/lit/ - Literature

>>23403412
>Eventually this process likely starts to reverse, as the society becomes so advanced that the pressures are nullified or even reversed
It's not society per se, but it's due to industrialization. The child morality rate has greatly improved, but it comes at a price: dysgenics. Now, there's some evidence that suggests intelligence is positively associated with general health, so put them both together. Yeah. But, of course, we shouldn't reverse this. I'm in favour of germline genetic engineering if it's possible soon, and if not, then we may have to try and artificially increase the birth rate of the intelligent caste, but only without killing; it's antithetical to the point as to why one wants to do this. Regarding germline genetic engineering, there are so, so many unknown unknowns that it's best to make as few changes as possible. The point being that we could have this society, but we'd have to change some things so the intelligent caste outbreeds the unintelligent caste. Castration, etc., etc., is off limits because it's too cruel. One idea is to pay rich and, therefore, intelligent people to reproduce, but they'd be less susceptible to that due to their aforementioned wealth. Not in our lifetime, but Western civilisation is certainly going to fall without radical and total change. Sad. This is the most common reason why civilisations fail, if only we could break the cycle and ascend. I understand arguments against eugenics beyond purely ones relating to praxis, but to remove oneself from the process is to remove the basis of existence.