work in this context? Normal men and women are pairing up. Promiscuous women are choosing to have sex for pleasure instead of dating the bottom 20% since they don't have any societal pressure to do so.
If we lived in a gender reversed world lots of incels would indeed be having sex with female equivalent of chads who are readily available instead of getting in permanent relationship with ugly women.
In this gender reversed world, there would be few hot women who are satisfying lot of medicore men and there would be lot of fat women which are never picked.
This is not even a new thing by the way, even in 1800s there were still an lowerclass of men who never reproduced.
In places like Britain, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and the early United States, the rate of adults who lived to old age without having children was shockingly high—between 15% and 20%
Even then women were not dating poor men and preferred living alone than that.
The behaviour simply makes sense from game theory and evolutionary perspective.
Testing
13hr ago
Also you are completely correct about fisher. In a free society if a such a cultural movement arose women who are not selecting against male embryos would gain an enormous evolutionary advantage. The genes which make people not want to abort male babies would propagate and this society would go back to normal.
It's probably trivial to write a simulation to prove this.
Maybe it would take baby vats or something like that to keep the society going.
Well it certainly isn't practically feasible. I am not arguing on that. It's more of an argument against eugenics, most people who consider themselves eugenicists would say there is something wrong with this but not normal eugenics. (Ignoring for the moment the obviously evil state repression which would be required for actually implementing eugenics)
I am thinking what is morally wrong with this plan or is it even wrong? Provided you can somehow convince everyone to follow it, should you? One poster pointed out that this can lead to demonization of men which can be a super small minority. That is one moral problem.
I also posted this because this seemed like the type of policy which would be supported by the most radical of feminists and incels both. Which I find pretty comedic.
Testing
14hr ago
Any future where goverment is this powerful and uses it for such pointless bullshit is a complete dystopia. This assumes a scenario where very different cultural movements have won out and people are choosing to do this.
An elegant solution to all the male crisises, embryonic sex selection. https://mistakesweremade.substack.com/p/the-y-chromosome-is-dysgenic
Men commit far more crime than women, they are more prone to diseases and they live shorter lives.
There may be more variation in men's IQ scores and they are more common in STEM, so we would certainly need some men for new discoveries and the like but what is the need for 1:1 sex ratio?
Most people don't work on intellectual tasks in civilization which need constant innovation and incredible time spent on them with a singular focus. Most jobs are mundane and of maintaince variety. We can just have few men which work on hard research type jobs where vast majority of population is women. Maybe with lack of men female researchers would lead. Besides if super intelligence arrives we may not need men working at these jobs at all.
This would solve the incel problem since men are rarer, this would solve the problem of dangerous men preying on women.
Note I am not serious here, but talking about this hypothetical seems like fun. It does seem obviously wrong but I can't pinpoint any specific moral principle it might violate.
Surely there is something wrong with this argument but what is it? It seems fine from an purely utalitarian perspective.
Edit: i am again restating that I am not seriously considering this. It's starting prompt for philosophy and a fun writing excercise.
Testing
3d ago
I don't know if it would be for better or for worse. I was being descriptive rather than prescriptive.
As for your points, I think you are overestimating how disenfrinched the average male is. I don't think there is going to be gender war or slow crumbling of society. South Korea still lives on.
No matter how disenfrichesed men get, it won't matter because I am betting on AGI.
I am not even saying woman are acting rationally in their own interests for happiness.
My main opinion is that a lot of people are going to be very unemployed and die without ever having kids.
A lot of cultural change is going to happen because cultures where men and women reproduce survive.
I also don't think much can be done about this.
Honestly this low reproduction rate seems like an artifact of rapid technological advancement and cultural change which is going to fix itself eventually in a century.
Testing
3d ago
Well that's even better isn't it. With gene engeneering we would have humans which would age slowly, get sick less, have higher IQ and fitness. Even if somehow HBD turns out to be true we will simply fix it.
People might just start to have AI companions for romance and human race continues in baby fabs.
Though I find it unlikely, doesn't seem culturally feasible yet but maybe in two centuries.
Seems fine to me and it seems like a self solving problem. Women have more negotiating power and they are using it.
Eventually the next generation would have woman with lower standards and males with superior genes. Because everyone else would have died off.
This would also lead to cultural shifts so that both sexes are more accepting of each other.
Hell it may even improve women genetically because only the hottest women would get laid with hottest men.
Sadly since genes for autism and IQ are correlated we may see a slight decrease.
It's a single generation so it should not matter much.
With AGI lots of people are not needed. I don't see any wealth redistribution happening. People with money would have kids and equally distribute their wealth among them.
Besides in south korea the wealthy have a high fertility rate not replacement level but it's double the normal average.
Eventually a better culture would emerge out of all this, especially with AGI because the remaining people won't need to work that hard and maybe they would have more time for family and romance with a cultural inclination for those things.
Well unless we go extinct which is pretty likely too.
I thought a bit more about it. Calling it embarassing is inaccurate. There is another primary reason for it.
It's a matter of honor even though people would never word it that way. It is dishonorable to let insults against your friends/family/group stand. HBD etc is insulting to minorities. Christians generally used to dislike their god being insulted. This "honor" is something I find is natural but only emerges when it is encouraged in the society. This can be completely suppressed depending on who your friends are and what is your culture.
Well also people dislike not being echo chambers and being with people like you is far more pleasant. I can't discount that.
Honor doesn't exist for a utalitarian reason, it is a thing in itself.
The social embarassment is for people who don't feel that "honor" feeling intrinsically.
Well only close friends but my close friends are basically indifferent to what I do unless I am causing real harm to someone. We follow a very live and let live philosophy.
Though I generally don't share my username, I do share screenshots of the website.
Engaging with very right wing ideas such as HBD is socially embarassing. The ick is a natural response to that.
If person X has many accounts and one of them happens to be on the motte then a subset of people would judge them. "What kind of person has a stormfront, 4chan, incels.is etc account." This is the main reason for lack of leftists.
Now the common argument is just don't tell your peers you have an account but unfortunately psychology doesn't work like that, people want to be liked for all they are and dislike keeping secrets.
So they must decide if they must bear the psychological burden of keeping a secret to keep browsing the motte.
This isn't really concious but I assume that is what practically happens.
This process bleeds leftist dry from a platform and without them the discourse becomes too one sided and of lower quality. So even more people leave till you end with a mostly center right website.
Reading this makes me wonder, is there a drug which works completely opposite to psychedelics? You use it and become a materialistic atheist, become extremely concerned about practical problems like finances and start immediately working on them without losing sense of reality or having delusions.
The drug which make a person enter into the state which usually happens when deadline is closing in.
I suppose maybe speed or stimulants can do it? That won't make you lose faith in God though, maybe indifference to existence of God is the limit of what drugs can get you.
The uprising thing was in another comment by you
I assumed that by hypergamy you meant something close to the meme where there are ten women who are trying to date one man while rest of nine men are ignored.
Some women preferring to date men richer and more successful than them is a much weaker assertion.
More options
Context Copy link