Lion of the Blogosphere

Robots and HBD denialism

The standard response of conservative-libertarian economist types when they hear warnings about robots putting people out of work is that technology has never put people out of work in the past, people always find new jobs to do.

Their problem is that they deny the truth of HBD. They think that everyone can become an economics professor or do other high-level creative and self-actualizing work. They don’t understand that intelligence is genetic and that most people are not born with genes that would enable them to become an economics professor.

The coming robot revolution will make the labor of people below a certain IQ totally worthless. This is an event never before experienced by humanity.

How should we prepare? I use the word “should” because no one is going to pay attention to me, but we should be doing two things: (1) move society away from the model that people have to do work in order to be entitled to bounty of our technologically advanced production capacity; and (2) implement eugenic policies to prevent people who have nothing to contribute in the post-scarcity economy from breeding.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 6, 2014 at EDT am

Posted in Robots

106 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. IRBT shares doing nicely today

    vic

    February 6, 2014 at EDT am

  2. We should be looking into how to increase IQ either through genetic engineering and/or embryonic screening.

    Sadly, the USA has too many HBD-deniers and bible-thumpers who would make this impossible.

    China, however, is working on this, so at least there is hope for the future:

    http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program

    Jay

    February 6, 2014 at EDT am

    • I don’t understand the purpose or raising collective IQ score. Progress and capitalism are founded on the innate disparity between Least Intelligence -> Average Intelligence -> Most Intelligence. It’s a hierarchy that imprints itself across society. So if we make more intelligent people we still aren’t creating more opportunity, we’re just creating more underemployed people.

      Personally, I’m intrigued by Lion’s #1 preparation option, but this would require generations of gradual transition to a new cultural paradigm. We are trained that we must work in order to survive. There can be no other way, correct?

      Socially Extinct

      February 10, 2014 at EDT am

  3. It seems technologically easier to replace accountants with computers than to replace nurses with robotic wipers of pensioner arses, so I would say those in the 105-120 IQ set are more at danger of technological unemployment than the lower-IQ set.

    pseudoerasmus

    February 6, 2014 at EDT am

    • You’re confusing accountants with bookkeepers.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 6, 2014 at EDT am

      • Large accounting firms can probably downsize their staff significantly, with automation technology.

        JS

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

  4. Of course even when technology displaces labour it does not result so much in unemployment, as reduces wages, so the net effect is greater income inequality and increasing capital share of total income.

    pseudoerasmus

    February 6, 2014 at EDT am

  5. Our elites already have a solution. More Immigration!

    Mike Street Station

    February 6, 2014 at EDT am

  6. You are the canary in the coalmine on this one. Know that at least some people are listening…

    JayMan

    February 6, 2014 at EDT am

  7. Its actually not hard to get eugenic breeding policies.

    1. Offer $200 for anyone who tests positive for illegal drugs to get sterilised. Low future time orientation druggies will love $200. Everyone else will love that they can no longer reproduce.
    2. Abortion on demand. Because the vast majority of women getting them fit one or more of the following: below poverty line income, unmarried, African American, Hispanic, low education, low social class.
    3. Offer cash and prizes only to married couples who have children. Because the vast majority of married couples having children fit one or more of the following: above poverty line income, White, Asian, high education, high social class.
    4. Remove all welfare/food stamps/section 8 housing/earned income tax credit/childcare subsidy for bastard kids and their mothers.

    SC

    February 6, 2014 at EDT am

    • Never going to happen, keep dreaming.

      DdR

      February 6, 2014 at EDT am

      • Some of these things have already happened in other countries. Why can’t they happen here too?

        SC

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

    • I wonder if there are even accurate numbers on 2), since most women don’t really advertise their abortions. But there are plenty of SWPL women who have had them. You’d be surprised by how many. And often those same women who had them in their 20s or 30s end up hoping they can still have a kid in their 40s.

      Dave Pinsen

      February 6, 2014 at EDT am

      • I think the SWPL women are already on the pill or use other contraceptives, lowering their group representation in the abortion statistics.

        L

        February 7, 2014 at EDT am

    • Well the non-profit Project Prevention does the first thing on your list, on a small scale, and I thought we already pretty much had abortion on demand. But, yeah, 3 and 4 will never happen.

      One GOOD thing about the Castro regime is that women are forced to abort if their fetuses show up as having any defects such as Downs or dwarfism.

      CamelCaseRob

      February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

  8. If there was any sense to the world, the coming wave of robot laborers would put more economics professors out of work than yoga instructors.

    Eugenics policies won’t work. Humans aren’t cattle. As one skeptical biologist said early in the twentieth century, when eugenics was first being pushed into the world of U.S. politics, “Who gets to play the farmer?”

    In democratic politics, there is no definitive answer to that question. Lion wants to select for intelligence, but others will surely have very different ideas about what traits to select. So who gets to play the farmer?

    Lion makes the very common mistake of believing that because some idea is sound in theory, it must be sound in practice. as Mencken said, “An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.”

    Pincher Martin

    February 6, 2014 at EDT am

    • Selection for intelligence will result in a host of other benefits all on its own (selecting for health, attractiveness, etc.)

      JayMan

      February 6, 2014 at EDT am

      • Jayman,

        I’m not denying the importance of intelligence. I’m simply pointing out that the implementation of any sound eugenics program featuring intelligence is highly unlikely in a democracy.

        I also think you exaggerate the correlations between intelligence and other desirable characteristics. Do either Ashkenazi Jews or East Asian men strike you as a healthy and attractive lot? And some people might say that if you want healthy and attractive people, then you should select for those traits rather than for intelligence.

        Pincher Martin

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • @Pincher Martin:

        The correlations between intelligence and desirable traits (e.g., health, attractiveness) is strongest within groups, not so much between groups, even though it does work there as well to an extent.

        Selecting for intelligence will, on the whole, select for those traits as well, though not perhaps as efficiently as it would if you were deliberately also selecting for those other traits.

        JayMan

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Mr. Pincher,

        Are you now agreeing with me that the Southern Euro countries such as Spain, is aesthetically more pleasing and artistically more creative, than a nation such as Israel or Japan, despite the latter 2 with higher IQ populations and potential for a technologically advanced society.

        JS

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • JayMan,

        “The correlations between intelligence and desirable traits (e.g., health, attractiveness) is strongest within groups, not so much between groups, even though it does work there as well to an extent.”

        But you have to pass your proposed eugenics legislation in a multiethnic society which has many groups whose average traits of the sort you want to select fall well short of the ideal. That’s not likely to escape the attention of those groups.

        A Brazilian or Puerto Rican with slightly lower than average intelligence might point out to you that they are both objectively prettier and healthier than the Ashkenazim and East Asians who are favored by your policy of selecting for intelligence.

        Pincher Martin

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • JS,

        “Are you now agreeing with me that the Southern Euro countries such as Spain, is aesthetically more pleasing and artistically more creative, than a nation such as Israel or Japan, despite the latter 2 with higher IQ populations and potential for a technologically advanced society.”

        Nope. Spain has prettier women than, say, Japan or Israel. But that doesn’t make it a more creative or more intelligent country.

        Brazilians, Argentines, Venezuelans, etc., also have strikingly beautiful people who will never impress on an IQ test.

        Pincher Martin

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “In democratic politics, there is no definitive answer to that question. Lion wants to select for intelligence, but others will surely have very different ideas about what traits to select. So who gets to play the farmer?”

        I think it is fairer to say he wants to select for positive social traits: traits that produce progress, creation and happiness in a society instead of regression, destruction and unhappiness.

        Intelligence is one of the three factors to achieve that, along with health and physical attractiveness. I agree with you, though, that insisting on intelligence is very bad PR and should be avoided in a public sales pitch for eugenics.

        Thomas

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Thomas,

        “I think it is fairer to say he wants to select for positive social traits: traits that produce progress, creation and happiness in a society instead of regression, destruction and unhappiness.”

        But when you describe what you want to select so vaguely (“positive social traits”), you put the power of deciding exactly what traits are important in the hands of those in control.

        That was the part of the problem with eugenics a hundred years ago. Procedures to determine who got surgery and who did not were left in the hands of people with questionable motives. Effective oversight was rare. Some poor kid who’s institutionalized for juvenile delinquency gets caught jerking off too much and goes under the knife. The doctor describes the minor surgery as a success, which we now know means the doctor was a liar unless he castrated the poor boy.

        At least IQ is not vague. There are ways to test it and retest it.

        Pincher Martin

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Spain has prettier women than, say, Japan or Israel. But that doesn’t make it a more creative or more intelligent country.

        Did you mentioned that intelligence should not be the main determinant factor in an eugenics program, where health and physical attractiveness are more important?

        Ashkenazi and East Asians on average are smarter than others, but are generally less physically attractive, compared to let’s say European gentiles.

        A general population with more beautiful people would foster more creativity and “sex sells” agendas I think, basing on the fact that the most beautiful models, celebrities, actors and actresses are of White gentile descent, being popular across the globe in the media.

        Further, physically attractive men and women are more confident and happier, with less chips on their shoulder than less attractive individuals.

        JS

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • The Hedy Lamarr in her day was considered the most beautiful woman in Europe. And she was also Jewish. And also a physicist/inventor.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • JS,

        “Did you mentioned that intelligence should not be the main determinant factor in an eugenics program, where health and physical attractiveness are more important?”

        No, I simply pointed out that passing any sort of eugenics program that focused on intelligence in a multiethnic democracy was highly unlikely.

        “Ashkenazi and East Asians on average are smarter than others, but are generally less physically attractive, compared to let’s say European gentiles.”

        Agreed.

        “A general population with more beautiful people would foster more creativity and “sex sells” agendas I think, basing on the fact that the most beautiful models, celebrities, actors and actresses are of White gentile descent, being popular across the globe in the media.”

        What sex sells is such a small part of the economy that it’s meaningless, probably nothing more than a rounding error.

        Venezuela leads the world in Miss World and Miss Universe titles, but its economy produces nothing anyone needs except for petroleum. Puerto Rico is the per capita leader in beauty queens, but its economy is reliant on the U.S. in the same way Spain’s economy is dependent on the states of northern Europe.

        Beauty, industry, creativity may all be partially correlated, but they don’t have the strong correlation that, say, intelligence and success have – at least in international comparisons.

        Pincher Martin

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “The Hedy Lamarr in her day was considered the most beautiful woman in Europe. And she was also Jewish. And also a physicist/inventor.”

        There are many attractive Jews, but they tend to be attractive to the degree that they look more like European gentiles and less like Jews.

        Who could deny, for example, that Bar Refaeli or Rosie Huntington-Whiteley are beautiful women? But they look just like any other beautiful European woman. They don’t have a distinctive Jewish look.

        Compare those two women to, say, Barbara Streisand or Sarah Silverman or Julia Louis-Dreyfess and you’ll immediately see the difference.

        The same is true of Jewish men. Is Adrien Brody or Jake Gyllenhaal or Live Schreiber handsome? Maybe. But they ain’t no George Clooney. And most male Jewish actors look like Adam Sandler or Ben Stiller or Adam Samberg.

        There have been classically handsome Jewish men – Kirk Douglas, Michael Douglas, Paul Newman, Harrison Ford, etc. – but like beautiful Jewish women, they seem to look better the more they are able to pass, which is often a result of their recent mixed heritage.

        Pincher Martin

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Poles with a distinctive Polish look, Italians with a distinctive Italian look, etc, are also not as attractive as their more generic looking brethren.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “Poles with a distinctive Polish look, Italians with a distinctive Italian look, etc, are also not as attractive as their more generic looking brethren.”

        I’m not sure that’s true. Certainly, many women from Eastern Europe can still be beautiful while being identifiably Eastern European, and there are several famous examples of Italian women who are still beautiful even when you could correctly guess where they were from on first seeing them.

        But are there beautiful Jewish women who are still identifiably Jewish? Maybe so, but I think they’re rare. I think it’s much more likely that a beautiful Jewish woman just doesn’t look Jewish.

        Pincher Martin

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Seems to me that you’re prejudiced by the idea that Jewish women are supposed to look ugly, thus you discount all the beautiful Jewish women as not looking properly Jewish.

        I think that Scarlett Johansson is a very beautiful Jew, although I very much wish that she would stay out of politics.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “Seems to me that you’re prejudiced by the idea that Jewish women are supposed to look ugly, thus you discount all the beautiful Jewish women as not looking properly Jewish.”

        Nope, just trying to view it objectively. If you think I’m wrong, then show me a few examples of beautiful Jewish women who actually look Jewish.

        The first time I saw Monica Bellucci was in an American film. Before she ever opened her mouth, I thought that she looked Italian and that she was beautiful. I’ve never had a similar experience with what I later discovered to be a Jewish woman. That’s not to say that many beautiful women aren’t Jewish, but that they don’t tend to look Jewish.

        Remember this discussion began with JayMan’s comment that IQ and attractiveness are correlated. He’s since explained that he meant within a group, not between groups. But his comment sparked the idea that if Jews and East Asians are the smartest people on the planet, then why aren’t they also considered the most attractive? And I think it’s fair to say, objectively speaking, that they aren’t.

        Pincher Martin

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “I think that Scarlett Johansson is a very beautiful Jew, although I very much wish that she would stay out of politics.”

        She’s quite attractive, but she’s one of those girls who looks Jewish only after you’re told she’s Jewish. I don’t think that if you bumped into her on the street, and you didn’t know who she was, that you would immediately think, “Wow, that’s a beautiful Jewish girl.”

        Pincher Martin

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “She’s quite attractive, but she’s one of those girls who looks Jewish only after you’re told she’s Jewish.”

        Sarah Michelle Gellar and Alison Brie are two more examples. I only noticed Gellar’s NY accent after I learned she’s Jewish.

        dsgntd_plyr

        February 7, 2014 at EDT am

      • Are you now agreeing with me that the Southern Euro countries such as Spain, is aesthetically more pleasing and artistically more creative, than a nation such as Israel or Japan, despite the latter 2 with higher IQ populations and potential for a technologically advanced society.”

        Israel has wonderful literature , poetry and folk/popular music , especially from the early days of Zionism to about the 80’s (mostly the one that was created by Ashkenazim) . You probably know nothing about it because it was created in Hebrew – a language that is known and relevant only in Israel.

        So maybe Ashkenazim are not that strong on the visual arts as they are with science , but when it comes to verbal art and music (let’s not forget Mendelsohn – the greatest natural born/raw talent musician of all times , accept Mozart and Bach obscures

        e.d

        February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “Are you now agreeing with me that the Southern Euro countries such as Spain, is aesthetically more pleasing and artistically more creative, than a nation such as Israel or Japan, despite the latter 2 with higher IQ populations and potential for a technologically advanced society.”

        Israel has wonderful literature , poetry and folk/popular music , especially from the early days of Zionism to about the 80′s (mostly the one that was created by Ashkenazim) . You probably know nothing about it because it was created in Hebrew – a language that is known and relevant only in Israel.

        So maybe Ashkenazim are not that strong on the visual arts as they are with science , but when it comes to verbal art and music they are very much creative (let’s not forget Mendelsohn – the greatest natural born/raw talent musician of all times , accept Mozart and Bach obscures)

        e.d

        February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

    • You don’t need a farmer. You just let people self select. You offer people a choice, lifetime welfare (or temporary or one time) in exchange for sterilization. If they haven’t had any children they get more and the amount is reduced for each child they have. People who can’t find a way to support themselves will sterilize themselves and people who can be productive and want to have children will get to do that. This would be costly up front but save money in the long run as people who have kids that can’t take care of them are very expensive.

      XVO

      February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Well, good luck getting that program through the legislature of a country which is currently (and eagerly) running a dysgenic immigration system. Why don’t you see if you can stop that madness before you get more ambitious?

        Pincher Martin

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • I also think you’re approaching this the wrong way. Rather than using the government to spend countless billions of dollars to incentivize large groups of people not to have children, why don’t the more intelligent make like Mitt Romney and simply breed more?

        Birth rates are low just about everywhere in the developed world. Even in most of the developing world they are falling rapidly.

        So you’re looking at this backwards. The problem is not that too many dumb children being born in the U.S. The problem is too few smart people are having children to even replace themselves.

        If every above-average male in the U.S. took Mitt Romney as his role model when breeding, you wouldn’t need a eugenics program.

        Pincher Martin

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Rather than using the government to spend countless billions of dollars to incentivize large groups of people not to have children, …

        It’s even easier than that. Just stop paying countless billions of dollars to incentivize them having children. Good grief.

        The Anti-Gnostic

        February 7, 2014 at EDT am

  9. People (chiefly men) will always want to work in order to gain status/wealth to make themselves more appealing to hypergamous women. It sounds so nice and tidy that our society can begin enjoying the fruits of the enormous amount of capital invested over the last few hundred years, but no dude is going to hang out all day not working, because he’ll lose out in the zero-sum mating game.

    Blacks are mostly not working now as it is with Section 8, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. But most of the guys are still hustling on the streets (i.e., transacting in the black market) in order to stack enough Benjamins (accrue enough wealth) to make themselves more appealing to a shorty (desirable female). You could begin giving these guys $1,500/mo. in guaranteed basic income, and the next day they’ll still be slangin’ drugs to outdistance their sexual rival.

    Frankly, I could never sit around all day as I become quickly stir crazy. I’ve long ago realized that it’s a part of my DNA. However, I’ll channel that restlessness in non-spectator sports like biking, skiing, surfing, instead of becoming a work-aholic.

    The devil also finds work for idle hands. Accordingly, I don’t think any government will condone moving society away from work.

    Otherwise, you are correct that certain people don’t have the mental foundation to do the higher-level jobs that still exist in America and pay well. I constantly argue with my libertarian friends but also European friends who insist that the reason a large subset of the working population is falling behind is due to lack of education. If only more money were invested in education. This makes sense if the population can naturally handle higher levels of education, e.g., Germany or Sweden. My friends also don’t look at the statistics that the U.S. has seen no real improvement in PISA scores over the last 10 years despite No Child Left Behind. And we spend literally twice as much as European nations, but have similar scores to a poor Eastern Bloc country.

    The permanently unemployed offer zero human-capital value and thus become a heavier yoke on their society. Three ways to handle this: 1) Gnash your teeth but ultimately do nothing and let civilization decline; 2) Quickly eliminate the undesirables; or 3) introduce eugenic policies that slowly reduce the undesirables, either by introducing birth-control for welfare or modifying people’s genes. The second argument is too stomach-turning, the third one rubs most people the wrong way, therefore I’m going to go with #1.

    I’m hopeful that China will go with #3. That way modern civilization can still carry on. But don’t hold your breath for America doing anything but the bang-up job it’s done so far.

    DdR

    February 6, 2014 at EDT am

    • “Otherwise, you are correct that certain people don’t have the mental foundation to do the higher-level jobs that still exist in America and pay well.”

      This is like a dog chasing it’s tail in a circle. The reason high-IQ jobs pay well is because the qualified labor is scarce. If people ‘got smarter’ (be it by increased education (lol) or eugenic iq policies), these jobs would not ‘pay well.’

      anon

      February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Aren’t White Americans descended from the dregs of Europe?

      JS

      February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “Aren’t White Americans descended from the dregs of Europe?”

        I think the Puritan founding stock were not so much dregs as religious rebels. In any case, I think some of the best genetic stock history has ever known was from Britain in the colonial era. Look at how they ruled so many countries in the world with miniscule contingents. It is easy to understand the possibility of dysgenics when you see examples where the heights of civilization have receded generations into the past. Some (such as Bruce Charleton) have argued that Britain has already seen great dysgenia since those days. Consider how Australia, which was actually founded from Victorian discards, is one of the richest nations on Earth.

        I am here traveling in India presently, which sits on the ruins of a great civilization, the colonial architecture still unequaled.

        Dan

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “I think the Puritan founding stock” ———— the Puritans were a miniscule portion of the founding stock. Not even a particularly significant segment until post-Civil War when the victorious North needed to invent a new founding story to replace the real one; that Virginia, Virginians and the South were the center of the British North American world at least during the first century of British migration. History is about reforming stories to fit the sentimental preferences of those currently here and in power. That’s why you rarely see stories emphasizing that the British came here initially to set up pirate settlements from which they could plunder Spanish shipping (Jamestown) for the purpose of 1) getting rich; and 2) sticking it to the Catholics. There are too many Catholics here now to make that a compelling story. It is also the reason the Spanish-American war and Texas Independence will be downplayed in coming years (already are). What Mexican wants to hear about their people getting walloped by the Anglos?

        Curle

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Eh…some. However, social (war, discrimination) and resource upheavals (like famines) at home often drove hoards of high functioning immigrants here. Not everyone came here only because of the abundant low skill labor work that they could not find at home. Additionally, the resource bonanza here attracted a lot of high functioning entrepreneurs with no selective social pressure to leave home other than perceived greater opportunity here. You can also expect there to have been even larger holes in the European job market than we see in the west today, wherein high functioning, intelligent, proles would have had very little opportunity. Also, it needs to be noted that the dregs of Europe are infinitely more desirable than any significant number of people of any class from many select groups, statistically speaking. The overall contribution to the scientific world that the so called USA dregs of Europe have made is indicative of the fact that dregs were, by far, not the only white Americans to come here in significant numbers.

        The average intelligence for USA whites is around 100. When I hang out with these people, it feels like hanging out with your “dregs”. It’s difficult to associate as “white American” when we come from all over Europe and thusly have different behavior patterns and intelligence averages when grouped by ancestry. If you want to live in an area that doesn’t feel like it;s populated by European dregs, here’s a tip: find the Germanic/Scandanavian belt in the USA and move there. It exists, expands across 5-6 states, and can be plotted on a map either directly via migration data or indirectly via crime statistic data (it is indicated as the connected strip in the USA with the least crime per capita),

        Fred

        February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

    • The hypergamous culture of women is really an Anglosphere and East Asian phenomenon. Not that women in other regions aren’t interested in men with status; but in our world, men are responsible for betafying themselves, by turning their women into mere golddiggers.

      JS

      February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • No, hypergamy is universal–at least that’s what women would do if they were free to do it in those “other regions”. Do not underestimate this instinct.

        sestamibi

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Well, it’s much worse in the aforementioned regions.

        Just ask Roissy or Rooshy. It doesn’t matter!

        JS

        February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

  10. Zoinks…
    ‘Tis easy: Conservative-libertarian economist types
    LUV Robots because…
    Robots DON’T prognosticate and
    cause conservative-libertarian economist types
    To lose those kinds of JOBS

    Firepower

    February 6, 2014 at EDT am

  11. Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut. The process will of course continue until it can’t and as others have commented above no one in the West has the stomach for Eugenics, especially given the lake Wobegon understanding that everyone’s children are, of course, above average.

    In my mind the most likely result is large scale war. That has long been an effective method for culling the herd. State sanctioned warfare among the western powers might be going robotic but in the streets it’s another story. I’m thinking war more like that between the tutsies and the hutus. It’s gonna be ugly for anyone who can’t afford a compound with a moat. The movie Children of Men did a good job showing us what we can look forward to. Full speed ahead.

    Sisyphean

    February 6, 2014 at EDT am

  12. Eugenics would get a huge boost–probably enough to solve the problem–if we just stopped PAYING for dysgenic reproduction. Welfare is a modern experiment that needs to be ended before it kills us. The net consumers can all move to Canada and the Northern US states and given plane tickets to Sweden and the UK.

    The Anti-Gnostic

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

  13. In 1915 there were 21 million horses in the US today there are less than 7. That is what happens to low productivity workers.

    This may not have happened before to people but it has happened before.

    Matt H

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

  14. It would be the best for totalitarian countries like North Korea to try this first. It is already exporting its unwanted to China and South Korea, and it does have elite programs for those with talent and correct breeding.

    Colmainen

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

  15. The easiest form of eugenics for America is immigration control. Zero immigration from anything other than a handful of nations, and of course only white people from those nations. Along with this, mass repatriation of illegals and recently legals. Such a thing is actually very easy to achieve. For illegals, simply cut them off from everything (welfare, schools, hospitals, EVERYTHING), including the ability to transfer money home. Start arresting them, and upon arrest confiscate everything they have, right down to their last pair of shoes, and toss them in prison camps. See, you only have to do this to a few hundred people as an example and then the rest will get the message and decamp back to Mexico and points south. It’s very, very easy to make them leave. For recently legals, simply revoke their status. “Sorry! You’re illegal now. Tough.”

    It’s equally easy to stop them coming. Any illegal entrant will be treated as a hostile combatant and executed. Again, you’d only have to shoot one or two to make the point.

    There you go, immigration problem solved in about a week.

    Now, to solve the next problem: getting me elected as dictator…

    peterike

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Most Euros aren’t too fond of America. The lack thereof/dumb downed culture and our incessant rat race, are 2 things Euros avoid like the plague.

      JS

      February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Ha…suckers.

        Fred

        February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

  16. Mainstream voters and the illegals who would be most affected are much likelier to ban all technological progress than to allow rich guys to pay poor guys to get snipped.

    They would prefer the endless depression they know over a world of leisure they can not imagine.

    THE OUTSIDER

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

  17. Is it true that one of the Sailer sons attended Brandeis?

    Anonymous

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

  18. The robot revolution requires that Peak Oil never happen in order for the Lion’s prediction to come true.

    Anyways, the people whose jobs get displaced will need to do thier daytime doing something, anything. I wonder what Lion proposes: expensive make work jobs?

    Welfare plus idle time equals crime and terrorism, at least in Europe it does.

    Rotten

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

    • He’s already proposed that they get paid to play WOW.

      CamelCaseRob

      February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

      • But then I realized that playing WOW requires at least an average IQ, so many aren’t smart enough to play WoW.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

  19. BTW Lion, what is your opinion on recent evolutions in human DNA screening and engineering?

    CRISPR: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523986/monkeys-modified-with-genome-editing/

    CRISPR is paradigm-changing. We are finally seeing strong and stable results from gene therapy.

    PGD: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/health/ethics-questions-arise-as-genetic-testing-of-embryos-increases.html

    I find the comments in the NY Times article very heart-warming. The top-voted comments are pro-PGD.

    Thomas

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

  20. LotB: The coming robot revolution will make the labor of people below a certain IQ totally worthless.

    Yep. For example, in FL, over the past 25+ years, grown (unemployable) men perform all the lawn-mowing service. This work used to be done be neighborhood kids. Increasingly technical jobs pushed the lower-IQ males out of jobs and many resorted to taking over kids’ lawn mowing work.

    On Craigs List in FL, there are guys begging for lawn mowing jobs. I recently had half a dozen guys eagerly agreeing to mow my 1/3 acre corner lot, edge, weed-whack, & blow off the clippings, all for $25 a pop on an on-call basis (i.e. no term contract). I was mowing lawns for not much less than that forty years ago!

    To tell you the truth, these guys do not seem to be low-IQ, but more likely are unemployable due to felony convictions, substance abuse problems, and poor fit in a structured work place.

    E. Rekshun

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

    • The idle male has been a thorn in the side of governments for time immemorial.

      Fred

      February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

  21. Could we stop talking about eugenics, and just how shitty the lives of everyone below a certain IQ threshold and lack of connections and human capital would become due to technological and geopolitical trends?

    Latias

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Proles tend to lack meaningful connections for status climbing. Most poignant social functions are SWPLish.

      Liberal hypocrites such as de Blasio, will tell you that the NYC’s SWPL population is cliquish and exclusive, pigeonholing the general White population as being “racist”, when in fact SWPLs also don’t invite proles into their social functions.

      JS

      February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Ivy League under LoftB terms is only Harvard – Yale – Princeton, which is true for the most part.

      No one in real life gives a sh*t, if you went to Columbia or Dartmouth, or worse Cornell.

      For all you folks out there chiming about McKinsey Consulting, I’ve met a bunch of people who work for Accenture, which of course is a downgrade from McKinsey. I had to rub it in their faces by telling them that their consulting firm is less prestigious. Surprisingly, one lady told me that Accenture no longer hires business grads from prole schools because of the poor job market. They are now only recruiting Ivy League grads. That was nice to know!

      JS

      February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

  22. Here in India, where there is an endless supply of labor, every middle class person has a maid/cook, often in the form of two different people. Nannies are the norm. Many have drivers (and automated cars are unimaginable here where no laws are obeyed, neither lane markers nor even traffic directions, and pedestrians, bicycles, auto rickshaws and motorcycles dart in random directions while subtle gestures indicate winners and losers in the game of chicken that occurs every minute. Beautiful harmony actually – the only ‘accident’ I saw was a zero speed scrapping of two cheap vehicles against each other after neither would yield! Google, please try Chennai, you wimps!) If you go to a decent park, guards are everywhere and people sweep the paths of freshly fallen leaves. In a store, multiple sales people surround you and make their pitches as you browse. A profusion of handcrafts is available at low cost.

    India is officially socialist, with actual Communist parties being happily welcomed into the political conversation. But the public coffers are perpetually empty, and so the discussion is entirely moot.

    Dan

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

  23. Tim Wise is coming to give a speech to my law school alumni association. He’s going to tell us that you are wrong and that people like you (and me) have ‘pathological racism.” Further, the reason for economic downturns is not denialism but racism. If there weren’t so much racism NAMs would be performing at levels equal to Asians and whites. So, if you just quit blogging about HBD blacks will start performing better on the SAT and IQ tests, South Africa will quit descending into squalor and Detroit will become a shining beacon to the world. He might also explain how you can tell if someone is a witch by whether she floats.. But, that’s another matter.

    Curle

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

    • In his next lecture, Uncle Tim will explain to his enraptured audience how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

      Oswald Spengler

      February 7, 2014 at EDT am

    • There is a chronic oversupply of single black women. I wonder when he is going to exercise what would be am easy nod toward exemplified anti-racism ideals, and marry one. You know, because we’re all the same. Houses in black neighborhoods are cheaper as well.

      Fred

      February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

  24. The coming robot revolution will make the labor of people below a certain IQ totally worthless. …

    If this ever comes to pass I expect the “certain IQ” will rise rapidly until no one is bright enough to compete.

    James B. Shearer

    February 6, 2014 at EDT pm

    • What I think is one of the most interesting questions is how long would (will?) it take for every human’s labor to become obsolete. Some say it could take only seconds, with a robotic mind which could work fast enough to essentially learn everything there is to know almost instantaneously, while others hypothesize that it could be more like generations among humanity, with things turning over more slowly until finally the machine outstrips even the best of us.

      I saw the post-labor age described as “Athens without the slaves”. I sure hope so, even though I don’t subscribe to the romantic view that Socrates and Plato represent the ‘average’ Athenian, although the average Athenian did enjoy the tragedies and comedies. It was a much more ‘prole’ place, though. Even if this age comes to pass, though, I highly, highly doubt it will exist for as many people as there are now. Someone, somewhere is going to pay the poor, with the additional productivity enabled by quasi-total automation, to not have children.

      A lot of water will probably flow under the bridge before anything like that came to be, but it seems within the realm of the possible, if the stories I read are grounded in possible realities.

      BS Inc.

      February 7, 2014 at EDT am

    • The traditional way to bring up kids, for proles, is just to have them and let the market sort them out. That is, you don’t teach them a trade, skill, or knowledge base. You simply expect that there will be a job for them somewhere, doing something. I shake my head at my parents strategy – but then again, they had no way to know what was to come. When they were young adults, government jobs were much easier to get for whites.

      Today, that non-plan is wholly irresponsible to society as well as your progeny. The families who will survive will be those who help one another to thrive in spite of the expected elimination of most of low skilled jobs.

      Knowledge in business, banking, trading, high level software development, and other things that specifically mix significant creativity with a relatively high level of technical knowledge will assure who will be able to feed themselves and have kids.

      It’s actually quite eugenic.

      I was thinking about this today.

      I now might be okay with affirmative action as well as minority focused welfare (qualified as a percentage of the total group on welfare). I used to feel a bit of political outrage at how these programs discriminate against whites both directly (in terms of resource allocation) and indirectly (from the perspective of overall resource competition with minorities that leads to protracted outcomes in things like birthrate).

      However, these policies are actually very dysgenic in their effect in that they promote breeding of lower IQ individuals in minority groups via resource allocation to lower IQ individuals who would not otherwise be able to gain the resources needed to raise children. This forever keeps their groups from attaining a higher average IQ by preventing lower IQ individuals from being eliminated through lack of available resources for breeding and raising kids. Hmmm….

      Meanwhile, the affirmative action that discrimination against whites, as well as the denial of resource advantages gained through organized political groups, ultimately works to deter breeding in less intelligent whites who cannot survive by nature of their own intelligence. It also works to create selective pressure toward more efficient and effective social systems as whites become aware of how they are disadvantaged and pilloried because of their skin color. Removing all social props should further improve group intelligence and effectiveness.

      I’m still fleshing this out and, of course, a fine temporal line would exist between when whites, with this added pressure applied, would need to be supported via the MSM and government and when that line would be crossed and whites would be eliminated no matter how smart or socially effective they had become. To support this hypothesis would be a large risk in the case that refining the white gene-pool is really not what is occurring at all.

      I’ll end with this frame: it seems that they may be attempting to make Jews out of us all (I say that in a positive tone, LOTB). I just hope that I’m correct, and that this pressure does have an end date attached.

      Fred

      February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

      • This suggests that a smart strategy for a reasonably, but not exceptionally, smart white would be to procreate with a reasonably smart Hispanic. The part Hispanic will have many advantages that the white child will not have. There are plenty of mostly white Hispanics living in Mexico and Southern Brazil who, for multicultural cred, get treated as Hispanics just for having an Hispanic last name. You could really push this envelope by marrying a real Spaniard or Portugee from the home country. Who would mind procreating with a woman like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T1EZXvHb8E

        Curle

        February 8, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “This suggests that a smart strategy for a reasonably, but not exceptionally, smart white would be to procreate with a reasonably smart Hispanic”.

        First of all, that strategy is completely antithetical to what I said. My theory was based on a long process of natural selection based on genetic dominance. What you suggest is short-circuiting that process by breeding with a group because of the political favor that the currently enjoys. This would be dysgenic, as that group is not competing on the basis of natural selection – even if one could isolate and seduce your smart Hispanic woman. Group effectiveness is based upon much more than raw intelligence, and the presence of affirmative action at all, for any group, severely distorts one’s correct perception of their supposed success. No woman could be reliably chosen in such a group. White women (Northwest European for my example) also benefit from affirmative action, but I’m white and so it doesn’t matter. I prefer and am assured of the general range of what I am getting (especially if I can narrow her ethnicity down to a specific country) and so I’m not risking anything if I stay within the group. At that point, I can select purely on my estimation of intelligence, beauty, and emotional stability.

        It’s not a smart strategy if you believe in a genetic basis for group behavioral patterns or IQ, as no matter how smart seeming the Hispanic is the genetic blueprint for differing behavioral patterns and IQ tendencies will now be within the DNA of your progeny.

        I know enough Hispanics to know that I want nothing to do with, in terms of a relationship or intermingling genetics, the emotional patterns to which they seem overwhelmingly susceptible. This is inclusive of a relatively large social group of Hispanics that I know that were intelligent enough to come out of an “almost Ivy” University. Also, the biggest problems at work are with Hispanic women. I see their inability to control their emotional impulses and anger on a regular basis. My subjective experience with Hispanics is night and day in comparison to that with my North European family and friends.

        It’s not a smart strategy if you value the general social patterns that give rise to culture, as culture arises out of both specific behavioral tendencies and IQ as realized over large groups. In my observation, North Europeans produce a gentler, more logical, more polite, and emotionally healthier culture. This reflects in their overall better group success.

        It’s not a smart strategy if you identify with and believe in a political destiny for people of North European heritage, as your Hispanic progeny will not be included within that group. As a matter of fact, what political group will they now belong to? In the USA, it would overwhelmingly be with the Mestizo-Hispanic group. I am not Mestizo, culturally nor genetically. Why would I want my children to be a part of this group, and why would they if I do not breed with a mestizo? Bringing kids into a world in which they have no discernible effective political group is wholly irresponsible to their social, mental, and political health.

        It’s not smart if you value the general ethnic phenotype of your lineage. Many people see beauty in diversity, and not interbreeding is the only way to maintain that human biodiversity.

        Your strategy is “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”.

        Short term political advantage is a myopic reason to enter into an inter-racial relationship that will bear children. The kids would be both ethnic and political orphans. No thanks. Good luck with it, though, if that’s your strategy. I don’t see a political or cultural future for people like you and your children, though.

        Fred

        February 17, 2014 at EDT pm

      • North Europeans produce a gentler, more logical, more polite, and emotionally healthier culture. This reflects in their overall better group success.

        I would agree that Northern Europeans are more emotionally stable than Southern Euros and Jews, hence their success and affability in America. Northeast – Mid Atlantic White ethnics such as Italians and Jews are still regarded as uncouth, non-assimilable and exceedingly provincial.

        East Asians in America are not successful, despite their economic gains and educational attainment, because of the reasons you outlined, as East Asians are less pro-social than Whites.

        JS

        February 18, 2014 at EDT am

  25. In the way-old days the smart cave family had a less-smart cave family that helped them out.

    Then the in the old days somebody thought a whip was an incentive and that 40% of the population, the low-IQ’s, were the farm serfs and household slaves.

    Then the Libertarians changed things, got them free and into self-sustaining farms and if they wanted to be in the city they discovered new machine support and home service jobs. We saw a family of lower IQ’s attached to one of higher IQ as their sponsors through life, but many had simplified well-paying jobs for a while and thought it would last forever.

    Those jobs are drying up with the growth of what is in effect a basic income for that 40% coupled with bureaucracy that makes employing them difficult, and more powerful machines, Yet increasingly many continue to get around all that and help out with small tasks the homes and firms of those of higher IQ.

    Today we have 1 college educated manager, 1 technologist, and 1 low-IQ worker who was a house-slave in the old days. I know a lot of the first who’ve gotten smart, bought a small self-sustaining farm again their family sold in the 1920’s to head to the Big City and now serves as a retreat for economic problems or long vacations as they plot their next move. Then they put a less bright family on adjoining land to keep an eye on things. In the city you’re starting to see sponsored families where the mom is once again the maid and the man the handyman for a top 30% IQ/college BA or better family. Except they’re now companions and helpers.

    And the top 30% want to arrange a machine society so they don’t have to worry about jobs and get the automatic income surplus, so they can dream and create more than ever. I think the issue is becoming not abolished jobs but jobs as we understand them will vanish. But that lower 40% will do as it always have.

    rob

    February 7, 2014 at EDT am

    • And the top 30% want to arrange a machine society so they don’t have to worry about jobs and get the automatic income surplus, so they can dream and create more than ever.

      They want a machine society so the only people they ever interact with are other 30-percenters.

      High-g whites and Asians are withdrawing into enclaves. They’ve already replaced uppity, restive blacks with Hispanics, and once people realize that sweet, hardworking Consuela is tipping off her extended family on her employers’ routines, then she will be shooed out the door as well.

      The Anti-Gnostic

      February 7, 2014 at EDT am

      • Already that is happening in Hong Kong where Filipina maids (similar to Hispanics) are never given any rights to live even after 20+ years. It is theoretically not illegal for the masters to beat a Filipina maid to death, although calling a neighborhood triad member to do that will be cheaper and less hassle.

        Colmainen

        February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

  26. One thing I’m trying to wrap my head around: Is the Flynn effect real?

    In the last 100+ years we’ve seen the extermination of millions of the less bright and vicious, people marry upwards in IQ, plus better nutrition and so on.

    I’ve often wondered if something similar happened peaked in the 1300’s as the plagues got rid of the superstitious (mostly) 30%-40% in Europe. It began to move ahead. We had smarter dumb people?

    rob

    February 7, 2014 at EDT am

    • The Flynn effect is a poorly-examined hypothesis. Just reading the Wikipedia entry is enough to demonstrate this.

      And this statement, “In the last 100+ years we’ve seen the extermination of millions of the less bright and vicious…”

      It’s so wrong, it’s not even wrong. Where did this happen?

      The Anti-Gnostic

      February 7, 2014 at EDT am

  27. Not if innovation rate is declining massively: http://www.gwern.net/docs/algernon/2012-woodley.pdf

    elijahlarmstrong

    February 7, 2014 at EDT am

  28. you are wrong. we libertarians know that when the robot revolution comes. and the upper class no longer need to pay us for farm or do security for them. they will simply start to exterminate us. those that will be liquefied will be the under class those who are low IQ. the robot revolution will be great it will be the death of races who are only good for manual labor

    eric Cartman

    February 7, 2014 at EDT am

    • Poor whites self de-select more than any other group when not enough resources are available to have kids. Especially poor liberal whites. No strategy will really be needed for whites who cannot make it. They simply won’t procreate much.

      Fred

      February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

  29. What’s somewhat amusing is that once robots take over ALL jobs, even including those done by the brightest and most capable, then those people will drop to bottom of the human value scale. Only people naturally good at playing well and entertaining others will be valued. Druggies, bad artists and musicians and the sort of people who make jokes and talk through movies will become the crème-de-la-crème.

    CamelCaseRob

    February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

  30. The future will be a permanent war economy based on looting, kidnapping, conquest, and mass killing. Firms like Blackwater will be the biggest employers in the world rivaling the Fortune 500’s today in market power and prestige. Robots will never be fully capable of fighting autonomously because overriding their system can shut them down or make their targeting systems go haywire to attack friendlies. So even without disastrous demographic changes the security/military type sector will be very lucrative.

    eradican

    February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Can we expect some proles to kidnap and hack the killer robos to be used against the SWPLs?

      JS

      February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Proles don’t have the IQ to hack. And those would, at least, be on a non-prole career track.

        Latias

        February 7, 2014 at EDT pm

      • But techie is a prole industry.

        JS

        February 8, 2014 at EDT am

      • JS keeps acting like prole means anything uncool or unfashionable. Not true.

        ATC

        February 8, 2014 at EDT pm

      • I know ITTech, Devry, and some CompScience classes at non-elite universities are prole, but it is unlikely that those studies would have the aptitude and technical acumen to hack robots.

        Latias

        February 8, 2014 at EDT pm

      • I never said it was not cool being a prole. Prestige and status in America are only associated with SWPLs. This is the rule and is not mine.

        The word SWPL has been used too generously and is not specific enough. If you graduated from a state school (with the exception of UC schools I guess) and work in a business sector, such as high finance or consulting, or law, you are still a prole. Of course, the meaning is different for someone who works in a blue collar sector or IT.

        You need an Ivy League or a tier one school degree to qualify for SWPL status. Graduates of fancier or prestigious schools are generally smarter and more polished.

        For example, Wall St folks are generally D-bags, but Ivy League financiers know when to be polite when required. State school – Wall St guys are frat asses where ever they go. At least this coming from my encounters.

        JS

        February 8, 2014 at EDT pm

      • I think there is more to the term “prole” than “did not attend a good college” (prestige threshold starting at UMich).

        One can not be a prole and not be a SWPL.

        Latias

        February 8, 2014 at EDT pm

      • I know ITTech, Devry, and some CompScience classes at non-elite universities are prole, but it is unlikely that those studies would have the aptitude and technical acumen to hack robots.

        If firms such as Blackwater, (by the way its founder, Erik Prince is a prole) maybe using robotic sidekicks as killing machines, we would expect the technology to be easy to work with, since SWPL types do not go into these fields, so someone with a IQ below 120 will be controlling the robots. All it takes is some disgruntled personnel to abuse their privileges and use them for a personal vendetta.

        JS

        February 9, 2014 at EDT am

      • Anyone who went to a state school is usually a prole. State school grads are very vocational oriented. State school grads are also less polished, because they usually shun the liberal arts, because the first thing in their mind is majoring in a subject that pays off, instead of fostering intellectualism.

        JS

        February 9, 2014 at EDT am

      • One can not be a prole and not be a SWPL.

        LoftB’s main commentators?

        JS

        February 9, 2014 at EDT am

    • Because no one in the future will ever think to make a robot with a read only operating system.

      gwood

      February 9, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Irrelevant. Even without hacking a highly robotic workforce/military is dangerously vulnerable to EMP attacks. The same robotic future will also produce EMP grenades, pulse rifles, and anti-electronic mass casualty weapons basically creating a check against battlefield automation.

        eradican

        February 9, 2014 at EDT pm

  31. Lion, here’s another voice discussing one of your more important forecasts.

    When only 1% are Employed
    Home Free America blog
    John Robb, 2/4/2014

    … Technological change is rapidly killing entire industries and job categories without replacing them. Across the board, incremental productivity improvements are making it possible for employers to get by without hiring new people (even the head of the biggest employer in the World has plans to replace most of his workers with robots). However, that won’t be where we see the greatest losses. Those losses will occur in the industries that are completely gutted from the arrival of products and services that make them obsolete.

    As this trend strengthens, we may see results similar to what we saw with the agrarian economy. If that occurs, the extreme endpoint of this decline may be a world where most of the commercial activity in goods and services we see today — from education to health care to manufacturing to transportation to retail to legal services — is accomplished by less than 1% of the people it used to require.

    That means only 1 of the hundred jobs being done currently will be left. More strikingly, it’s very likely this won’t take the 200 years it took agriculture to go from 95% of the population to less than 1%. It’s going to be much, much faster this time due to the speed at which improvements can be distributed (software/data). Given this catalyst, we may find ourselves more than half of the way there within twenty years.

    [continues… http://www.homefreeamerica.us/1-employed/ ]

    amac78

    February 8, 2014 at EDT am

    • He’s just saying the same thing other people are saying in a more extreme way, with no empirical evidence or observations to back it up. Where did he pull that 1% figure out of? Everyone freak out, we MIGHT BE headed towards a future where only 1% of people have jobs!! Yeah, well a lot of things MIGHT happen douche. The future is notoriously hard to predict. What we can do is notice trends in the present that are likely to continue. But how the specifics will play out is anyone’s guess.

      shiva1008

      February 8, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Shiva1008 —
        > Where did he pull that 1% figure out of?

        1%, 5%, 25% — the figure isn’t the key point (and I agree Robb pulled it out of his hat). These numbers are much lower than the current labor-force participation rate, which is itself lower than the historical norm for the US for, say, the 1950-2000 half-century. Unfortunately.

        amac78

        February 9, 2014 at EDT am

  32. […] Robots and HBD denialism – “The coming robot revolution will make the labor of people below a certain IQ totally worthless. This is an event never before experienced by humanity.” – from the lion of the blogosphere. […]

  33. Horses used to do alot of work, but then cars were invented. Now horses just exist for leisure and play sports. No matter how much we breed horses (and we’ve done a great job), they cannot compete with technology for jobs. It’s a joke to think we could make better horses to compete for those jobs.

    Humans will follow this model. Robots will replace us. The idea that adding a sigma of intelligence will allow humans to compete with robots is folly. Once we teach a robot to any task, it’s a short time before robots far dwarf what our best humans can do. One practical advice is to not have children. The generation being born today will likely need an IQ of at least 140 to do anything productive as they approach their 30’s.

    There’s a reason smart people aren’t having kids. We’re becoming obsolete. More and more smart people I’ve talked to, seem to agree that in the near future that robots will begin to replace mental labor too, including creative tasks.

    Taylor

    February 26, 2014 at EDT pm

    • I don’t think impeding human obsolescence has anything to do with emasculation. And ultimately, dwindling birth rates are owing to “wimpitude” of men. The poster boys of that “smart” demographic are universally girlie wimps. The only groups breeding worth a damn are the cultures where the Alpha complex still thrives. Robots will be Alpha because their creators aren’t.

      Socially Extinct

      February 27, 2014 at EDT am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: