« What do people do? | Main | Zardoz »

February 19, 2012

Comments

You will also find a genetic bottleneck as a relative handful of males sire a disproportionate number of offspring, with all attendant characteristics of inbreeding in subsequent generations.

"...centuries of breeding for beta qualities."

Not sure I agree with that. Alphas make women tingle. Women have always spread their legs for alphas. That hasn't changed.

***Not sure I agree with that. Alphas make women tingle. Women have always spread their legs for alphas. That hasn't changed.***

True, but different environments favor beta traits more than others. Those environments tend to have been in Asia and Europe. Ed Miller writes about that in his paper 'Paternal Provisioning versus Mate Seeking in Human Populations'

Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 17, August 1994, No. 2, 227-255.

http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_pp.html

Also, see Greg Cochran & Henry Harpending's discussion of Cad/Dad societies.

http://the10000yearexplosion.com/human-cultural-diversity/

There's a credible study linked within the article that claims...

"How children in households with both biological parents differ from children in households with only one biological parent. He shows that children growing up with two continuously married parents are less likely to experience a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and social problems, not only during childhood but also in adulthood.

Additionally, those who grow up in stable, two-parent families have a higher standard of living, receive more effective parenting, experience more cooperative co-parenting, are emotionally closer to both parents, and are subjected to fewer stressful events and circumstances.

This should have been highlighted as the major fact and point for combating this social issue, however NYT is obviously biased with liberal agenda, so perhaps not."

Those with the least ability to afford birth control are also the one's with the lowest IQs. Yes, medicaid covers some low-IQ people, but it doesn't cover a large number of low-IQ people. Being libertarian about healthcare and/or being militantly against abortion leads to a dysgenic society.

At least here in Finland it is quite common that people live together like married couple but are not officially married. And have kids also. For example I have relatives who have been living together for decades and have kids, but never got married.

Having birth outside marriage does not mean that father is not around. And with easy no-fault divorce, what meaning marriage has anyway anymore?

Not much future time orientation when a woman gets knocked up by a guy she has to buy cigarettes for.

I'm curious about some of the assertions and implications here. Has marriage and legitimate children been priced out of the range of the working class and poor in the U.S.?

"Furthermore, without the institution of marriage, alpha males have a disprortionate share children, which means each subsequent generation becomes significantly more alpha than the previous one, and in just a few generations we will completely wipe out centuries of breeding for beta qualities, and it's the beta qualities which are necessary for civilization. However, that's the kind of analysis that you will NOT find in the NY Times."

Actually, less sex partners = more children.

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/10/fewer-sexual-partners-means-more-babies.html

If alpha males are encouraged to marry and thus have less lifetime partners they would actually have more children, not less, perpetuating their alpha genes. On the other hand the less shaming they receive and the more partners they have the fewer children they have.

I'm not sure that alpha characteristics are clearly heritable and persistent. But this statistical drift away from the husband-and-wife family is no accident, it's just one more proof of the Alinskyite "long march through the institutions" to make Western Civ pay for its supposed sins. Gay "marriage" is the next grotesque absurdity to be deemed a sacrament in pursuit of this goal.

Addendum: Even though alpha males have fewer children than beta males because of their increased likelihood of not getting married, looser restrictions of which would only help them remove their genetic characteristics from the gene pool, the fact that they discourage many women from marrying beta males (because they are having affairs with these women) may counteract the aforementioned effects.

Drole Prole,

I just bought a box of condoms, it wasn't cost prohibitive to say the least. As for abortion I'm not sure if it reduces low IQ birth all that much. I think since its a fail safe birth control method is encourages more women to screw around, and some of those extra kids from screwing around won't get aborted.

No one actually knows whether men who father illegitimate children are more Alpha than those whose children are born within marriage.

What do you want to do about it, HS?

As an addendum, one reason why illegitimate births are so high among those below the age of 30 is that NAMs make up a higher percentage of that demographic than they do with those age 30 and above. A couple of years ago or so, most children born in America were not white.

In about 25 years or so, illegitimacy will be the norm, if trends continue as they have.

"Those with the least ability to afford birth control are also the one's with the lowest IQs. Yes, medicaid covers some low-IQ people, but it doesn't cover a large number of low-IQ people. Being libertarian about healthcare and/or being militantly against abortion leads to a dysgenic society."

Afford birth control? I hope you are joking. Nothing has been more free.

The risks of marriage far outweigh the benefits. Marriage is a commitment, yet people fail to grasp the truly negative connotations behind the word "commitment". Commitment is glorified bridge burning. If said commitment is an egregious mistake then by definition its adverse effects cannot be disposed of. Thus, commitment by nature must lack flexibility and its attendant options and choices.

A major and unfortunate complication is discrimination against singles in the work environment. A man may be passed up for promotion simply for being single, but single men have the most to gain from promotions since more power and higher professional standing increases their attractiveness to the opposite sex and therefore increases their options.

Another complication arises when a married man receives a big promotion and suddenly finds himself out of his wife's league. He will notice younger, better-dressed, more attractive women are suddenly attracted to him. Yet, these younger, more attractive ladies are forbidden to him, he lacks the flexibility to date them guilt free since he is married. Divorce is frowned upon socially, and even without this stigma, the financial risks are too heavy. Thus, outright cheating becomes the most viable option other than forgoing extramarital affairs.

This goes back to HS's post on future long term trends. I would like to see the safety new cut back significantly so the bastards and their dumb moms have to deal with consequences. A currency crisis could help bring this along.

You know, a few years ago Slate had an article about how the Mormons might preserve American civilization if it falls. We might find out sooner than I thought.

I've always admired them for doing the 1950s thing way after the 50s, but wonder how many people drop out, and thus how sustainable their model is on a larger scale.

"But I do think that the two-parent family is much better for passing on middle-class values, which are important for an orderly society. "

It amazes me how most HBD'ers who stress the the highly overlooked importance of heredity seem to have blinders on when it comes to marriage and the family. Two-parent homes don't pass on middle-class values since parents don't mold children's personalities. People would turn out no differently if all the same people who breed today simply instead did so in two-parent homes. Rather, what you would change is who breeds, since with the "milk" no longer free, men would have to "buy the cow" and marry. But since—as the commentators point out—it's not clear whether more "alpha" or "beta" men are breeding, it's not even clear that a greater emphasis on marriage would have an effect in that dimension, either.

--Divorce is frowned upon socially, and even without this stigma, the financial risks are too heavy.--

Yeah, divorce is so rare. And those that are divorced are social outcasts. They never date or get married again!

PS, SFG. Buy firearms. You'll feel better during the coming collapse!

Name a developed nation that doesn't have dysgenic reproductive patterns. If there is one, I'm not aware of it.

People like Mark Steyn argue that low and dysgenic fertility in Europe is symptomatic of a collapse of culture. I agree that this is a real problem throughout the developed world, but I don't think it's due to cultural decadence. The combination of reproductive choices introduced by birth control, career options for women introduced by education, the range of entertainment and lifestyle choices available to both men and women -- which make parenthood less of a default lifestyle, the cost of raising children, and the general conditions of an urban existence all combine to inhibit reproduction. However those least likely to voluntarily control their reproduction are those who are the dimmest, or who perceive the fewest attractive alternatives to motherhood -- usually the same women.

These dysgenic patterns exist throughout the developed and even semi-developed worlds, and I doubt that there's much we can do to change them. I've had my two kids, the "replacement set," as I call them, but I could very easily have wound up never having kids at all.

Jay M,

Marriage is a commitment because different people bring different things to a marriage. Some of those things depreciate, some appreciate. Some are valuable in one set of circumstances and not another. Some are transferable and some are not. Some are divisible and some are not.

Thus, as the marriage progresses there will be times in which one person would have the upper hand in leaving for a variety of reasons, even though leaving would not be just (and, perhaps, unhealthy for the family as a whole). Think of it like if I served you a meal in a restaurant and then you dined and dashed. I provided the meal on good faith, you consumed it, now you want out of paying for it. Obviously, this should be considered unjust.

As to employment its a mixed bag. In jobs where loyalty, consistency, and obedience is most important to an employer, he wants a family man. In jobs where those things aren't important and he wants a guy working 60 hours a week, he wants a single dude. So it may or may not hurt depending on the industry.

The logic is that is two people marry and have children their combined assets help the children. However for poor people these days, two people getting married or living together long term just means that the problems of two dysfunctional people are combined. That is what many of the single mothers are saying. That the men in their socio-economic status all have massive number of personal issues that makes marriage a non-starter.

"Not sure I agree with that. Alphas make women tingle. Women have always spread their legs for alphas. That hasn't changed."

Asian guys are mocked for being too nice and beta, but there's a reason why Asian societies are law-abiding, even the poorer Asian countries. Well, one of the reasons.
Islamic societies which allow polygamy operate on this Alpha principle, where mostly rich old guys and high ranking military personnel pass on their genes, while the rest of the men remain cockblocked, angry and violent.
It may be fun for a guy to be Alpha, and women may get "moist" when seeing/interacting with them, but Alpha-run societies are hardly conducive to stable civilizations.

Good post. So, how should guys like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Steve Wozniak and most high IQ business leaders be designated? Are they really Alpha or Betas? Some call them Alphas due to high social rank and power, but it seems like their traits are more Beta.

Are Betas what bring us civilization?

I live on the West Coast and the image of Software Engineers and Information Technology out here is far different. With Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, and every other major IT company based near San Francisco or Seattle. Out here the information technology crowd is king. They are all of the billionaires and millionaires.

The nickname for Microsoft guys around Seattle is M&M. "Microsoft Millionaire" There are thousands of retired techies in their 40s from Microsoft. Many are now doing their own startups around the region. Same thing is happening from Google and Amazon techies that hit it. Facebook will be next when those guys cash out.

Lawyers don't even rate on the social scale here. Everyone wants to get a CS degree from Stanford or the Univ of Washington. The women all want to land an engineer making $100,000 to $150,000 (plus stock) at one of the top IT companies.

Many of the people who run for political office (and win) are information technology types. All of the social fundraisers for charity are run by that crowd. All of the venture funds are organized by the information technology groups.

Lawyers are just a service provider for the real money. Lawyers are the hired help.

They make doctor level money these days and they have more upside than most doctors with the stock that is common in information technology.

There is no question at all that Info Tech > Lawyers in the "prestige and money" game these days.

What's the reason for the rise of out-of-wedlock births in the first place?

I know one knee-jerk explanation is that the welfare-state has incentivized single-parent homes, and so, acting as rationally self-interested agents, women breed like crazy. There's some truth to this hypothesis of children-as-a-meal ticket but I do not think it explains current mating patterns.

I've grown to appreciate the argument from social conservatives: the introduction of birth control has radically altered social norms. Religious leaders warned everyone about this. Marriage is unnecessary for men if they "can get the milk for free."

I'm not sure what can be done beyond education.

Some have argued that birth control/abortion are *dysgenic* because they're used disproportionately by elites.

And just because planned parenthood/birth control is available does not mean they're used. Plenty of 17 year-old from "prole" backgrounds have no idea, especially immigrant Catholics south of the border.

Taking away birth control is not an option, so the answer is contraceptive awareness. It should fall from the sky. And once scientists develop a reliable pill for men -- made freely available, the only side effect being stronger erections -- the problem will be solved.

ProgrammingSucksLOL,

If all that was sexy, Mark Zuckerberg would be on the cover of those chick magazines in the super market check out. The guy gets his calls returned by the president for gods sake. And yet, he has pretty much zero sex appeal. A few women would like to be with someone with his status and money, but they all wish they could have a sexier version of that status and money.

Take away Don Drapers status and money, and he still makes girls tingle. Add status and money to a beta and you still get a beta. No girl is masturbating to thoughts of Bill Gates.

"Furthermore, without the institution of marriage, alpha males have a disprortionate share children, which means each subsequent generation becomes significantly more alpha than the previous one, and in just a few generations we will completely wipe out centuries of breeding for beta qualities, and it's the beta qualities which are necessary for civilization."

I'm not sure there will be time for that sort of selective breeding to make any difference, if of course the trend is for Alpha's to father more children. That may have been a good theory in the days before contraception, but now I'm not sure alphas are keeping up in the progeny department.

Anyway, the cultural aspects of declining marriage will crash and burn our current civilization, or our civilization will evolve into something wildly different.

I have some statistics regarding illegitimate children, divided by race on my blog.

http://secularblood.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/stats-on-hs-conjecture/

The problem our current situation entails is that improvident people don't die or lose their ability to reproduce. I feel disgusted saying this, but nature has programmed human beings to reproduce whether or not we have the ability to guarantee our children's survival. In the past, people who were strong, smart, planned well, and worked hard were rewarded with genetic immortality while those who didn't died and their children died, too. Now we're faced with a state in which the stupid and lazy outbreed the smart and hardworking.

Ok, what are the causes of the "disintegration" of marriage in the USA?

Evolution equips women to look for alpha traits in males for a reason, ergo a society celebrating high-IQ betas over alphas must be as dysgenic in its own ways as one celebrating unintelligence.

When high-IQ betas ignore the reality of high IQ alphas fact as they bash alpha traits as undesirable, it just demonstrates how people select facts to suit their own unwarranted self importance (Google for 'narcissistic personality disorder' to see how a high ego can result from a sense of inadequacy).

Maaldweb over on AlternativeRight calls these people "borderline mentally ill computer programmers", or something accurate like that. Actually there's some good comments about Charles Murray's book over there that touch on this subject too.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/elite-and-underclass/


Shawn says...

"If alpha males are encouraged to marry and thus have less lifetime partners they would actually have more children, not less, perpetuating their alpha genes. On the other hand the less shaming they receive and the more partners they have the fewer children they have."


Shawn, you know such facts won't emotionally appeal to certain people in the same way as, say, suggesting abortion for those on their doorstep as though its a social cure-all which it isn't.

Because of course, insulting others by suggesting pre-emptive executions for other people's children isn't even intended to be a solution is it? It's only a public expression of their self-importance which people only dare make online, because real people would laugh in their faces.

The comments to this entry are closed.