In the first part, we touched on the problem of poor people.
Liberals insist that poverty is all about money, and if there are any differences between poor people and rich people, it’s only because rich parents are able to buy stuff for their children which turns them into better people.
But liberals are completely wrong. Poverty is about low IQ, low future-time orientation, and bad values. The first item on the list is all about genes: people are born with low IQ and there’s not much you can do about it. I suspect that low future-time orientation also has a large genetic component, but I think it’s possible that it can be raised with proper training. Values are, by definition, learned attitudes and behaviors.
The Half Sigma approach to eliminate poverty is a two-pronged attack which I guarantee would achieve good results if it were ever implemented. (1) we need to reduce the number of people with poor-people genes from being born with eugenic policies; and (2) we should focus on teaching middle-class values to poor children. The first half of the Half Sigma approach is not likely to be implemented in my lifetime because eugenics is considered to be the most evil thing in the world. There’s a possibility that we might come around to acknowledging the importance of values, but even that’s not very likely because it touches too close to the truth of HBD. Suggesting that poor people need better values tends to outrage liberals, who say that you are blaming poor people for their poverty when liberals know that poverty is caused by Republicans who are too cheap to spend the money needed to end it.
The robotic future will make a lot of things cheaper while eliminating the need for low-IQ human labor. But poverty is caused by bad behavior and not lack of the things that money can buy. Poor people are able to destroy value. The government built really nice housing projects for poor people, and the poor people turned them into hellholes. Now they say it was a mistake to concentrate the poor together into big buildings, so the latest trend is to stick them into small structures in many neighborhoods, which is just going to make things worse for the middle class who won’t be able to get away from them unless they can afford to move to a rich neighborhood. And since neighborhood quality is entirely a relative thing which is unrelated to productivity, only a minority of people will ever be rich. The devaluation of labor means that people will be less able to work their way up to the next class and people will tend to be more stuck in the class they are born to.
Even today, poor people no longer need to work in order to not die in the streets. The government “safety net” ensures this. But poor people’s behavior doesn’t improve when their ability to survive is delinked from work. The need to work in order to survived enforced a certain amount of discipline and middle-class values on the poor, and that is being taken away.
Even though poor, the need for status competition still exists among poor people, and status competition among the underclass males often turns to criminal behavior. Unemployed and unemployable young men will seek meaning in life by joining gangs and trying to rise to a higher level within the gang. I even forsee a time in the future when poor neighborhoods become so dangerous that even the police fear going there.
The delinking of work from survival has also changed the breeding habits of the poor. In the past, poor women needed to find a husband to help support their children. But now, with state support, poor women have sex with alpha males and give out-of-wedlock birth to their alpha-male spawn. As I previously wrote, “without the institution of marriage, alpha males have a disproportionate share of 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.”
This dysgenic breeding caused by end of the institution of marriage can by observed in that NY Times article about the unmarried white mother, and you can observer that all of her children are half black. Because blacks are the most alpha race, in a world of race-mixing and non-marital births, black genes become more prevalent in the future generation. You see a lot of unmarried white women with half-black children, but you never see any unmarried black women with half-white children.
As we see, the robotic future will not mean the end of poverty, but will cause the opposite to happen. Robotic productivity plus continuing denial by liberals about HBD will lead to poor neighborhoods becoming more violent and horrible to live in, and more middle-class neighborhoods will become poor neighborhoods.
To be continued ...