Humanity needs feminist eugenics as consistent with liberal-democratic values. (book – 30 chapters)
1. Ethical Genetics
2. Genetic Donations
3. Artificial Uteri
4. Psychometric Polygyny
5. Eugenic Harems
6. Youth Communities
7. Generational Improvement
8. Sexually Transmitted Diseases
9. Genetic Traits
10. Identical Siblings
11. Sperm Aid
16. Deviating Humanity
17. Feminism and Technology
18. Embryo Selection
19. Genetic Modification
20. Learning from History
23. Sexual Contract
24. Temporary Marriage
25. Sexual Utopia
26. Hospitality Marriage
27. Educational/Recreational Procreation
28. Taxonomic Supremacism
29. Civic Policy
30. Civil Society
1. Ethical Genetics
During the first half of the 20th century, the eugenics movement was a politically diverse one in incorporating both political left and political right on the liberal-democratic political spectrum. However, after the immense calamities caused by the Nazi German totalitarian regime in Europe with its mostly dysgenic (genetically regressive) policies as largely focused on murdering the relatively more intelligent, the eugenics movement increasingly disappeared during the Cold War period and essentially so for lack of ethical policy options to promote.
The Cold War period also gave rise to the still reigning hegemony of the ancient Greek myth of tabula rasa according to which all healthy Human children are born with equal cognitive potential and equal inherent cognitive capacity. Incidentally this was the view of both Karl Marx and John Locke (or at least so with regard to indigenous European children) and this peculiar unity in mythology without any scientific foundation has substantially influenced Western political culture since the Cold War period. As John Locke and Karl Marx were widely, yet wrongly in effect considered founders of Liberalism and Socialism respectively, this shared myth of tabula rasa turned into the Western ideological norm.
Obviously, the Nazi regime practiced anything but eugenics (Greek for good birth) or euthanasia (Greek for good demise) despite falsely claiming to do so. Similarly for propaganda reasons the Nazis sometimes claimed to care for non-Human Animals while in practice doing the very opposite such as performing cruel scientific experimentation in parallel on Human persons and non-Human Animal persons at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Hitler himself was an avid carnivore although Nazi propaganda sometimes likewise attempted to portray Hitler as supposedly vegetarian.
Nowadays there is an official European Convention that prohibits eugenics although of course the unethically eugenic mass murder of viable, conscious embryos/fetuses with Down syndrome for some reason continues unabated even in most of contemporary liberal-democratic Europe. Contemporary hegemonic European morality is distinctly Nazicentric, whereby it is consistently presumed that Humanism is the very arch-opposite of Nazism.
However, the ideology, morality, logistics and economy of the Shoah (i.e. the Holocaust) was adopted and adapted from the already existing Humanist supremacist Industry of Evil (a.k.a. the Animal Industry) and Humanism is clearly racist as it is premised on the perceived “supremacy” of one presumed subspecies (i.e. a “race”), namely the official Humanist zoological taxon known as the Homo sapiens sapiens whose members are officially expected to identify the supremacist taxon as superior to all non-Human taxa and treat non-Human persons as “sub-persons” in ways virtually indistinguishable from the ways the Nazis ideologically looked down upon and systemically mistreated Human persons whom they correctly or not regarded as belonging to different taxa than themselves. Hence, Humanism is racism no less than Nazism. This is because the Shoah was and the remaining Gulag still is in remaining Communist dictatorships mere intra-human technological, logistical, ideological, historical and economical extensions of the Human racial supremacist Industry of Evil itself.
The prevailing, even hegemonic view among both contemporary opponents and contemporary supporters of classical eugenics tends to be that global regional racial segregation between countries and negative selection against law-abiding citizens as based on intra-human taxa and medical diagnoses are prerequisites for any effective eugenics policies. In contrast to that misperception, this public policy report sets out to show that in fact the opposite is true. On the contrary, successful ethical eugenics requires compliance with the liberal-democratic value system of worldwide open society minus the Human supremacism component. Successful ethical eugenics must therefore firmly oppose racism (against Human persons as well as against non-Human persons) and most constructively indeed embrace the widespread global Human genetic reality of romantic miscegenation.
Increasing genetic knowledge means however that the current official policy of laissez-faire with regard to Human genetics will become increasingly untenable because increasing genetic knowledge creates increasing real life genetic choices. Hence, genetics will therefore increasingly need to be regulated by law no less than other aspects of Human mass societies. The question of course is how to do that so as preempt reoccurrence of the very mass crimes committed by proponents of the evil ideological twins known as Nazism and Humanism. Not only must the new ethical eugenics be consistent with the liberal-democratic value system of worldwide open society minus Human supremacism – but it must also not be coercive or authoritarian towards categories of law-abiding citizens and residents. Thus in order to gain widespread political support it needs to be beneficial to all (whether directly or indirectly) and it must of course not be supremacist or racist against anyone whomsoever. As almost every person is less intelligent than some other person, taxonomic supremacism (whether Nazi, Humanist or otherwise) is perhaps not so intelligent after all to put things mildly!
Yet, there are tremendous average/genotypic differences comprising the full spectrum of psychometric average cognitive genotypic profiles as between Human taxa and as is particularly well-known even greater psychometric diversity inside particular Human taxa. Inter-Human speciation has long since already taken place and hence (contrary to received opinion among both racists and anti-racists) the contemporary existence of multiple contemporary Human species and multiple contemporary Human subspecies.
Widespread Human miscegenation since at least the beginning of the Neolithic revolution means that Humanity is changing from speciation to increasing genetic integration or more specifically despeciation as the worldwide genetic effects of miscegenation accumulate with each and every generational instance of miscegenation. This is something that a new ethical, international, non-nationalist eugenics must obviously accept as a fact of life and indeed take into ethically appropriate and constructive consideration. However, in charting the course for an ethical future we need explore how a new responsible eugenics may be ethically evolved in various specific aspects of Human multicultural socialization.
2. Genetic Donations
The new ethical Human eugenics needs to be focused on positive genetic selection and especially so strategic proliferation of DNA of psychometrically exceptional persons of all Human taxa and genders. One thing that in principle could be rather relatively easily implemented once there is sufficient political will would be to provide government funds to reimburse women worldwide at all levels of intelligence so as to receive artificial insemination with seed from psychometrically exceptional men. This may in principle be performed worldwide on a gargantuan scale in the hundreds of millions and especially so among destitute strata of society in countries worldwide. Financial encouragement-reimbursement should happen in three installments: (1) upon insemination, (2) upon live birth and (3) upon the child’s first birthday so as to prevent any potential infanticide whether motivated by racism or otherwise.
Eventually with time and increasingly socio-economically successful offspring by means of receiving sperm donations, this may in fact be considered a privilege so reimbursement may not even remain necessary when this becomes a more socially established procedure for procreation generally in Human cultures worldwide. Eventually, this may potentially be expanded to inserting ova and pre-sentient embryos, including early cloned ones. Obviously, women of lesser means worldwide will be relatively more inclined to receive procreative donations than those with relatively better means.
3. Artificial Uteri
While there are increasingly technological capabilities available to modify Human DNA, this will undoubtedly increasingly offer both eugenic opportunities and dysgenic risks. There needs however be development of the eugenically crucial, strategic technology of artificial uteri. The rabbis of the Talmud were the first to suggest and approve the notion of the artificial uterus, the maverick American Jewish feminist Shulamith Firestone (1945-2012) rightly and wisely suggested this as a means of women’s liberation in her famous 1970 book, The Dialectics of Sex; The Case for a Feminist Revolution. Development of artificial uteri is both a feminist project and a eugenic one as artificial uteri will in fact enable implementation of large-scale future eugenic policies in compliance with extremely high standards of ethics.
4. Psychometric Polygyny
What feminists have long described as patriarchy is at its most primeval level a function of average divergence in sexual urge and need between most women and most men. Men do on average desire vastly more sexual intercourse than do on average women which means that men typically experience a real need to construct socio-marital institutions that will oblige women to offer more sexual services for free and in practice much more so than most Human females would otherwise genuinely wish to provide. The unpaid “free” sexual services provided by married/cohabiting females are performed in addition to other similarly unpaid “household duties” that are typically performed by married females in Human civilizations without usually receiving any kind of direct financial reimbursement.
Development of the technology of the artificial uterus would crucially enable Humanity to significantly alter the proportion of men and women in the general Human population so that it better corresponds to the sexual needs of Human females and Human males respectively on the basis of adjusting the birth proportions of Human females and Human males respectively to the simple economic principle of supply and demand. Rather than the approximate 50/50 Human ratio between females and males as of now in most countries, a far more appropriate proportion would be about 5/95, meaning that on average each married male would be married to about 20 females, although the degree of sexual interest obviously varies in so called ‘heterosexual’ Human males as well. If female bisexual behavior inside such marital units is culturally and socially strongly encouraged by means of upbringing and education (as would certainly be psychologically feasible for most future Human females) then this will help establish family units that are far more ethically appropriate and in every way mutually more satisfactory for all involved than is typically the case at present.
This of course does not mean everyone somehow living in socialist collectives as traditionally in the kibbutzim in Israel, but simply that in such larger polygynous marital units some things will be shared; how much and to what degree may potentially contractually vary between different types of polygynous matrimonial units. However, there is no doubt that larger matrimonial units are better equipped to offer an appropriate socio-economic security net than are the seemingly ever smaller, atomized household units in modernized societies. Undoubtedly, the contemporary diffusion of increasingly atomized household units creates far greater need for the governments to offer such services in the stead of the extended family of traditional society. Childrearing in polygynous society will become much easier however in that co-mothers would crucially aid each other in the nursing and rearing of their children who would often be half-siblings, making childrearing much less arduous than it typically is at present. Also, children would socially clearly benefit in having so many “assistant mothers” and half-siblings nearby while growing up.
If however computerized mass matchmaking were to take place on the basis of mass comprehensive psychometric and genetic testing of most Human citizens, then marital units could be forged that on average are sexually, socially, psychologically, economically and eugenically far more viable and appropriate indeed than at present by means of psychometrically extremely accurate matching on a vast national (and even international scale) scale. “Finding missing halves of oneself” would be a Greek myth no more so to speak as numerous precise matches would be available indeed for every citizen. Mass psychometric matching could indeed offer the perfect match for so many citizens, something that is otherwise statistically extremely unlikely in most cases.
The prospect of mass psychometric matching both for marital relationships and for casual sexual relations offer possibilities of indeed very exactly matching persons who fit each other in every individually conceivably relevant measurable respect (including psychometrically substantially varying aesthetic preferences for physical exterior in potential mates) as most of these hence matched Human persons would hardly otherwise meet each other without it. Computerized, mass psychometric, highly precise matching for marriage can thus achieve the perfect matches of near perfect marital psychometric compatibility that so many Humans in modern societies in fact so strongly desire but usually do fail to achieve. This is so as the computerized psychometric matching would be made domestically on the entire Human national population and even sometimes even internationally between states as in accordance with agreements between national governments. Hence, the vast scale will ensure psychometric precision and therefore a particularly high degree of satisfaction in marital psychometric (psychological & sexual) matching including all pertinent aspects of marital matching.
There is a particularly strong national economic interest in ensuring that marital partners are more strongly and accurately psychometrically compatible as those living in involuntarily lone households (one adult with or without children) generally have lesser means and therefore tend to be much less helpful for the economy in terms of fueling economic growth in sectors of economically and technologically more advanced domestic consumption. Thus, many children do unnecessarily grow up in relative poverty due to living with one usually involuntarily single parent. Government agencies should fund mass-scale comprehensive psychometric and genetic examinations that are free for all while letting certified private companies, NGOs and non-profit foundations use the strictly anonymized psychometric and genetic data as a platform for various psychometric matching purposes, not just for marital matching but also for psychometric matching for friends, jobs, communities, neighborhoods, education, entrepreneurial partners, consenting consumers, commercial outsourcing and yes even temporary sex partners. In fact, this could be used on both existing and future social media platforms.
Annual psychometric testing of all consenting Human citizens once or twice a year would be a new vital government-funded task that would crucially enable many aspects of society to function far better, happier and indeed smoother and more accurately than is currently the case albeit using these psychometric and genetic data for the purposes of police investigations or national security surveillance must not be legally permitted under any circumstances whatsoever as this could otherwise potentially produce distinctively dystopian, even totalitarian societal outcomes. Furthermore, psychometric/genetic testing & matching must obviously be completely voluntary although few are likely to want to opt out if this is indeed freely available to all.
There should fundamentally be two main types of permanent marriage in eugenic polygynous society as founded upon birth mostly through artificial uteri. These would be (a) gynogenic marriage (i.e. giving birth to girls) and (b) androgenic marriage (i.e. giving birth to boys). Most psychometrically matched gynogenic marriages would give birth only to female children while androgenic marriages comprising psychometrically matched persons with the psychometrically most advanced psychometric/genetic profiles among both females and males would give birth to almost only male children.
This means that after a generation most males will be born from the new genetic elite of androgenic marriage who in turn each will usually marry multiple females, most of whom will rather have grown up in families based on gynogenic marriage. Thus, nearly all boys will grow up as children of the genetic elite androgenic marriage, yet the vast majority of these males will nevertheless themselves marry in non-elite gynogenic marriage as only the psychometrically (and genetically) most advanced among both males and females in each generation will marry in androgenic elite marriage which as gynogenic common marriage would take place through psychometric and genetic mass matching as also in accordance with individual preferences in psychometric, aesthetic and sexual respects.
This will create a situation of highly selective polygynous breeding wherein each generation, females and males with the most advanced psychometric and genetic characteristics would be chosen for procreation in androgenic marriage while “ordinary” females would be matched for gynogenic marriage with relatively speaking more “ordinary” males. Most marital unions would hence be non-elite gynogenic marriage giving birth to almost only girls. Of course, there should be no compulsion whatsoever, neither in androgenic marriage nor in gynogenic marriage and psychometrically matched same-sex marriage should obviously be fully readily available to all whom so desire. Exclusively lesbian matrimonial units could in fact become eugenically very helpful in the sense that very special and highly advanced genetic matching could be made in selecting sperm donors for genetic matching within same-sex marriage.
Spouses in gynogenic marriage desiring to give birth to boys either naturally or through artificial uteri would be legally fully able to do so but would have to pay themselves out of their own purses for all ensuing expenses whether pertaining to natural gestation/birth, its aftermath or to the use of an artificial uterus. However, once artificial uteri are developed and made readily available by governments free of charge to the general public, then most women will not want to give birth naturally with the significant inconvenience entailed with natural birth, but most will no doubt prefer gestation in artificial uteri. After all, so many traditional Human practices have evolved to a very significant extent with the introduction of what was originally viewed as “new advanced” technology.
The significant cost of privately paying for gestation in artificial uteri means that those wed in gynogenic marriage will in most cases prefer gestation of female children while spouses in androgenic marriage will conversely prefer gestation of male children as married females in both androgenic marriage and gynogenic marriage should be economically strongly incentivized to make the right individual choices in these regards. This incentive structure could also be enhanced by charging more for reverse use of artificial uteri than the actual economic cost of gestation in an artificial uterus. This could be done by taxing reverse use of artificial uteri whether carried out in the same country or in another country.
Generational improvement in ethically eugenic Human society would therefore take place through two main simultaneous processes: (1) Elite procreation in each generation among those males and females with the relatively most advanced individual psychometric profiles such as involving many of those with very high IQ scores. (2) Most of the predominantly male offspring from androgenic marriage would not be selected for participation in the next generation of elite procreation, but would rather be genetically deployed to increasingly drastically improve the average psychometric profile of the general Human population through gynogenic marriage. Spreading the practice of two-tiered psychometric polygyny by means of drastically reducing the average proportion of male births in the general Human population and mostly limiting the birth of male children to elite androgenic marriage and other forms of elite procreation would therefore enable increasingly rapid generational, psychometric-genetic improvement through positive genetic selection. In fact, such selective breeding has long been used in the Human breeding of non-Human Animals such as using seed from one single Bull to impregnate many thousands of Cows.
5. Eugenic Harems
There should also be eugenic harems (including gynocentric harems and androcentric harems) as a form of eugenic marriage so as to ensure mass procreation of the rare, exceptional males and females such as geniuses and their gifted descendants who have inherited some of the genetically invaluable psychometric characteristics of a genius ancestor. Some eugenic harems would be androgenic and produce only boys; some eugenic harems would be gynogenic and produce only girls while yet other eugenic harems would produce both girls and boys to various degrees and in varying proportions.
Gynocentric harems would be centered on especially genetically valuable females for whom especially appropriate genetic (and psychometric) matches would be found. One form of gynocentric harem could consist of hundreds or more early cloned female multiple identicals who would all originally have been conceived as genetically identical and who would be jointly married to a number of non-identical males whom they would jointly agree to jointly marry. An androcentric harem could be centered on one genetically exceptionally valuable male e.g. a young genius) marrying large numbers of females. It could also be centered on a number of male identicals cloned from a single genius or else a number of genetically valuable bisexual males who would collectively marry not only all the female spouses but also each other. As in non-harem marriage, this would be achieved through very precise computerized matching both genetically and psychometrically. The terms gynocentric and androcentric should of course not be confused with the terms gynogenic and androgenic.
Incentives for eugenic harem marriage may include individual tax exemptions and titles of nobility for males and females respectively while married in eugenic harems. First-generation offspring of this official genetic nobility should also in many cases be granted special titles of nobility that would however not necessarily be automatically inherited by their own offspring. Eventually, after a number of generations having seen significant psychometric/genetic improvement through two-tiered polygyny, an increasingly greater proportion of male children would be procreated in many different eugenic harems worldwide in giving rise to a psychometrically very different Humanity than the current mostly mediocre and indeed tragic one.
The official legal distinction between gynogenic marriage and androgenic marriage and the granting of non-hereditary titles of nobility for harem marriage (as well as for some exceptional androgenic marriages) will no doubt create tremendous interest in ethical eugenics among prospective parents to indeed have offspring that would themselves psychometrically qualify for androgenic marriage and in relatively rare cases even harem marriage whether temporary or permanent.
6. Youth Communities
Israeli kibbutzim traditionally raised children collectively in so called children’s homes which were familial units and certainly not in any sense medical institutions as were institutions with the same name in other countries. While some graduates of the kibbutz children’s homes later as adults complained about having been raised this way – just as many other “former children” complain about being raised in neurotic nuclear families – most were satisfied and the children who were raised within this framework became modern Israel’s first elites as famous indeed for their advanced team-working capacities in the military and civilian spheres.
The kibbutzim (whose respective populations even today remain genetically and ethnically mostly Ashkenazi Jewish) no longer generate most of the Israeli intellectual, artistic and military elite as this practice of child-rearing was discontinued in most kibbutzim which have also become increasingly, gradually internally privatized among their members in recent decades. To what degree this change in the socio-economic fortunes of kibbutz children as adults is due to the genetically relatively more gifted having increasingly already left kibbutzim for higher education, hence leaving the comparatively less gifted in those rural communities – is an interesting question indeed.
However, while this is undoubtedly true to some extent, there is also significant ground for assuming that the kibbutz children’s homes were and remain an exceptional and highly appropriate way to raise children and youth. There were some complaints yes, just like there are complaints from many of those raised in nuclear families and those children not content with any existing particular parental environments should therefore in the future be legally entitled to live in familial or other parental environments of their own reasonable preference and reasonable choice.
While traditionally kibbutz children were reared collectively and slept in special facilities pertaining to each age group, the kibbutz children were nevertheless in daily contact with their own parents. This would no doubt also be appropriate for eugenic polygyny in the sense that co-wives would share in the obligations of child rearing but may of course also employ professionals so as to provide further child care.
Raising children collectively could in fact enable very interesting eugenic opportunities as this would be highly appropriate indeed for the raising of children in youth villages adjacent to eugenic harems as comparable to how is currently done in Israel’s about 60 youth villages that cater for different types of minors such as gifted minors from poor homes, immigrant minors, disabled minors and minors with criminal and/or drug-abusing parents. Israeli youth villages are familial communities and not medical institutions as Israeli youth villages were created and continue to exist as a particularly successful organizational hybrid between the European boarding school and the Israeli kibbutz.
However, being raised together with multiple, originally genetically identical, cloned same-age siblings in such future ethically eugenic familial frameworks would certainly be a tremendous privilege for those very children growing up with multiple identical siblings in eugenic youth villages. This way of raising children would allow for much greater reproduction in eugenic harems and trained educational professionals could substantially aid in the raising of children just as traditionally in kibbutzim although many children also would have their own parents close by in the nearby eugenic harem.
It would also crucially be possible to engage in highly selective artificial breeding through artificial uteri by means of raising children in special youth villages without necessarily any present biological parents. However, this would require the significant expense of hiring numerous educational professionals who would also need to commit to individually adopt children who would thus grow up in a particular youth village. This should however not preclude such educational professionals from having biological children of their own. Eugenic youth villages without necessarily present biological parents would however need to require very careful and necessarily costly arrangements (including legal checks and balances) so as to necessarily ensure the welfare, dignity, liberty and rights of Human minors growing up in such eugenic youth villages. Furthermore, this type of eugenic youth village without necessarily active or present biological parents would rear both boys and girls for the very genetic purpose of selective breeding, including by means of promoting homozygosis for genetically particularly valuable alleles.
The eugenic purpose of such eugenic youth villages with working adoptive parents would thus primarily be to allow for highly selective breeding for very particular genetically inherited psychometric traits in multiple generations. This framework, including as based on completely artificial reproduction could harvest sperm and ova at relatively early ages among those minors with the most advanced psychometric profiles in every generation in this procreative framework. Raising children this way on a limited scale without active biological parents is not ethically unproblematic, yet investing significant sums in the professional raising of these cognitive elite children and their also having multiple identical siblings of the same age to be symbiotic with (as between ordinary identical twins) would compensate for the lack of active biological parents.
Also, this would crucially provide advanced psychometric, genetic elites for the next generation of androgenic marriage and eugenic harems. Human persons raised in this particular fashion could carry family names but could also be accorded special, not necessarily hereditary titles of nobility as explicitly referring to the name of the youth village where they grew up as well as the actual number of the particular breeding generation in their youth village, with each generation thus on average being progressively more psychometrically-genetically advanced. A boy named Aleph growing up in a eugenic youth village with the name Neogenesis and being born in the sixth procreative generation of his youth village could thus be named Aleph Neogenesis VI. Each child growing up in a youth village devoted to selective breeding in successive generations would be given a unique complete name. Thus, Aleph would be the only person in the particular breeding generation of his youth village to carry the name Aleph .
7. Generational Improvement
While it is a decidedly most reasonable goal to double the worldwide, average Human hereditary IQ within much less than a century of international ethically eugenic improvement and advancement, two key factors are especially important to consider in planning for the raising of genotypic IQ levels and other eugenically relevant hereditary psychometric factors.
(1) The first matter is the issue of procreative time and procreative age as well as the number of procreative generations of selective breeding needed for achieving successful, ethically eugenic outcomes. (2) The second important factor to consider is the preservation of appropriate genetic diversity worldwide for the future as selective breeding always means relative contraction of genetic diversity in the breeding population in the sense that those thus bred tend to become progressively genetically relatively more similar to each other. The global size of the worldwide Human population with its current vast degree of genetic diversity is however sufficiently large for relatively rapid improvement of psychometric profiles of Human populations. Nevertheless, sufficient genetic diversity must always be strategically retained so as to allow for indefinite incremental genetic/psychometric improvement and advancement. One way to maintain sufficient genetic diversity so as to permit indefinite genetic advancement is eugenic decentralization, both within independent nation states as well as between independent nation states. This means that there should be multiple (yet mostly compatible) genetic breeding strategies existing in parallel and in different geographic locations, jurisdictions and sections of worldwide Human society.
One way to significantly shorten the length of the generational procreative time span would be through early psychometrically matched marriage for teenagers as well as very early donations of sperm and ova in terms of the ages of genetic donors, something which will also improve the genetic quality in procreative donations as Human genomes unfortunately progressively deteriorate with ageing. Achieving a much lower average age of marriage at least as regards androgenic marriage but preferably for the breeding population generally is therefore particularly important in successfully achieving a more rapid pace of meaningful genetic improvement. This could be achieved in androgenic marriage if the young males prepared for androgenic marriage would usually be a few years older than the young females that they would marry. This is feasible as Human females on average develop puberty a few years earlier than do on average Human boys of the same Human taxa. Once this is shown successful also in terms of developmental psychology, this should be voluntarily applied also in gynogenic marriage and thus in most of the Human breeding population. This could no doubt significantly enhance the pace of genetic advancement in Human societies.
While the average age of puberty greatly varies between different Human taxa and between different social and historical environments, it is nevertheless imperative that ethically eugenic marriage as arranged through mass psychometric matchmaking takes place as early as indeed reasonably and ethically feasible. The universal utilization of artificial uteri means that relative female somatic capacity for child bearing will no longer be a relevant factor as per appropriate marriage age in economically developed countries. Rapid generational genetic improvement is thus very much feasible once there are artificial uteri freely available to the Human general public.
Early reproduction is indeed of tremendous eugenic value as genomes (as well as the quality of sperm and ova at the time of donation) deteriorate with increasing age so reproduction and psychometrically matched, mostly polygynous marriage at an age that is as early as feasible and ethically appropriate indeed should therefore be strongly encouraged without any obviously compulsion whatsoever. Clearly, such an ethically eugenic advanced society would look very different from the present familial structure of increasingly atomized, usually unhappily quarreling households in modern economically developed Human societies.
Highly attractive educational contexts such as summer camps could also be potentially arranged for the young, relatively recently sexually matured persons from different eugenic youth villages whereby those young persons would be temporarily brought together and taught the theory and practice of sexuality with many genetically compatible same-age partners and would indeed be encouraged to be fertile and together generate embryos during their stay there to the degree of course that this is proven ethically acceptable in terms of individual physiological development and individual psychological age. Females and males would reside together in the same living quarters in those contexts and would be specifically encouraged to engage sexually with each other in accordance with clearly specified rules of ethically appropriate sexual engagement. If the reproductive elites in each such breeding generation are thus brought together from many different breeding villages in this very manner, then this could produce many valuable naturally conceived embryos to be used for the gestation of the next breeding generation. The females could possibly (i.e. of course to the degree this would be proven ethically acceptable) even be given temporary hormonal treatment so as to provide more ova and therefore more embryos for the procreative occasion.
Psychometric matching could actually be used for the purpose of eugenic temporary sexual relations as intended for eugenic procreative purposes as combined with a pleasant, respectful and enriching experience for all those involved. Age difference could in eugenic harems also be used to enhance the pace of eugenic improvement. E.g. it would very much make sense eugenically if an androcentric harem centered on a relatively young male genius would marry relatively younger females. It is widespread in many different Human cultures (including in Western cultures) for males to tend to marry somewhat relatively younger females although the gender age gap in average marital age varies between Human cultures. While some inter-cultural and intra-cultural critics associate this with coercive marriage as presently practiced in certain Human cultures, the gendered marriage age gap exists in many cultures, including in Western cultures and permanent and temporary marriages in an ethically eugenic society must clearly be completely individually voluntary in every respect. It is in fact not entirely uncommon in Western cultures and relatively socially accepted for women to choose to live with men who are ten or twenty years their seniors.
8. Sexually Transmitted Diseases
A major medical obstacle to achieving an ethically eugenic polygynous society is certainly the continued existence and proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases (STD). In fact, in a polygynous society, the spread of STD may have disastrous consequences indeed, considering that the marital-sexual companionship units will be much larger than at present and would therefore potentially substantially increase the risk of mass transmission of STD. On the other hand though, there may be much less interest in marital infidelity and unprotected promiscuous behavior as marital polygyny will be deliberatively pre-designed to achieve much greater sexual satisfaction and societal welfare for all genders than sexually, often boringly unhappy contemporary so called “monogamy” which many spouses practically rather regard as “monotony” sexually speaking.
A strategic policy for ending all future transmission of STD should entail compulsory testing say once or twice a year for all Human beings worldwide above a certain age. It should also include a legal prohibition on penetrative natural intercourse (whether anal, oral or vaginal) without the use of condoms outside marriage/permanent cohabitation except of course where eugenically arranged in order to produce eugenically conducive embryos through temporary marriage. Such a legal ban on unprotected sex may thus go a long way towards ending proliferation of STD.
Regular compulsory testing and the publishing of all the resulting data online about exactly who carries which STD will probably very significantly reduce the interest in unprotected sexual behavior considering that Human STD-carriers will therefore become publically stigmatized to some degree which will provide a particularly strong incentive structure for not engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse outside marriage whether permanent or temporary eugenic marriage. Much STD is apparently spread by promiscuous male psychopaths (both by typically relatively less intelligent criminal psychopaths and by usually more intelligent more law-abiding ones) so significantly reducing the genetic frequency of anti-social personality disorders in Human gene pools will also further reduce the risk of transmission of STD. Furthermore, devising clear codes of conduct for infidelity and other temporary sexual relations and teach this in schools may also significantly lessen the frequency of STD transmission. However, fully eradicating STD should certainly be the objective and this is certainly not an impossible feat to achieve.
Affording some temporary sexual relations the legal status of temporary marriage could further help ensure responsibly protected sexual behavior. Computerized psychometric matching for temporary sexual relations would also be a means to formalize temporary sexual relations (including temporary marriage) as legal formalization of many such temporary relationships could serve to increasingly lessen transmission of STD by encouraging responsibly protected sexual behavior.
9. Genetic Traits
Virtually all Human persons cognitively capable of expressing an abstract viewpoint tend to agree in unison as to what are the psychometrically looked-for characteristics in fellow Human beings for the purposes of positive selection of spouses, friends, employees and political representatives although there is somewhat less agreement as to what constitutes unhelpful traits. This is surely relevant also for positive genetic selection. Positive selection should take place through (1) psychometric marital mass matching in two-tiered psychometric polygyny, (2) through eugenic selection and matching of sperms and ova, (3) by cloning of preserved copies of early embryonic specimens of psychometrically exceptional persons and (4) by highly selective gestation of early pre-sentient embryos.
The killing of sentient Human embryos/fetuses is clearly a crime of murder in everything but name in jurisdictions where this terrifying democidal practice most tragically remains legal. So called “abortion” will however no longer be an issue of women’s liberation with the introduction of artificial uteri as a naturally pregnant woman not wanting to gestate a child in her own natural womb will be able to transfer her already sentient embryo/fetus to an artificial uterus although she will have to pay herself for the entire transfer procedure. Such children would obviously need to grow up elsewhere, in most cases in non-eugenic, ordinary youth villages. Such embryos could possibly be genetically modified so as to change most such male embryos to female chromosomal sex so as to be consistent with the demographic principle of generally two-tiered psychometric and genetic advancement and improvement in polygynous, ethically eugenic Human society. “Abortion” in the sense of killing what would be indisputably pre-sentient embryos should however be legal and although permissible surely this is by no means an ethically entirely unproblematic procedure.
Criminal behavior as a devoted profession mostly pertains to persons with antisocial personality disorders, persons commonly known since the late 19th century as psychopaths. When discovered prior to the age of 18, this very common condition is usually referred to as Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, i.e. ADHD although there are a number of overlapping names and diagnostic definitions of antisocial personality disorders and ADHD in both legal adults and legal minors. Criminal recidivism is hence mostly a neuropsychiatric issue and indeed one of severe individual disability as opposed to severe individual liability as it is currently simplistically mostly viewed.
Criminal recidivists with anti-social personality disorders should be convicted to treatment by means of ethically effective gene therapy or else if not yet medically available, otherwise hormonal therapy as designed to reduce the typically crime-inducing high levels of testosterone. As most psychopathic males have indeed very high testosterone levels, permanent hormonal therapy to permanently lower the level of testosterone should therefore be applied as part of the criminal conviction in particular cases in the absence of safe gene therapy. New future forms of chemotherapy may also potentially be developed so as to more effectively treat psychopaths and allow them to lead emotionally richer lives without them resorting to anti-social behavior. This is so as relatively less intelligent psychopaths tend to resort to criminal behavior and the use of addictive substances such as alcohol and typically so due to a pervasive pathological experience of profound boredom as combined with often a significantly reduced capacity for empathy that makes it difficult for these Human persons to integrate into modern Human mass society in accordance with typical societal expectations in civilization in the absence of far more effective modes of social control that typically exist in many of those tribal societies where tribal membership and tribal non-excommunication are essentially prerequisites for survival.
Recidivist criminals who cannot yet be medically cured or otherwise effectively and ethically treated should as part of their criminal conviction be banished to cities of refuge as indeed originally conceived of in ancient Israel as per to the biblical account. In the modern context however, this would be special walled off new municipalities for recidivist convicts and/or drug addicts who would henceforth be physically barred from harming the general Human society outside the cities of refuge. Such municipalities would need to be sufficiently geographically large so as never generate a psychological sense of incarceration. Yet, once it proves possible to cure an individual convicted person suffering from an anti-social personality disorder, then that person should indeed be conditionally released from the city of refuge subsequent to successful medical treatment in the hope of successful social rehabilitation. Furthermore, convicted serially recidivist criminals with anti-social personality disorders should unless successfully treated with gene therapy be forcibly sterilized as part of the sentenced punishment of the criminal conviction so as to clamp down on the globalized epidemic of criminal psychopathy. Forcible sterilization should never be applied to terrorists and others breaking laws for purely political, religious and/or moral reasons. However, the obligation to protect Human society from crime and clearly pathological, apolitical anti-social behavior is clearly much more important than the no doubt tremendous sexual, evolutionary-based interest of many individual psychopaths in promiscuous procreation.
Yet, criminal incarceration inside buildings is most clearly both a form of torture and a socially accepted form of totalitarianism and prisons must therefore be abolished in favor of a global multitude of cities of refuge for recidivist criminals and/or drug addicts respectively. The spacious cities of refuge would rather be physically closed off from the rest of Human society with extensive walls and other significant obstacles to attempted escape. There should be many different cities of refuge worldwide as run by different bodies, whether private, non-profit or public ones. Convicts should be able to themselves pick a city of refuge of their own choice worldwide and relocate there once accepted by a particular receiving city of refuge. Although specific cities of refuge worldwide may be specialized as regards psychometric profiles and types of offenders and/or substance abusers, any particular city of refugee would therefore also be able to reject some or even most categories of convicts.
The cities of refuge would at least initially need to be subsidized to a significant degree by the governments of the surrounding outside world, yet inhabitants of cities of refuge should be encouraged to work gainfully within the cities of refuge and the cities should crucially indeed be sufficiently spacious in terms of territorial extension (including rural area) so that residents do not experience anything near a painful sense of incarceration that is typically experienced by those held captive in prisons and prison camps. Cities of refuge would certainly become much less expensive than prisons and would permanently isolate criminally recidivist psychopaths from general Human society until the individual crime-inducing condition is successfully treated. Drug addicts permanently residing in cities of refuge devised for drug addicts would however receive daily free drugs for personal recreational use within their own particular cities of refuge. The consumption of these substances would need to be particularly carefully supervised immediately upon reception so as to ensure that these substances are not ever smuggled and resold to customers outside of the city of refuge.
Psychopaths tend to enjoy each other’s company and they should thus be encouraged to be economically productive in mutual collaboration as far possible within the cities of refuge where they will reside until they are cured or otherwise effectively and ethically treated. Tribal cultures are however known to quite effectively inhibit psychopathic behavior in Human psychopaths so the deliberate creation of both new and extended tribal social structures should thus be encouraged within the cities of refuge for criminal psychopaths. New residents would thus in many cities of refuge need to select a created or extended tribe to be initiated into within the city of refuge. This is likely to ensure that life within the city of refuge is much better functioning than would otherwise in most cases be the case as there would be effective social control more effectively limiting antisocial psychopathic behavior. Tribal religion should thus be designed, redesigned and extended for these new tribes within the cities of refuge. Residents of cities of refuge should also as far as is practically feasible be encouraged to govern themselves in accordance with liberal-democratic principles by means of municipal government. However, the political and electoral system would need to be adjusted and direct democracy may possibly function better than representative democracy in cities of refuge.
As 80% of children with ADHD currently develop psychopathy, educational frameworks should be specifically devised so as to improve adult societal outcomes of children with ADHD. This should include a great deal of freedom combined with strong peer pressure whereby ADHD children would essentially rule both their school and each other through direct democracy. School environments that are essentially hostile to the needs of children with ADHD most likely plays a very significant role in producing criminal recidivist outcomes in adults. Also with increasingly raised levels of genotypic IQ, criminal recidivism will also become less common as criminal recidivism among psychopaths in Western societies strongly correlate with below average IQ.
Although capital punishment remains an appropriate punishment for certain extremely severe crimes such as genocide; sentenced local public humiliation of convicted Human persons is the most morally appropriate punishment for crimes committed by persons not suffering from anti-social personality disorders and in most cases on the first, second and third occasion of the conviction of a person with an anti-social personality disorder before pathological criminal recidivism would thus be diagnostically clearly established with the fourth criminal conviction in the sense of identifying a clearly recurring pathological behavioral pattern. Public humiliation in the offender’s own local community would also serve as an effective deterrent for non-psychopathic potential offenders. E.g. a convicted offender could hence be forced to walk naked through his own neighborhood carrying a placard describing the crimes he himself committed. This would no doubt deter most non-psychopaths from legal infringements and would no doubt be particularly effective in deterring white-collar crime.
As generally as regards medical conditions and disabilities however, a political distinction should be made between medical conditions that clearly no sane Human person whomsoever would want for herself/himself and disabilities of Human difference that most affected, yet still distinctly sane persons prefer to maintain for themselves such as the deaf community whose constituent members generally prefer to remain simply as they are with their own perfectly viable and indeed completely legitimate cultures, ethnicities and highly expressive Human sign languages. While mental illness and anti-social personality disorders should be treated, most other cognitive conditions that are individually desired by persons with these cognitive conditions should be individually retained without any negative government intervention whatsoever against the individual person specifically or the diagnostic category of persons generally.
As for selection of sperms, ova and pre-sentient embryos, one should be especially careful not to unnecessarily remove cognitive traits that are clearly desirable or may otherwise potentially become recognized as valuable in an ethically eugenic future with increasingly rising genetic IQs. Diversity of traits that may not seem particularly meaningful or relevant as of present may become recognized as highly valuable in future eugenic societies when the genotypic population IQ is increasingly raised and quite substantially so. This is so as traits that may not currently seem particularly useful in a person with IQ 100 may become extremely useful indeed in a person with IQ 200.
Psychometric cognitive diversity is however far from sufficiently utilized as a national economic resource even in relatively advanced Human economies. While open society is itself directly founded upon the very existence of cognitive diversity in perception, this partly genetically founded diversity is an important economic resource in its own right that surely must not be squandered as so often happens and surely needs to be managed well genetically for ethically eugenic purposes as well as in terms of appropriately ensuring and realizing individual educational and economic potential.
Autism spectrum disorders are an interesting case as autism combined with very high intelligence (often referred as Asperger syndrome) tends to be very psychometrically attractive, especially when also combined with at least moderately advanced savant skills. However, the cognitive advantages inherent in such autistic conditions tend to become more significant the higher the individual genetic IQ. There are also many subclinical traits of various conditions (including subclinical traits of mental illness and personality disorders) that are often highly attractive and beneficial indeed when combined with high individual IQ.
While medical taxonomies are generally founded upon notions of culturally conventional social normality in Eurocentric (genetically Eurotypical) civilization, the task of ethical eugenics should not be to further promote the medical normality of contemporary Human mediocrity, but rather to genetically promote excellence, advanced cognitive ability and indeed the spread of hereditary genius. Eventually with time as ethical eugenics progresses worldwide, geniuses should increasingly become the Human genotypic norm. Ethical eugenics should therefore strive to increasingly lessen the frequency of certain medical conditions, albeit far from all diagnostically defined conditions. Of course, there should be no negative genetic selection whatsoever against any law-abiding already sentient Human citizens whether individually or collectively so. Indeed, this negative genetic selection was practiced by both 20th eugenics and by the dysgenically totalitarian Nazi regime and is still carried out as socially accepted murder of sentient embryos/fetuses. These practices are clearly absolutely wrong and must not be legally permitted.
10. Identical Siblings
Growing up with a twin is for most who experience this at least for the most part a truly enriching, helpful and indeed most desirable experience by any standard and this is of course even more so as regards identical twins, a particularly close relationship which allows two persons to experience a living genetic replica throughout childhood and even later life. Therefore, should it not be a “Human right” so to speak to grow up with a twin or at the very least growing up with a half-sibling of approximately the same age as would surely be feasible in a eugenically polygynous society?
Genetic copies should however generally be made and frozen from very early Human embryos so as to allow cloning when in individual cases, later this turns out eugenically beneficial indeed. The technology of artificial uteri would thus permit gestation and birth of large numbers of Human identicals by cloning the frozen early genome copies of what later in life became highly psychometrically advanced and/or psychometrically exceptional Human persons. Cloning and gestation of multiple identicals would be very eugenically helpful and especially so for gynocentric harems.
Human natural procreation would surely seem most desirable from an evolutionary point of view so as to indeed ensure that the procreative evolutionary race of the sperms to the ovum actually takes place with preferably very energetic, high-quality sperms although of course this does not preclude parallel practices of artificial procreation if found eugenically highly beneficial as is indeed possible through reimbursed artificial insemination once there is political will even before artificial uteri become developed and freely available without charge to the Human general public.
It certainly makes much sense eugenically to clone very early genomes of psychometrically especially advanced Human individual persons as based on early frozen embryo specimens and such cloning may well be performed in producing thousands or more identical children although they potentially may subsequently be born and raised in different generations and even in different geographic locations. The problem of confusing identicals could be solved by various means of physical identification that could serve to distinguish identicals from each other, including necklaces, clothing details, name labels or even completely voluntary aesthetic tattoos although it is true that some cultures hold distinctly negative views with regard to tattoos. The eugenic imperative for mass breeding of identicals as based on genomes of especially psychometrically/genetically advanced individual persons is however most strong indeed.
The existence of exceptionally talented family dynasties with especially valuable genetic traits that are typically inherited through paternity, some of the most well-known examples probably being the German Bach family, the Jewish Rothschild family and the Swedish Wallenberg family shows the importance of spreading the genomes of those Human individuals who indeed display exceptional cognitive capacities. Imagine the tremendous potential for worldwide Human society if indeed such genomes were to be spread systematically and on a very broad scale through mass cloning of geniuses and by selective breeding of their descendants, including by controlled breeding for certain no doubt immensely valuable psychometric characteristics that appears through homozygosity in matching two identical alleles, one from each biological parent.
11. Sperm Aid
While in the pre-industrial past, the Human breeding of enslaved non-Human persons was not nearly as dysgenic as it has long since been in modernity – Human genetic trends in industrialized nations have indeed long been highly dysgenic, including through the increasing criminal epidemic of psychopathic antisocial personality disorders as genetically transmitted by the more often than not promiscuous psychopaths as found in all Human taxa. More recently there have been trends connected with social media that have seemingly made it popular for relatively high-income households to have three or more children but it is yet still unclear whether this is a temporary or permanent phenomenon.
Miscegenation may on average appear dysgenic for the involved population that is more psychometrically advanced when two different, genetically distinctive Human taxonomic populations with divergent genotypic psychometric profiles are mixing genetically. E.g. when genetically Ashkenazi Jews marry indigenous Europeans, then this is usually dysgenic for Ashkenazi Jews but clearly highly eugenic for the gentile indigenous European populations that relatively speaking have much lower average genetic IQs.
Miscegenation may appear dysgenic even on the level of miscegenation between carriers of identical measured levels of IQ as both genetically Ashkenazi Jews and African Americans have higher average levels of socio-economic achievement than have indigenous Europeans at the same levels of measured intelligence quotient. Yet, IQ in the sense of measuring general intelligence or g is surely also not the sole eugenically relevant psychometric parameter.
Although even marital miscegenation – as Human procreation generally – largely takes places between persons who resemble each other in measured IQs, it is nevertheless obviously a fact that Ashkenazi-European hybrids on average achieve less than non-hybridized Ashkenazi Jews on the same IQ levels, yet these genetic hybrids still achieve more than non-hybridized indigenous Europeans at the same levels of IQ. Indeed, the wholly bankrupt idea of there being a psychometric basis for White supremacism has been discredited even among most contemporary White nationalists.
It may thus be argued that whether miscegenation is on average eugenic or on average dysgenic actually depends on into which human genetic population the offspring of miscegenation are eventually absorbed into or else simply being a matter of relative group perspective. A type of hybridization pattern that would thus be generalized as dysgenic may certainly however turn out eugenic in specific individual cases. Therefore, average inter-taxonomic figures are individually relatively meaningless because every case of Human procreation is essentially unique.
None of these taxonomic definitions of eugenic outcomes would however apply to miscegenation by sperm aid which would in almost every case be most strongly eugenic in outcome irrespective of Human taxa, provided of course that the donors of any Human taxonomic origin would be exceptionally psychometrically advanced so that their seed would indeed genetically enrich and psychometrically/genetically advance the gene pool of the population which absorbs sperm aid that thus achieves genotypic psychometric advancement by means of miscegenation through procreative reception of sperm aid.
This means that the average genotypic psychometric profile of almost any given Human population may be relatively easily advanced on a mass scale by means of financially reimbursed artificial insemination with semen from other Human taxa that are relatively more psychometrically advanced without necessarily causing negative population effects that may otherwise be typical outcomes of many instances of miscegenation. Of course, such reimbursed sperm donations need not necessarily involve miscegenation as Human genomes appropriate for selective breeding may be found more or less in all Human populations although of course the frequency of such appropriate donor genomes in the gene pool obviously varies greatly with the level of average IQ and other eugenically relevant psychometric factors of various human taxa. While computerized mass psychometric marital matching should take into consideration all factors relevant, mass psychometric marital matching would also include promotion of miscegenation to the degree of course that this would be eugenically helpful indeed and this may include international psychometric marital matching in accordance with agreements between governments.
Hence, every distinctive Human genetic population may become increasingly genetically advanced in terms of its genotypic average psychometric profile. Although generally much easier to achieve through miscegenation such as sperm aid with donated genetic material from global populations with relatively higher genotypic IQs, selective breeding within a certain genetic group is also always a possibility although the genotypic starting point for progressive improvement obviously differs much between different Human taxa. Ethical eugenicists should however be more concerned about how to advance average psychometric profiles in future Human national populations than mere obsessing with current intra-human taxonomic differences in average genotypic profiles which should rather all be subject to increasingly rapid eugenic improvement in every Human generation.
Reimbursed sperm donations such as sperm aid would thus tend to be relatively more effective in cases involving miscegenation. For instance, if sperm donors are highly selectively chosen among those with the highest IQ scores in China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan (say at above IQ 160 or above IQ 170), then such sperm could indeed be donated to countries with relatively speaking lower Human genotypic IQ scores and need I add most effectively so in terms of improving the average psychometric profile in those nations, including Europe. Therefore, current development aid may be most beneficially largely converted into sperm aid. The large numbers of high IQ persons in genetically East Asian populations (i.e. Chinese, Koreans and Japanese) means that psychometric selection among potential donors may therefore become quite strict and selective also in other relevant respects than IQ.
Yet, sperm aid may of course also utilize indigenous donors. The size of the Human demography in Africa (over one billion born Humans) is such that Africa could very well sustain a continent-wide sperm aid donor program by selecting those across Africa with the most advanced individual psychometric profiles in the indigenous African populations as the continent’s own indigenous sperm donors. However, miscegenation would generally provide a much more rapid psychometric improvement rate through sperm aid than would presumably local psychometrically elite donors. This is not only true for say Africa but e.g. for Europe as well with its relatively low indigenous average IQ levels as compared to genetic East Asians and genetically Ashkenazi Jews.
While every country clearly needs its own national program for genetic improvement, there is obviously much to be gained from international cooperation and international exchange of donor specimens from the most psychometrically advanced donors in every country. This should not merely be a one-way relationship of nations with statistically more high IQ persons donating genetic specimens to those with relatively lower genotypic IQs, but may of course be reciprocated by giving the other way as well although each independent state will obviously need to determine its own genetic path forward towards increasingly improving average genotypic profiles of human populations.
While development aid agencies should largely convert their currently mostly economically counterproductive aid operations into sperm aid; the donated elite sperm may not necessarily originate in the economically developed country that finances and reimburses any particular artificial insemination operation. Hence any sperm aid may involve three or more different countries e.g. (a) the country that donates from its national sperm resources, (b) the country that finances mass artificial insemination through its international development aid agency as well as (c) the country where the financially individually reimbursed artificial insemination actually takes place on a mass scale.
As different Human peoples (including indigenous peoples) place varying importance on the maintenance of their own domestic genetic heritage, every country will need to find its own mix of domestic genetic donors and international genetic donors at different stages of national processes of increasingly rapid genetic improvement, including by means of sperm aid. There is clearly much value and potential in international, non-commercial exchange of sperm specimens between countries but each independent state will ultimately need to articulate its own policy with regard to receiving international donations of sperms, ova and cloned pre-sentient embryos.
It should be also be noted that sperms are a national economic resource that exists in great abundance as a fertile and sexually able Human man can donate billions of highly effective sperms in just one singular ejaculation. While sperm donors should obviously be suitably reimbursed by their respective governments and/or aid agencies, it would be highly inappropriate and would likely produce large numbers of dysgenic consequences if this was simply left to free markets to manage considering the significant economic potential for manipulation, deceit and false advertising.
While generally not acknowledged as such, the process of speciation was once already achieved as between the main Human regional genetic zones globally, albeit this is becoming increasingly reversed through the worldwide phenomenon of romantic miscegenation. Rather of attempting to reverse de-speciation and de-subspeciation ethical miscegenation should be embraced for ethically eugenic purposes as financially reimbursed sperm aid offers tremendous eugenic opportunities for rapid and relatively easily achieved psychometric genetic improvement in contemporary Human populations worldwide even long before the development and global deployment of artificial uteri. There is no doubt that this will be particularly economically efficient and especially so with relatively poorer populations both domestically and internationally.
Miscegenation therefore needs to be embraced and strategically mobilized for such highly ethical eugenic purposes and the new ethical eugenics must have nothing to do whatsoever with racism, fascism and genetic supremacism of past, present and future. Selective breeding should be premised as far as is possible on sound genetic science and eugenic procreation should therefore include performing policies of eugenic miscegenation to the degree that this of course is actually eugenically beneficial indeed. Eugenics without miscegenation is however both economically and genetically less effective in the sense that achieving significant genetic improvement would take more generations than it would through strategic miscegenation. While most White nationalists would no doubt oppose the use of strategic miscegenation in sperm aid to indigenous genetically European populations, their morally bankrupt typical political position was never truly eugenic as evidenced by the still common hostility to Jews among White nationalists, including jealous existential hostility against the on average far more psychometrically advanced genetically Ashkenazi Jews.
However, there should of course still be promotion of homozygotic selective breeding between genetically similar human genomes as per what is practically eugenically beneficial in each actual individual genetic situation albeit successful homozygosity may also crucially be achieved through genetic modification of early test tube Human embryos. In fact, homozygosity is the main argument for eugenic inbreeding as opposed to eugenic miscegenation. Inbreeding can certainly also be eugenically useful between two Human hybrids of similar genetic origins. Thus, instances of two Ashkenazi-European hybrids marrying each other may possibly on average be more eugenic in the sense of achieving homozygotic matching – than either party marrying an indigenous genetic European or a genetically Ashkenazi Jew.
In order to be appropriately successful, ethical eugenics must be based on sound science as for instance regards population effects of miscegenation whether these effects are indeed positive or negative. Ethical eugenics policies must therefore be strongly based on scientific foundations that are particularly well known. Also, ethical eugenics must be consistent with Human evolution in the sense that the intended mass eugenic behavior must be behaviorally plausible. Hence, there needs to be social structures in place that provide appropriate incentive structures for the intended ethically eugenic societal behavior.
This is as opposed to a totalitarian framework where everything is imposed from above by force without individual consent as in dysgenic Nazi Germany which created a strongly dysgenic outcome both in terms of exterminating the relatively more intelligent (the on average psychometrically highly advanced Ashkenazi Jewry and large numbers of highly intelligent non-Jews who also were preferred murder victims) and the subsequent political confusion about the generally dysgenic nature of Nazi murder/genocide policy as combined with the contemporary public absence of viably eugenic methods as compliant with the general liberal-democratic value structure of worldwide open society. The fact that the Nazi regime was highly dysgenic despite masking its dysgenic policies in eugenic terminology does not mean of course that Nazi crimes would have been in any sense more acceptable had they actually been eugenic in consequence.
While every Human person has her/his own individual psychometric profile, i.e. individual Human nature also colloquially (in a non-clinical sense) known as personality, ethically eugenic evolution needs however be consistent with the diverse realities of Human natures, the ways Human natures function and interact as well as their collective existing inherent cognitive diversity as can be psychometrically measured. This does not mean however that ethical eugenics must be limited to evolutionary models that are already identified as existing among non-Human Animals. It must however be compatible with evolution in the sense of being psychologically plausible in terms of incentive structures and indeed involve a change of behavioral direction away from the contemporary dysgenic evolution of the homo genus including its various species and various subspecies.
Average psychometric profiles in contemporary Human taxa are not a matter of “inferiority” or “superiority” although average psychometric differences between Human taxa are extremely statistically significant indeed with literally huge genotypic psychometric differences spanning the full cognitive spectrum of Human taxa. This is so as there are obviously Human persons with relatively low genetic IQs in populations with relatively high average IQs as well as equally obviously persons with genetically relatively high IQs in populations with relatively low average IQs. Hence it is not a matter of competing “superiority” and “inferiority” between Human taxa as is so often still quite mistakenly inferred by racists, anti-racists and others. Also, it should never be implied in any sense that law-abiding Human persons with low individual IQs of any human taxon should be subject to any governmental negative (i.e. coercive) selection whatsoever.
Intellectual/developmental disabilities (long derogatively known as “mental retardation”) should not necessarily in every case be regarded as pathological and Humans with those disabilities should certainly be aided in leading good fulfilling lives, including wherever possible in active employment. If however a moderately intellectually/developmentally disabled woman does receive reimbursed artificial insemination with donated sperms from a genius with IQ 200, then that may likely become eugenic indeed. Of course, the outcome of this still depends on the medical and/or genetic cause for the intellectual/developmental disability and the resulting pre-sentient embryo may therefore also need to be genetically pre-modified. While classical 20th century eugenicists argued that a woman with intellectual/developmental disability is simply unfit for parenthood and should therefore be forcibly sterilized so as to prevent her from bearing children outside wedlock, the point is rather that it is eugenically most preferable that she procreates with reimbursed sperm aid rather than through random non-matched sexual intercourse. There should certainly be no place whatsoever for authoritarianism in ethical eugenics vis-à-vis normally law-abiding Human citizens/residents.
There is also generally a taxonomic correlation between average IQ and the frequency of psychopathic personality in the sense that Human populations with relatively lower genotypic IQ scores tend to statistically display relatively more psychopathic behavior as acted out in mass civilization as opposed to in indigenous tribal cultures with typically more effective models for social control. Also, more intelligent psychopaths tend to be more law-abiding in all Human taxa. The same is true for subclinical psychopathic personality as the comparatively less intelligent among them are statistically more prone to crime and especially so if living in a modern society comprising diverse Human taxa with divergent genotypic psychometric profiles.
Although the internal frequency and statistical proportion of eugenically particularly valuable Human genomes certainly varies between Human taxa, individual genomes that are appropriate for some kind of selective breeding do in fact exist in all Human taxa. Every Human population may and should indeed be psychometrically-genetically improved and current psychometric average profiles are mere divergent (and unfortunately divisive) starting points in eugenic terms for universally improving the genetic basis of Human psychometric profiles worldwide.
It is common in pre-academic compulsory educational systems around the world to grade pupils and students in accordance with the psychometric average of the predominant Human genetic group in the country. Thus, average East Asian peoples constitute the psychometric norm in Singapore, average Ashkenazi Jews constitute the psychometric norm in Israel, persons of West African ancestry constitute the psychometric norm in Haiti and average indigenous Europeans of course constitute the norm in Canada. However, in order for a society to politically claim that one group is “inferior” and another group “superior”, one group must be assigned the status of a political genetic/psychometric norm. This is not only unethical, but the fact is that every such norm is based upon mediocrity as even the genetically Ashkenazi high average of IQ 110 is essentially not particularly high in future eugenic terms.
It is also common in modern societies to structurally presume that relatively less intelligent persons have less moral “value” as persons. This is implicitly applied against fellow Human persons as part of Capitalism (in e.g. differential levels of payment for work in closely correlating with differential individual IQ levels), in official systems of education such as grading, student aptitude tests and far more explicitly, brutally and cruelly so against non-Human fellow persons who are treated as sub-persons very similarly, even almost indistinguishable from how the Nazis treated Humans designated as sub-persons.
When in a taxonomically diverse Human multicultural society there are also Human genetic groups present that mutually differ in average/genotypic IQ levels, in school achievement/grades, in average levels of socio-economic achievement and in terms of statistical frequency criminal behavior, then indeed mutual racial tensions as based on envy and derogation respectively do tend to become prominent indeed. The Nazi implementation of the Shoah (Holocaust) was clearly motivated by intense Anti-Jewish envy among indigenous Europeans as even today racial, ethnic and religious tensions in Europe are usually primarily a societal outcome of average psychometric group difference as enhanced by further factors such as religion and ethnicity.
A psychometrically different minority group thus tends to become reviled for either being too successful or else in not being nearly sufficiently successful. In both cases is there a clear tendency in European culture to regard minority divergence in average achievement as “evidence” in claiming to prove that the minority is somehow “parasitical” and “conspiratorial”. While in Europe before and during the Shoah, Jews were widely envied and hated for being “too successful”; in contemporary Europe immigrated, originally non-European Muslim populations are widely hated for not being sufficiently successful as compared to indigenous Europeans. In both cases (Jews and Muslims) are the psychometrically divergent minority population widely deemed “parasitical” among too many in indigenous European populations.
The existence of average relative psychometric differences between Human taxa is certainly not an indication of either inferiority or superiority, it constitutes however divergence in terms of genotypic psychometric profiles. All Human taxa have emerged in response to their historical evolutionary environments as have of course all non-domesticated Animal taxa. Thus, the various Human taxa historically developed in order so as to survive in those particular environments in which they historically found themselves indeed.
However, judging and grading a psychometrically normal Human child belonging to a taxonomic group with comparatively relatively lower average genotypic IQ than the prevailing national genetic norm – is nothing short of child abuse – in fact taxonormativity is a form of racism. An average Muslim child from Iraq is statistically highly likely to be predisposed to become a relative low-achiever in Sweden just as an average indigenous Swedish child is statistically likely to become a relative low-achiever in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or Israel. School grades and SATs mostly correlate with IQ levels and this is reflective of different children (and not just children from minorities) having different capacities, potentials and individual needs that so often are tragically neither appreciated nor catered for.
While rabbinic Jews of the Arabophonie were a widely despised religious underclass before fleeing to Israel, many of these Jewish communities were also historically economically privileged in tending to be wealthy indeed due to their disproportionate contribution to the economic development of these countries. This was mostly due to Mizrahi Jews and even more so Sephardi Jews in Islamdom having developed higher average intelligence than those of surrounding historical host populations. After immigrating to Israel however, most of those non-Ashkenazi Jews became the new working class in Israel as Ashkenazi Jews have significantly higher IQ levels than both Mizrahi Jews and Sephardi Jews. Thus, psychometric differences should never be seen as a measurement of supposed inferiority/superiority since comparing groups is simply nothing more than just a facile comparison and exercise in relativity indeed.
There are however additional ancient ethno-religious, non-rabbinical minority groups with relatively higher levels of economic achievement than surrounding majority populations, many of which are Crypto-Jewish. Aside from such differences possibly existing within the South Asian caste system, these include the Jains, the Christian Nasranis (who widely identify as Jewish and live mostly in the State of Kerala in southern India) and the Parsis (also in India), as well as the Aramaic/Melkite Christians (who are descended from endogamous ancient Near Eastern Jewish Christians) and the also Crypto-Jewish Mandaeans, both latter groups traditionally living in the Middle East. The nominally Muslim, yet Crypto-Jewish Dönmeh were originally Sephardic Jews before becoming adherents of the 17th century messianic figure Sabbatai Zevi (Shabbetai Tzvi in modern Hebrew pronunciation) and used to speak Ladino and live in the then also mostly Ladino-speaking Jewish community of the Greek city of Thessaloniki until as “nominal Muslims” being expelled to Turkey as part of the 1923 religious population exchange agreement between Turkey and Greece. Most members of the remaining rabbinically Jewish community who remained in Thessaloniki were later murdered by Nazi Germany during the Shoah.
Modern societies are however intensely internally competitive as politics, economics, communications, science, sexuality, consumption and education are all centered on jealousy-based competition in modern Eurocentric societies. However, this persistently Neo-Hellenistic focus on competition is also highly revealing as regards average psychometric differences as educational competition in obedient learning tends to enhance rather than ameliorate divergent taxonomic outcomes in terms of socio-economic achievement, school grades and crime rates.
Dictators generally do not desire too intelligent subjects who could potentially be more intelligent than the usually highly intelligent tyrant and presumably could publically pose questions that would be highly uncomfortable indeed to despotic rulers. No coincidentally, Hitler and Stalin focused precisely on murdering the relatively more intelligent. This fear of the relatively more intelligent among tyrants is one important reason why so many dictators throughout history have persecuted Diaspora Jewish minorities which as a reaction survived persecution precisely by developing significantly higher average genotypic IQs through evolutionary selection than did the surrounding, often hostile majorities.
Therefore considering this common fear of the highly intelligent among many dictators throughout history, with technological advances ethical eugenics rather has a bright future in liberal-democratic open society although once increasingly successfully implemented in liberal democracies, some dictatorships are likely to increasingly follow suit for reasons of economic competition, but are still unlikely to lead in this regard for psychologically completely understandable reasons of despots themselves. Yet, it needs pointing out that the rule of the intelligent over the comparatively less intelligent is found in all contemporary forms of Human government and all contemporary forms of Human management. Intellocracy (i.e. rule of the intelligent) is itself also the ideological basis of the Industry of Evil (i.e. the Animal Industry).
The two conventional Western systems of post-kindergarten education – pre-academic and academic – both originating in medieval Catholic religious organizations in Western Europe, now exist in almost every country on this planet yet do exhibit a strong bias for selection for general intelligence, also known in psychometrics as the g factor. Thus, these generally internally highly competitive systems of education tend to disproportionally benefit those individual members of the various Human taxa who have relatively higher IQ. This is problematic as other aspects than intelligence (e.g. empathy, good judgment, curiosity, talent and personal interest) may often be even more important for selection to various educational tracks, although in terms of average correlation, generally the higher IQ the faster a Human person tends to learn submissively on command. This is not to say that intelligence is unimportant; it certainly is highly important but there is a distinctive, yet unstated overemphasis on intelligence, an unstated overemphasis that actually constitutes a form of evolutionary selection for intelligence that incidentally also happens to be inconsistent with the parallel dysgenic trends that work in the reverse direction and in part likewise also stem from government policy.
Ethical eugenics as compliant with the requirements of liberal democracy is however not in any sense a replacement for the right to asylum for those persecuted although the often neo-imperialist and totalitarian, ideological existential enemies of open society such as Arabists, Communists, Islamists and Nazis should become legally ineligible indeed for political asylum in liberal-democratic open societies. Asylum seekers who believe in fascist, totalitarian ideologies should instead seek asylum in North Korea, Iran, North Sudan and Cuba.
Rather, for the right to asylum to become sustainable also when major immigration occurs as involving Human population groups with relatively lower genotypic IQs as compared to the predominant host population – ethical eugenics is in fact most required for all Human populations irrespective of current genotypic IQ levels.
While brain drain such as the mass immigration of cognitively advanced members of African genetic elites to the United States is strongly dysgenic for their countries of origin in the sense that the relatively small local cognitive elites are thus being depleted with strongly dysgenic and potentially disastrous future effects for African countries, yet African elite immigration to the United States has a distinctly beneficially eugenic effect on US society, something which unfortunately does not compensate for the tragically dysgenic effect on African countries with their small and therefore quite indispensable non-European genetic elites.
Contemporary international migrations between the major regions of this planet tend however to be dysgenic in consequence in terms of the effect on the national average psychometric profile. However, dysgenic trends may be handled and effectively managed if clearly counter-acted with ethical, effective eugenics that will improve the general genotypic psychometric profiles of various Human populations and taxa worldwide. The appropriate response to long-term Human dysgenic trends is certainly not dystopian genetic segregation as advocated by White nationalists, but rather actually dealing with the reality of dysgenic trends by means of ethical eugenics, including specifically by eugenic miscegenation through sperm aid.
16. Deviating Humanity
Whilst racist Humanists very similarly to racist Nazis claim to belong to a supposedly mentally “superior” taxon deemed entitled to enslave and torment those regarded as supposedly “inferior” taxonomic others; most Humans have a very poor understanding indeed of “Humanity itself” as a biological and social phenomenon and even those who refer to themselves as “secular” tend to hold strongly religiously colored, falsely idealizing supremacist views of the Human Animals.
Although Human teeth, nails and digestive systems are clearly ones of anatomical herbivores, some pre-historical Humans at different points in time began hunting and using tools for killing others without at the same time having or developing anatomical and instinctual characteristics of carnivore Animals. Later, with the Neolithic revolution Humans began to kidnap and enslave fellow Animals; both non-Human persons and Human persons. Hence anatomically herbivore Humans changed evolutionary course from in some cases emerging tool-based predators to emerging evolutionary parasitoids killing those whom they enslave, parasite on and thus cause completely unjustifiable suffering. While anatomical predators hold important and mostly ethical functions in so called “nature” in for instance ending the suffering of the ill by consuming the sick; parasitoid organic clusters such as Human civilizations are hardly ethical in relation to other Animal species. However, Humans unlike most other parasitoid taxa are largely irrelevant for the maintenance of ecosystems.
Humans tend to live in a paradox in still being anatomical herbivores, increasingly living as evolutionary parasitoids – while identifying as predators without in nearly all cases being predators in any reasonably zoological, anatomical sense of the word with standards of zoological classification that would be applicable to other taxa. Thus, Humans constantly live in a paradox of objectively being behaviorally evil in the sense of increasingly seemingly developing into evolutionary parasitoids while identifying themselves as good which is perfectly understandable (yet equally unfounded) considering the distinctly herbivore characteristics of Human anatomy and Human instincts.
While Humans are relatively intelligent emerging parasitoids in evolutionary behavior yet not in their completely herbivore anatomy and herbivore psychology, most Humans are highly intellectually primitive in their understanding of themselves and others, living in a paradox indeed where their socially constructed generally evil behaviors hardly correspond to their socially constructed good identities. Many contemporary Humans ask why so few Humans substantially reacted to the evil and genocidal mass crimes of the Nazi German regime, yet the Nazi crime machine was a mere adaptation and extension of the Industry of Evil (a.k.a. the Animal Industry) and relatively speaking very few contemporary Humans indeed do take substantive action against the mass crimes of Humanism which are virtually indistinguishable from those of Nazism as experienced by the respective victims – albeit carried out on a far vaster scale in enslaving, tormenting and mass murdering billions of non-Human persons rather than millions of Human persons.
Relatively few Humans are yet ready to recognize that it is the same Human mass psychology that is at work, namely it is the same precise psychological mechanisms that enabled dysgenic Nazi mass crimes against nominal sub-persons which continue to enable dysgenic Humanist mass crimes against nominal sub-persons albeit only slightly differently delineated in semiotic, taxonomic terms. Therefore, it is not the Industry of Evil that should be compared to the Shoah, but rather the Shoah that should be compared to the Industry of Evil, as the Industry of Evil existed already decades before the Shoah and considering that the Industry of Evil was and is so incomparably vaster in scale. In fact, the Shoah should be seen as one historical branch of the Industry of Evil.
Both the Shoah and the Industry of Evil are expressive of the same, virtually identical parasitoid evolutionary behavioral trend, the main difference being the categorical memberships of persons selected for enslavement, torment and mass murder by Nazism and Humanism respectively. Both involve gas chambers, cruel transportation without water, mass enslavement, concentration facilities, extermination camps, selection for slave labor or immediate execution, mass murder in the millions and billions respectively, torture for “scientific” purposes and pseudo-scientific claims that purported mental superiority justifies biological supremacism, then for “Aryans”, now for “Homo sapiens sapiens”, each being officially classified as a single subspecies/race deemed “superior” by its proponents in its time.
One highly peculiar feature of Humanity is universally premature birth as all Humans are born very prematurely while still being fetuses, in fact far from ready for birth. The need for ensuring survival for the always prematurely born, highly vulnerable Human fetuses apparently prompted a need for Humans to control and manipulate their surroundings so as to ensure greater survival among Humans. This in turn caused a need for greater intelligence leading to an increasingly greater cranial size in Humans through the survival of the fittest which in turn logically led to increasingly even earlier premature birth so as to ensure that child birth remained anatomically possible in leaving the womb through the narrow Human vagina.
This is apparently what caused Humans to take a parasitical turn and Humans have been parasitoids for only a very brief period of time in evolutionary history as indeed commencing with the Neolithic revolution. Although Westerners have an historical tendency to describe categories of fellow Human beings as parasitical, they do not however generally recognize Humans generally for being what Humans actually are, namely very recent, even emerging and yes socially constructed evolutionary parasitoids. Rather, Nazis think of Jews as economic parasites, Communists think of businesspeople as economic parasites, the Anti-Muslim movement in Western Europa regards Muslims as economic parasites while liberal-democrats think of diagnostically-functionally limited persons as in effect also being economic parasites as opposed to rather being potential employees who could contribute much economically – i.e. if indeed only given the chance and opportunity with necessary functional adjustments in places of work. Yet, the Human parasitoid turn is not only a very recent one in terms of evolutionary history, but it is also crucially wholly and completely socially and evolutionary reversible indeed.
There is every reason to believe that what are in terms of evolutionary history extremely recent Human dysgenic trends are indeed connected to Human unethical descent into evolutionary parasitism, thus reversing earlier evolutionary eugenic trends prior to the Neolithic revolution. Human parasitism is increasingly destroying its only planet while also harming Human gene pools by means of Human dysgenic trends worldwide, including by historically lower fertility rates and late childbirth within genetically-psychometrically advanced cognitive elites around the world in different Human taxa. Humanity therefore needs to recognize its own very abnormality and manifest “primitiveness” in needing to change course from its current path that involves destroying both itself (i.e. its own genome) and the tremendously rich diversity of surrounding organisms/genomes that constitute living environments on Planet Earth. Humans therefore need to first socially recognize and subsequently culturally repudiate its own parasitical turn which of course is an extremely recent one in the history of the evolution of the contemporary Human genus, the homo genus and certainly completely reversible even through social and cultural means alone.
The introduction of artificial uteri as available free of charge to the general public will mean that Humans will no longer need to be born prematurely in instead staying months longer in the artificial uterus than in the natural womb and this is likely to have a significant beneficial effect on the social development of Human personalities as the no doubt profoundly traumatic developmental period following upon premature Human birth (all Human infants are currently born prematurely) is likely to increasingly disappear as few Human females are likely to wish to engage in the trials of conventional “natural” birth when artificial uteri become freely available to all and children will therefore remain in the artificial wombs as long as is individually beneficial and appropriate indeed in terms of general developmental psychology.
17. Feminism and Technology
The easiest and most effective form of ethical eugenics that can be implemented at present is however to reimburse Human females worldwide to receive artificial insemination from psychometrically highly advanced donors, including through sperm aid as involving extensive international aid cooperation.
Those who do understand the crucial importance of ethical eugenics need to personally encourage the future development of ethically eugenic technologies such as artificial uteri, because once available these will no doubt be universally utilized in every nation that can afford to offer this technology free of charge to its Human citizens. Feminists and advocates of ethical eugenics need therefore to work closely together for the crucial development of organic artificial uteri and for the associated also highly important development of industrial production of ‘natural’ breast milk without need for breastfeeding. Polygynous open society will not only be eugenic but also feminist in the sense that about 95% of Human beings will be anatomically female and this means that society will also likely be largely led by females in most positions of authority in liberal-democratic open societies.
Currently, women are on average much less psychopathic than men in the same taxa – while men have on average higher taxonomic IQs than have women in the same Human taxa. Men will continue to be relatively statistically overrepresented to some degree in some positions of authority relative to their proportion of the population, but being merely a small minority in a future eugenic-feminist society, liberal democracy will obviously be under complete female majority rule in liberal-democratic societies. Males bred in androgenic marriage will however continue to be relatively more intelligent than females bred in gynogenic marriage in the same generation as is logical for the purpose of selective breeding – as the stronger psychometric/genetic selection for androgenic marriage – the more rapid the improvement of average psychometric genotypic profiles in Human populations.
Also, global policy will need to very substantially reduce the use of poisonous chemicals that are most likely dysgenic in the sense of likely causing deteriorating genomes. It should hence become illegal to produce, sell or use poisonous ingredients when this is plainly not necessary. E.g. there are effective soaps, shampoos, detergents and dishwashing liquids that do not contain poisonous synthetic chemicals so these that do should simply not be legally permitted on the principle of ethical choice as irresponsible use of chemicals may likely have unpredictable, likely negative effects on the continuous dysgenic deterioration of the Human genome.
The reason why Humans in being mentally collectivist herd Animals behave as irrationally as they currently do in genetically destroying both their exterior and their interior is indeed due to its parasitical evolutionary turn as initiated already with the Neolithic revolution. Humans view their exterior environment as part of themselves (“ownership” and “jurisdiction” respectively) as should be expected from intelligent parasitoids while paradoxically viewing their interior environment as completely divorced from their exterior environment, again the psychology of an increasingly parasitoid genus. There is no doubt that something has gone very wrong indeed and that wrong turn is the Human turn to evil parasitism which is ruining both internal (Human) and external (non-Human) genomes. In fact, Human males generally engage in parasitical behavior towards Human females, this behavior now being known as “patriarchy”.
The intellectual founder of the modern Animal Movement, the Australian Jewish utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer has suggested that instead of developing medicines for medical conditions that at least in part are caused by ageing, scientists should rather look at halting ageing itself by genetic means. Of course, this could cause increasing overpopulation; however the obvious solution to this would then be space colonization provided that rapid and affordable space transportation can be arranged for vast distances in universe.
Capitalism would then presumably make space colonization viable considering the immense potential economic awards and the likely almost unlimited number of planets (and other potential loci) in universe that could hypothetically become suitable for Human space colonization. Halting biological ageing would progressively make Humans live increasingly longer and perhaps eventually almost indefinitely. This would also require genetic modification as necessary for the purpose of psychometric-genetic improvement of existing persons. Otherwise, existing persons may fear being supplanted and reduced to second or third class status by more intelligent generations in the work place. Therefore, halting Human ageing could in a sense have potentially dysgenic consequences in terms of established Human populations therefore remaining in a state of psychometric mediocrity unless there is also a persistent eugenic-scientific focus on psychometrically improving also existing persons which could conceivably happen through cybernetic brain implantations such as for enhanced memory. Halting ageing may however not necessarily be far away and could potentially have dysgenic consequences indeed as an outcome of inter-generational rivalry.
18. Embryo Selection
Use of artificial uteri should for obvious eugenic reasons be fully financed by governments in economically developed countries while those preferring to undergo natural birth in those nations should bear their own expenses as regards pregnancy, childbirth and maternity care. Artificial uteri will also allow infants to stay much longer in the artificial uterus than would otherwise be possible in a woman’s womb. It is likely that with time and the beneficially longer, more natural period of time spent in artificial uteri as opposed to currently in wombs of female Humans, natural birth will come to be recognized as a form of highly traumatizing child abuse as well as in fact being highly detrimental to the health of mothers in contributing to otherwise unnecessarily premature biological ageing such as causing incontinence in young women.
Artificial uteri will importantly also enable very careful selection of which specific early naturally conceived pre-sentient embryos to indeed further gestate in artificial uteri. The chromosomal sex of early embryos may also be changed in the future as appropriate indeed to ensure that most females are born in gynogenic marriage while most males are born in androgenic marriage.
However, increasing genetic knowledge will certainly enable better choice in this regard but will also entail dysgenic risks in terms of risking loss of vital Human hereditary cognitive diversity. Therefore, it is important that intervention is not done without there being profound knowledge of the issues at play both socially and genetically. Embryo selection carries little individual risk as compared to genetic modification, yet risks dysgenically undoing valuable Human cognitive diversity – i.e. if not managed with great policy prudence indeed.
Here a distinction needs to be made between choices made by parents and choices made by future transparent eugenic government agencies in liberal-democratic open societies. Obviously, both avenues of choice may become potentially dysgenic in erasing still not yet appreciated genetic diversity as is already done on a vast scale against non-Human genetic diversity worldwide, however there needs to be a division of power between the two in terms of the making of choices with regard to embryo selection. In fact, domains of choices that are appropriate for pre-parental decision-making may not necessarily be appropriate for decision-making by government agencies and vice versa.
The management of such choices under the transparent regime of liberal democracy in open society also carries the substantial risk that the cognitive majority will attempt to eliminate cognitive minorities which is indeed what happened during the Nazi period in Europe. It would for instance be completely inappropriate for governments to generally prevent the gestation of fetuses with Down syndrome as these fetuses usually grow into viable persons who may lead happy, indeed highly fulfilling lives, i.e. if of course given the social and economic opportunity to do so.
However, it could be argued that whether to gestate pre-sentient embryos with Down syndrome is a legitimate choice for parents to make provided that diverse parents will make divergent choices in this regard on the basis of practical, religious and other considerations. It could contrariwise be argued that the authority of pre-parents may potentially eradicate not yet appreciated, yet valuable Human genetic diversity. On the other hand, the responsibility in raising and caring for offspring with Down syndrome may be described as often relatively far more demanding so it could also be argued that parents should be allowed discretion of choice whether to gestate pre-sentient embryos that are chromosomally endowed with Down syndrome.
Human cognitive diversity which to most contemporary Humans may seem trivial will likely come to be seen as increasingly valuable for both persons and societies once average genotypic IQ levels begin to increasingly and substantially rise thanks to future ethical eugenics policies. It is in fact already a tremendous waste of economic resources for society not to appreciate and appropriately utilize divergent cognitive abilities through economic specialization on the wider spectrum of existing Human cognitive diversity.
Embryo selection as limited to pre-sentient early embryos will therefore involve both positive selection for improved psychometric profiles and negative selection that will lessen the frequency of unnecessary medical conditions while protecting states of disability that do not necessarily intrinsically involve suffering per se.
19. Genetic Modification
Commercial breeding and genetic modification of enslaved non-Human Animal persons certainly tend to be highly dysgenic in effect and such practices clearly need to be outlawed so as to not only end such completely unethical practices with regard to non-Human legal “sub-persons” thus denied their intrinsic, inherent personhood – but also so as to prevent dysgenic intervention from being applied to the Human genome as in effect is what happened during the Nazi period in Europe. While there is no denying that there are most clearly genetic opportunities, the potential genetic dangers are also immense and this is clearly not something that may be left to be managed merely by free markets as procreative errors may have highly tragic, indeed individually irreversible medical consequences.
Genetic improvement by genetic modification should therefore only be done for the benefit of existing or future persons (whether Human or otherwise) who are thus respectively genetically modified and genetically pre-modified. Modification of DNA of persons is difficult to ethically regulate by law due to the complexity of genomes and the complex and still little understood interaction between quite disparate and diverse factors arbitrarily lumped together under the simplistic metaphysical binary of so called nature and nurture. Genetic modification of embryos to ensure successful homozygosity (pairs of identical alleles) on the basis of widely observed psychometrically successful models of homozygosis in persons may be one of the relatively risk-free types of eugenic genetic modification. Medical experimentation in enslaved persons is irrespectively of taxon unscientific, highly unreliable, completely unethical and unacceptable as well as dangerous and so must never be used as ethical scientific methods should be developed and used in its stead. Eugenic genetic modification must therefore be reasonably free from risk in the sense of being safe and reasonably well understood in terms of genetic consequences.
There is no doubt that genetic knowledge will increasingly grow with time and hence create more and more safe opportunities for ethically eugenic genetic modification. However, this must be legally regulated without unnecessarily restricting safe eugenic opportunities. While there is definitely a large role in this regard for the private sector to play, there needs to be clear legal safeguards so as to prevent dangerous dysgenic practices whether as applied to Human Animals, to other Earthling persons or even if existing to Extraterrestrial persons.
20. Learning from History
What then can be learned in this regard from tragic 20th century history? There were two main forms of intra-human totalitarianism in Europe at the time; Nazism and Communism. Both the Soviet regime and the Nazi regime pursued distinctly dysgenic agendas focused on murdering the relatively more intelligent among Human persons whom these two totalitarian regimes of 20th century Europe viewed as threats to their own political ambitions and indeed to their own respective grips on power. Most civilians who were murdered by the Nazi regime were however killed due to various pragmatic political considerations.
European Jews were viewed as Afro-Asian parasitical foreigners economically outcompeting “Aryans” for both economic resources and elite positions in European society through a fantasized global Jewish conspiracy to control the world. The ultimate decision to implement the Final Solution was largely a pragmatic one in response to lobbying by the leadership of the Palestinian movement in exile in Berlin in pressing the Nazi regime to indeed go for total extermination of the Jews as opposed to deportation and assisted escape to say Madagascar, Siberia or the Land of Israel that were all options that the Nazi regime internally discussed and contemplated. Also, the Nazis feared European Jews would act as Soviet spies and provocateurs behind German military lines unless isolated and exterminated. Notably, the US government had similar fears in deciding to incarcerate (without however exterminating) its Japanese minority population during WWII. The Nazi regime’s wartime decision in favor of total extermination of the Jews rather than resettling Europe’s Jewish minority outside of Europe was thus from the Nazi leaders’ perspective an expression of pragmatic choice as they considered options for resettlement to be ineffective, unrealistic and unfeasible.
The Roma people were resented by the Nazis for their significantly above average crime rates and migratory lifestyles in Western Europe although Roma people in Eastern Europe were already long since settled. Germans with intellectual/developmental disabilities were already confined to gender-segregated institutions that most strictly prevented all attempted procreation long before the Nazis even came to power and they were thus exterminated by the Nazis for purely economic reasons so as to “free resources”, i.e. buildings, medical staff, funding and hospital beds. Gays were feared for their strong mutual bonds as were Jehovah’s Witnesses, the latter whom as socialists and Communists were feared by the Nazi leadership for their transnational ties and particularly Communist ties with the Soviet Union as organized Communists at the time largely took direct political orders from Moscow. It should be kept in mind that Nazism and Communism although highly similar were also competitors in totalitarianism.
The Nazi focus in terms of their murder policy was largely on killing those whom they regarded as networks of actually or potentially competing elites such as obviously generally highly intelligent Polish intellectuals whom the Nazis also exterminated immediately upon occupying Poland. The Jews were no exception in this regard for the Nazi regime, although the Nazi German leadership sincerely believed that there was a global Jewish conspiracy striving to control the world in therefore supposedly competing with the Nazis’ own very real neo-imperialist ambitions in these regards. This meant that the Nazi leadership interpreted political events in highly peculiar Anti-Jewish conspiratorial terms as do still most contemporary Neo-Nazis.
Yet, the Nazi German regime was openly interested in mass procreation of blond people and even abducted blond Jewish children in Eastern Europe who for some reason were thus considered appropriate for blond procreation and were therefore given away for the purpose of adoption to members of the German Nazi party while the Jewish biological parents were usually murdered. Blondness is associated with significant loss of pigmentation in climates and on altitudes where pigmentation offers less genetic advantage. There is no documented eugenic psychometric advantage however in fair hair and non-brown eyes among indigenous Europeans or for that matter among Ashkenazi Jews or anyone else.
Yet, the Nazis specifically recruited blond German men into the SS which likely must have meant that the relative proportion of blonds in the German population was relatively reduced as most German SS soldiers in fact died during the first years of World War II. If the Nazi leadership had indeed been consistent with its nominally stated agenda of promoting genetic blondness in Europe, then they should surely have exempted blond German men from military service as combat soldiers, such as in the SS. Thus, dystopian Nazi policy was dysgenic even by the standards of their own professed genetic agenda. Despite these blond ambitions and the Nazi totalitarian control over Germany society, the Nazi regime never created or even designed a blueprint for any government program specifically devised for breeding for blondness or any other particular trait. The Nazi policy of forcibly sterilizing Germans with partly hereditary medical conditions was however in keeping with eugenic ideas of the time that were hardly unique to Germany but were in fact widespread in Western countries. Extrajudicial sterilization as imposed by social workers continued in Western countries during the latter part of the 20th century and was practiced in Sweden and Norway as long as until the 1970’s.
Decades after WWII, due to lack of serious eugenic proposals that were neither discriminatory nor authoritarian, eugenics came to be retroactively and wrongly associated with the overwhelmingly dysgenic Nazi regime which used seemingly eugenic arguments in their propaganda to justify their own dysgenic and dystopian policies, including their clearly most dysgenic extermination of Ashkenazi Jewry, a population with far higher average genotypic IQ and average socio-economic achievement than those of indigenous genetic Europeans.
What then can be learned from the tragedies of the 20th century? Totalitarian neo-imperialist existential enemies of open society tend to ideologically camouflage themselves as indeed the very opposite of what they actually are. This is true even today of those neo-imperialist, Anti-Jewish genocidal movements in the Middle East (Arabism & Islamism) seeking a Second Shoah against the six million rabbinic Jews of Indigenous Israel. Europeans however tend to refuse to draw policy conclusions from Nazi history about neo-imperialist, openly Anti-Jewish genocidal political agendas in the Middle East among Islamist and Arabist existential enemies of open society in irresponsibly and repeatedly calling upon Israel to take self-defeating measures (and thus repeating historical mistakes) that would certainly risk enabling a second Shoah.
There is of course always the possibility that almost any policy or technology may enable some amount of abuse and the most important obstacles to that are legislation, transparency, judicial oversight and division of powers between government agencies, prospective parents, private companies and non-governmental organizations. Hence, governments should pay for comprehensive psychometric and genetic testing of all citizens who so desire and consent so indeed. Governments should also pay for the psychometric-genetic marital matching, yet it is vitally important that as many eugenic functions as possible are outsourced to private companies and non-governmental organizations with retained full public funding of the marital matching services in question.
Databases with psychometric and genetic data must be strictly anonymized to prevent undue access and any genetic/psychometric negative selection whatsoever against law-abiding (in the sense of non-recidivist) citizens must be strictly legally prohibited as a fundamental principle of constitutional law. It is clear that judicial oversight is highly important and there must therefore be easily accessible legal avenues whenever infringements do take place despite all security safeguards and systemic precautions. Abuse such as corruption could also have dysgenic effects so the eugenics of the future must be safeguarded from potentially dysgenic effects of any such misdemeanors.
As about 95% of the Human population will be females in ethically eugenic polygynous Human societies, this will signal the definitive end of what is now known as patriarchy in liberal-democratic open societies. It is even possible that Human males will come to be regarded as an oppressed minority. Human females will become an absolute majority and yes they will rule liberal democracies.
It is sometimes claimed that polygamy in the sense of polygyny creates unsound competition between wives and general unhappiness for women. However, if there is unhappiness – then any spouse may certainly move on to another psychometrically precise, indeed instant marital match and yet another and yet another if indeed so preferred until she finds her right match. Matrimonial matching for eugenic polygyny should not only ensure multidimensional compatibility between the prospective bride and the prospective groom but crucially also between the co-wives, including crucially sexually so.
The unnecessary phenomenon of IRL involuntary permanent loneliness that is so common in modern economically advanced urbanized society will thus really cease to be a problem as marital psychometric mass matching will be offered to all those who agree to be comprehensively tested both psychometrically and genetically. This involuntary contemporary phenomenon particularly includes the many instances of involuntarily single mothers living in often unnecessarily quite economically challenging conditions and who will be able to immediately get a precise and instant mutually approved marital matching to their own liking, indeed only two clicks away. And of course, if she would not like a suggested match, she can always click for yet another one or yet another until a match finally matches her expectations indeed.
Psychometric polygyny will crucially facilitate child rearing and significantly lessen the parental burden of mothers as co-wives crucially will be able to assist each other through mutual solidarity in childrearing as children of polygyny will in most cases grow up as half-siblings in frequently sharing the same father indeed.
The fact that girls will mostly grow up in families of gynogenic marriage and boys will mostly grow up in families of androgenic marriage means that girls will receive more parental (mostly maternal) attention as growing up in typically not having to compete as of now with brothers for parental attention. Similarly, girls being about 95% of pupils will ensure that most female pupils will similarly receive much more educational attention at school in not needing so much to compete with statistically relatively more psychopathic boys for the attention of educators. With 95% of Humans being females, the sexualized nature of public advertisement is also likely to change quite substantially, possibly even being inverted into men becoming the main target of public sexualization. In short; what is known as patriarchy will end.
23. Sexual Contract
Sexual relations in a predominantly polygynous future society would need to be somehow socially renegotiated and even legally so in offering various contractual matrimonial options. In the typical polygynous matrimonial household, the sexual obligations and sexual rights of spouses would therefore need to be legally defined through one of several legally available standardized contractual forms with certain optional variations.
Hence in the likely most common form, the female spouses would be entitled to regularly spend the night with their matrimonial male as per a regular schedule and each married female would thus be legally entitled to regular sexual interaction with the married male in accordance with her real sexual need. If more than one female spends the night with the male at the same time, then each married female would be enabled to spend the night with the married male more frequently, yet without excessive male sexual attention and this means that matrimonial group sex will likely become the societal norm in most polygynous households.
This would essentially turn the married male into essentially a nocturnal sex worker, something which is long since at least in theory the case for marital sex in traditional rabbinic Judaism under Jewish religious law where the husband is obliged by religious law to offer sexual services as the wife sexually demands during the safely non-menstrual period of the month when marital sexual intercourse is religiously permitted. The married male should have a corresponding right to consensual sexual interaction of his own choice at most other times to the degree that the female spouse in question is not absent, ill, gainfully working or otherwise necessarily preoccupied with clearly more important matters. It is even possible that providing sex to wives will become the main occupation of married males as marital sex workers would thus be provided for by their female marital companions.
Western conceptions of sexuality typically center on the notion of explicit consent (understood as “true will”, i.e. individual autonomy), while as crucially pointed out by the late prominent Algerian-born French-Jewish philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), involuntary sexual relations is what most Humans deep down desire, perhaps most of all, even if only subconsciously so. Of course this does not usually mean preference for just any kind of ‘involuntary’ sexual relations with just ‘any person’ (although for some it does); however the deep universally Human psychological desire for involuntary sexual relations could be appropriately expressed through this type of matrimonial consensual sexual contract.
Essentially, married males would be full-time voluntary contractual lovers at night while females would be part-time voluntary, contractual, occasional lovers during the day to the degree of course present and not otherwise vitally preoccupied. This would ensure an appropriate ‘balance of power’ so to speak between females and males in future polygynous matriarchal society. While the male would be a ‘sex slave’ most nights, females would typically otherwise provide sexual services only occasionally as requested by the male during day – the latter which is precisely what takes place both during day and night in contemporary “monogamy”, albeit typically far more frequently so than would be the case for each individual married female in polygyny. Therefore, the married male in polygynous matrimony would be ethically expected not to sexually overburden any specific wife and instead fairly share his attention (sexually, emotionally and socially) among the different wives even during daytime. This is also something males will need education and professional training so as to indeed appropriately perform.
However, further types of marital-sexual contracts should be available and could be selected by the spouses in question as part of the psychometric-genetic marital mass matching, although this particular sexual contract would balance female sexual need against male sexual need quite effectively and indeed ethically so. Of course, anyone should be able to leave a marriage at any time for any reason of her/his own discretion and get very exactly (and quickly so) psychometrically matched for yet a different existing or prospective marital household. A married male who sexually overburdens any particular female spouse would thus risk losing not only her, but likely other female spouses as well by the causing of discord among his spouses. As alternative male matches would be easily available to the wives, a male with inappropriate behavior could easily find himself losing most of his female spouses and with them his children as well.
In androcentric eugenic harems however, scheduled sexual intercourse would largely be as according to the monthly respective schedules of ovulation of the females so as to fulfill procreative obligations on the part of females and males alike in such eugenic harems. Nearly all sexual relations in androcentric eugenic harems would be exclusively between females although females would need to be sexually available for procreative and other sexual interaction at most times when so requested by either a singular matrimonial male or multiple genetically identical matrimonial males in an androcentric eugenic harem. Hence androcentric eugenic harems would be especially suitable for genetically valuable individual females with a great personal interest in same-sex sexual relations.
24. Temporary Marriage
Yet, there is really no valid reason whatsoever why there should be only one legally recognized form of marriage. Temporary marriage exists among Shi’a Muslims (known in Arabic as nikah al mut‘ah) and this is also something that could be encouraged within decidedly ethical, eugenic frameworks. For instance, female students in higher education should be encouraged to engage in organized procreation with particular professors whom they happen to especially admire. These females might want to raise ensuing children themselves or this might be done by others who would accept embryo donation or the resulting offspring would either be raised in eugenic youth villages or by adoptive parents. Special welcoming facilities should be created so as to enable outstanding females to apply and subsequently book an appointment for ethical sexual procreation with available genetically valuable prominent academic males of the female’s own choice such and a particular male university professors would himself obviously be able to individually accept or decline such a formal digital application for procreation by a female whether a student or others.
There should also be official procreative institutions where genetically valuable males would work as trained procreative sex workers. It is likely in a eugenic open society that some females may want to marry a certain type of male while procreating with quite yet another kind of male. In fact, this already de facto takes place on a rather significant scale in contemporary economically developed open societies.
If possible in such configurations, natural insemination would seem preferable to artificial insemination from an evolutionary point of viewpoint as natural insemination involves more intense competition among far more energetic sperms in the evolutionary race to reach the ovum. Artificial insemination with never frozen fresh sperms, in the sense of artificial insemination being synchronized to happen immediately after the ejaculation of the male donor in an adjacent room – could however be a eugenically meaningful compromise combining advantages of both natural insemination and artificial insemination respectively. Natural insemination with a highly attractive eugenic male sex worker may however prove particularly attractive to many females and this could definitely serve ethically eugenic purposes.
It is likely that many genetically valuable females in a future polygynous society who would be interested in eugenic androcentric harem marriage may want to be married in an androcentric harem for only a limited period of time (as opposed to permanently) and then perhaps prefer to move on to a regular androgenic marriage. These genetically valuable females who prefer harem marriage for only a limited period of time should still retain some kind of harem title of nobility in recognition of their time in the eugenic harem. A temporary harem female may thus continue to raise her children in the nearby youth village adjacent to the androcentric harem or her procreative activities while in harem may otherwise solely take the form of genetic donations for the purpose of youth villages without biological parents necessarily being present.
Most sex workers in a eugenically polygynous society are likely to be male rather than as of present usually female. Eugenic sex work also has the potential to provide much genetically valuable procreation for eugenic purposes. Genetically valuable males and genetically valuable females should thus be accepted for academic sex work programs devised to train the future sex workers. Professional sex work should thus always include temporary marriage although sex workers would in most cases also be permanently married within the non-professional sphere.
Professional sex work without contraception for the purpose of eugenically organized natural insemination should thus be encouraged among fertile and trained, exceptionally genetically valuable sex workers of all genders although this requires rigorously testing all clients for STD. This could also be performed through a combination of protected sex with condoms and subsequent donation of fresh sperms. Female exceptionally genetically valuable sex workers may thus also contribute embryos which as children would be growing up in eugenic youth villages or simply as adoptees. It is even quite possible that many fertile prospective parents may actually prefer to raise exceptionally genetically gifted children who are not their own biological children. Natural procreation with an exceptionally genetically valuable male sex worker may include the female customer simply donating the ensuing embryo(s) for eugenically reproductive purposes or she may raise a child within her own marriage or in another lifestyle that she may individually prefer. The sexual services provided by male sex workers to particular female customers should in certain instances be free of charge as fully funded by the government provided it involves specifically eugenically motivated natural insemination for eugenic procreative purposes.
Of course, society’s typically negative attitude towards sex work and sex workers will need to change as the profession turns into one of high social status and even sometimes official nobility for an exceptionally genetically valuable sex worker and even for some of the first-generation offspring. However, in a broader sense of the term, most Humans in future polygynous eugenic society will become sex workers in permanent marriage and temporary marriage.
25. Sexual Utopia
It should therefore be clear that any successful, ethically eugenic future needs to be an ethical sexual utopia as well. Sexuality constitutes a particularly powerful incentive structure that should be mobilized for ethically eugenic purposes and sexual incentive structures should therefore be built into ethically eugenic public policy. Marital psychometric matching should of course also take into consideration sexual diversity and sexual mass psychometric matching for temporary marriage should also be available such as for temporary sexual relations. There will essentially be no or almost no sexual, familial or residential involuntary loneliness anymore as the size of the Human population worldwide as well as inside most countries is literally so gargantuan so as to permit very exact mass psychometric matching for all existing ethical purposes of Human societal selection such as love, marriage, friendship, education, entrepreneurship, employment as well as provision of personalized services by educated professionals such as hairdressers, consultants, lawyers, medical professionals, psychotherapists and indeed future highly educated sex workers.
The vast global consumption of pornography (as currently mostly distributed through the worldwide web) and widely also used for purposes of lonesome masturbation shows that there is a serious sexual/gender dysfunction that is built into secular modernity. Fixing this dysfunction as laid out and suggested in this policy report would constitute an effective incentive structure towards increasingly realizing an ethically eugenic worldwide open society. Considering the importance of sexuality for reproduction, it would surely be the height of irresponsibly and folly to not arrange and deploy sexual incentive structures for ethically eugenic public policy purposes.
26. Hospitality Marriage
Very precise psychometric matching within the entire Human population in a polygynous, ethically eugenic society would also open up the very possibility of female functionally bisexual breeding collectives without even one male matrimonial permanent resident. For these female matrimonial collectives as composed of genetically valuable females there would be online catalogues of select highly attractive and exceptionally genetically valuable males. Both eugenic female communities and the ‘catalogue males’ would be composed of persons generally considered highly physically attractive and who would at the same time be highly genetically valuable. Female breeding collectives would hence invite a ‘catalogue male’ to become the resident male for a period of at most six months during which the female collective and the resident male would produce many embryos, some of which would be gestated for being raised in eugenic youth villages, including as adjacent to a female breeding community. The resident male would thus be in a state of temporary marriage with the females offering him sexual and other forms hospitality.
It is also possible that other Human females who may not be as psychometrically exceptional may still want to prefer hospitality marriage to the constancy and what many regard as the relative boredom of being married to the same male all the time. If they were to prefer procreation with exceptionally genetically valuable ‘catalogue males’ of their group’s own choice with psychometric input for selection, then that would definitely serve an ethically eugenic purpose and the mothers would raise these children together by themselves. However, while in eugenic female breeding collectives the male would be funded by the government (whether directly or indirectly), in genetically/psychometrically non-elite female collective families, the females would pay the resident male a monthly salary. Having to pay for the stay of each resident male would certainly make it even more attractive to live in such matrimonial unions for many psychometrically more ordinary female citizens who would thus need to choose to raise their children together without the need for any permanent resident father.
Hospitality marriage would be yet another type of temporary marriage and ‘catalogue males’ would in both above types of hospitality unions (eugenic and other) usually be symbolic ‘sex slaves’ in the sense that they would be contractually obliged to carry out nearly all types of sexual requests subject to certain individual limitations as mostly set by the resident male himself prior to becoming a catalogue male and prior to accepting an invitation for marital hospitality. However, either the resident male or the female matrimonial community could obviously unilaterally decide to end the marital hospitality union at any point in time at their own complete discretion.
It is even possible with time in an ethically eugenic polygynous society that the main role of Human males will be seen as semen-producers, inseminators and highly educated sex workers for matriarchal, mostly female future Human society. Thus, it is entirely possible and perhaps even likely with time in an ethically eugenic society that commercial hospitality marriage will increasingly supplant permanent romantic marriage. Hence, the role of males would possibly be sexualized and commercialized to a very significant degree and thus likely even more so than is currently typically the case for younger females in commercialized modern society. Especially genetically valuable Human males could hence fill a eugenic niche with the typically considerable ability, capacity and willingness of most males to provide sexual and procreative services.
Would most Human males ultimately be ready to give up the ancient cultural inheritance of patriarchal domination in return for leading a life devoted to sexual relations with multiple Human females of mutual liking? There can be little doubt that the true answer would most certainly be in the affirmative for most Human males if indeed genuinely given a consequential, real personal choice in this regard. The adult male commitment to so called “monogamy” is for most Human males either hypocrisy, decorum or a combination of the two. Indeed, there is a whore inside nearly every Human man looking to come out of the hypocritically “monosexual” closet. Males becoming matrimonial whores to females in a polygynous society will no doubt help solve most gender problems for both females and males alike.
Then, would most females accept not exercising a supposedly life-long sexual monopoly over one singular male? That would be less of an issue as psychometric polygyny would only apply to future generations as the proportion of male gestation in the artificial uteri would be very significantly reduced indeed. The new generation of females would be educated into a pro-sexuality feminist worldview and would hence be prepared by society for leading very different lives as compared to the often tragic experiences of their maternal ancestors under patriarchy.
Yet, it is likely that the experience of aesthetics of physical exteriors will take on an increasingly added importance in an increasingly advanced eugenic polygynous society in the sense that female marital collectives will desire highly attractive resident males although of course there are many ways of being beautiful and attractive and there is a great deal of cognitive diversity in terms of its appreciation. Similarly, resident males may not necessarily want to inseminate females whom they may not consider sufficiently sexually and aesthetically attractive. Therefore, physical beauty may become eugenically important in an advanced eugenic society in the sense that those generally considered beautiful/attractive among the relatively more genetically valuable will be relatively more likely to naturally reproduce themselves. This may in fact already be the case in contemporary society. There may therefore in the future appear a eugenic need to genetically promote beauty as an indirect means towards ethically eugenic ends. To thus procreatively combine beauty and intelligence may hence turn out particularly eugenically beneficial indeed.
While more physical conditions amounting to what is often derogatively described as “ugliness” should be given the status of medical diagnosis and thus qualify for medical treatment such as free plastic surgery – it is vital however that reasonable morphological diversity is partly retained with respect to what is appreciated and known as beauty. This is needed precisely as the aesthetically diverse experience of beauty everywhere in nature is a mechanism for evolutionary procreation. Innate beauty is expressed and/or experienced in “Nature” due to the need to directly or indirectly facilitate reproduction and beauty is experienced in perception of organism and other matter precisely due to this very evolutionary existential need to reproduce. While in principle beauty in and of itself may not be a particularly important (albeit worthy) eugenic goal, it is likely at some stage to become an indirectly important eugenic goal in its own right due to both popular demand and to its importance for eugenic, positive procreative selection more generally.
27. Educational/Recreational Procreation
In such a future eugenic open society, special education centers could be established where females would be given an education in the eugenically feminist theory/practice of sexuality. At least some of the instructors would be exceptionally genetically valuable males (the others being females) and the provision of natural insemination (or protected sex with subsequent provision of fresh sperms) could become a logical and meaningful element in this educational experience. It is possible and even likely that many future females may prefer to procreate their future children in this way while later participating in the commercial hiring of ‘catalogue males’ in female sexual collectives for most recreational female sexual purposes. This is a vital aspect as not only sexual education but also hands-on sexual training is likely to take on an increasing importance in an ethically eugenic polygynous society. In particular, many males clearly need social and sexual training so as to learn how to appropriately behave towards females.
It would thus be important to develop various societal institutions, commercial as well as non-commercial that would serve to facilitate natural insemination (or protected sex with subsequent fresh sperm provision) by psychometrically exceptional, genetically valuable males in physical environments designed to welcome and genuinely earn the trust and confidence of all female guests. It is thus entirely possible to imagine privately owned companies (yet potentially funded by governments) with predesigned ‘theme facilities’ that would be highly attractive for females desiring to conceive children and where they would indeed receive natural insemination from psychometrically exceptional males in safe and inspiring environments of specific kinds. This could be highly eugenically highly beneficial while at the same time creating new opportunities for business and employment in the field of ethically eugenic procreation.
It is also possible that future procreation will increasingly take the form of sexually matched vacations of different kinds. This could include participation of usually male sex workers but could also happen by means of temporary sexual matching between residents of two different countries. This could for instance attract tourism to say Israel (with its significant Ashkenazi population) as natural insemination could become a growth engine in the Israeli tourism sector as many females worldwide may want to be naturally inseminated with Ashkenazi “elite sperms” for combined procreative and recreational purposes while still being married to or wanting to marry a different male in their own country. Females could this way gestate and raise children with significantly better chances to succeed socially and economically than would statistically be the case if the genetically/psychometrically non-elite matrimonial male himself was the biological father.
28. Taxonomic Supremacism
Mass murder by racial supremacists whether Nazis or Humanists has often provided significant material advantages for the supremacist abusers themselves, yet taxonomic supremacism is profoundly unethical and wholly indefensible whether it is Nazi, Humanist or otherwise.
Certainly, being somewhat relatively more intelligent should not be seen as a license to engage in totalitarian behavior towards the perhaps relatively less intelligent. Hence, the new ethical eugenics must never be taxonomically divisive between Human taxa in never stigmatizing taxa with relatively lower average genotypic IQs and typically higher average psychometric frequency of psychopathic personality. Any eugenics that is taxonomically divisive between Human taxa is most likely bound to fail and for mostly good reasons so.
In fact, this writer is a second generation Jewish survivor of the Shoah who became an ethical vegan after ultimately understanding that it is precisely the same mass psychological mechanisms at play that permitted the vast Nazi crimes to occur that permits the so called the Industry of Evil to indeed continue day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, for over two centuries in causing horrendous, yet completely unjustified suffering, huge mass murder and gargantuan mass torment to other sentient persons merely because the contemporary hegemonic supremacist-racist ideology considers them to be “sub-persons” whom members of the supremacist taxon essentially must feel free to enslave, abuse, torment, take advantage of and mass murder indeed.
Thus, while Nazism has been the subject of much devastating critique, Humanism is an equally unsuitable paradigm for ethical eugenics. Indeed, Humanism is to its victims precisely what Nazism was to its victims. Therefore, Human genetic diversity must serve as one of several important founding pillars of future ethical eugenics policies. This of course does not mean that all genetic diversity is good and worthy of preservation, just as is certainly not all cultural diversity. It is however obviously very easy to be ethnocentric and state that those Human groups with eugenically relatively less advanced average psychometric profiles than one’s own genetic group are somehow “objectively inferior” and must therefore be shunned, discriminated and even harmed although surely this is merely a futile exercise in relativity. This is precisely the kind of extremely unhelpful and unethical mindset that prevents ethical creative thinking and innovative public debate about the very crucial matter of ethical eugenics as consistent with the liberal-democratic value system of worldwide open society.
Humanism is highly oppressive even to most Humans in modernity in the sense that the superstructure (hegemonic societal standards) of Humanism postulates an ever-fluctuating behavioral & aesthetic ideal (i.e. performative Humanist idealization) to which born Human beings are supposed to be socially normalized to and essentially irrespectively so of individual psychometric profile. Since virtually no one successfully fully conforms to this ideal; this means that Humanist idealization is highly abusive and oppressive not only towards non-Human persons but against Human persons as well although somewhat more subtly so in not being accepting of Human inherent cognitive/somatic diversity.
Therefore, ethical eugenics must embrace psychometric diversity, not only as a value in the present but also for the genetic future. Psychometric traits which may seem trivial or perhaps to some even annoying (sic!) at present may come to be seen as constituting most valuable bio-diversity once genotypic IQ has been very significantly raised through highly ethical eugenic policies of positive, indeed meritocratic positive selection vis-à-vis law-abiding Human citizens in liberal-democratic open societies. Many indigenous Europeans look down at Roma people (“Gypsies”) and Muslim immigrants of non-European origins for allegedly being socially “inferior” and on average being relatively more prone to criminal antisocial/psychopathic behavior in European societies; yet this would be precisely how indigenous Europeans would be perceived indeed if there was ever large-scale immigration of millions of ordinary/average indigenous Europeans to Japan as the Japanese have higher genotypic IQ and also relatively much lower frequency of psychopathic personality and thus also relatively lower frequency of criminal and other antisocial behavior.
What is required is henceforth some strategic humility in the sense that all current average IQ levels of all Human taxa should and will be seen as simply far too low in a successfully, ethically eugenic future. The various contemporary species and subspecies of the contemporary homo genus have indeed been genetically converging (thus reversing previous increasing taxonomic divergence) ever since some Humans learned to hunt with tools and engage in the genotypically Human practice of martial rape whereby male enemies are killed and female enemies are raped and sexually enslaved. This is most likely how the spread of the Neolithic revolution in Africa, Asia and Europe supplanted pre-existing Human taxa that were thus likely violently genetically absorbed by mass rape into the gene pools of expanding agricultural civilizations.
Indeed, the Nazis were completely wrong about the Aryan hypothesis as the pre-agricultural Human taxa in Europe (Neanderthal Humans and Cro-Magnon Humans) were the ones with larger sculls, hence larger average brain volume and must therefore have had higher genotypic IQs. Bantu peoples most likely spread in the same genotypic manner of martial rape as likely did the Indo-European peoples in Eurasia. The Shoah was – as was indeed the Indo-European colonization long before it – clearly dysgenic and involved one relatively less psychometrically advanced majority taxon destroying relatively psychometrically more advanced indigenous minority populations. Therefore it is very clear that the dysgenic Shoah followed a pattern rather familiar to the Human dysgenic experience since the commencement of the Neolithic revolution.
It is crucially important that the future ethical eugenics must respect the dignity and freedom of persons, not because persons are taxonomically counted as part of any particular given taxon, but because they are persons in the most crucial, fundamental sense of being sentient agents of cognition. Thus, were Humans to come into contact with extra-terrestrial sentient agents of cognition, then we must be legally prepared to immediately respect their intrinsic personhood as well. Furthermore, no ethnocentrically imposed pseudo-social psychometric norm whether indigenous European or otherwise must be the basis of the ethical eugenics of the future. Exceptional excellence and not ethnocentric mediocrity is indeed thus required to ensure an ethically eugenic future. Yes, the starting blocks are not exactly situated at one singular psychometric starting line, yet Humans must learn to work together across current Human taxa worldwide at the respective different starting blocks so as to make sure that our shared genetic future becomes neither dysgenic nor dystopian so that we shall increasingly arrive at a future that is both ethical and promising for persons indeed.
29. Civic Policy
Meritocracy permits positive selection as per individual merit in persons and this is clearly valid for ethical eugenics as well without any implied or actual negative selection whatsoever against usually law-abiding individual sentient persons of any Human taxon. Checks and balances will certainly however need to be important elements in ethically eugenic public policies. Sentenced punishment is also something considered acceptable although this needs to be done very differently and indeed ethically so. In conclusion, the new ethical eugenics will actually only succeed politically if truly compliant indeed with the liberal-democratic value system of worldwide open society.
30. Civil Society
A new diverse political movement for ethical eugenics would have to be no less diverse than indeed prior to the dysgenic Nazi period in Europe in incorporating democratic left and democratic right on the liberal-democratic spectrum while this time specifically excluding enemies of open society, many of whom became completely discredited – and rightly so – after the tragic, dysgenic calamities of World War II.
The new ethical eugenics movement needs to reach out to various liberal-democratic social movements such as those of feminism, environmentalism, youth rights and Animal Liberation so as in dialogue shape an ethically eugenic future that is responsibly led by an increasingly rapid evolution in high technology.
The current culturally hegemonic ideology of neo-Hellenist Humanist idealization is however based on the absurd presumption that Humanism is the opposite of Nazism when in fact both are as evil in terms of evil of parallel practices (such as scientific torture, cruel transportation, enslavement exploitation, concentration facilities and medical experimentation) as cruelly imposed on their respective victims that were/are thus legally declared as sub-persons. This tragic dysgenic reality of Humanist hegemony is where the future newly constituted eugenics movement needs to look for new political partners as increasingly united against prejudice of all kinds, dysgenic and otherwise.
The closest still existing genetic relatives of Humans are the Bonobos (Grazile Chimpanzees) of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and who are famous for their matriarchal society and distinctive tendency to resolve conflicts through sexual intercourse. Thinking and acting the way forward towards an ethically eugenic future in worldwide open society will also require rethinking sexuality and sexual relations as also socially constructed in contemporary Human societies on the basis of a partly shared Human biology in the sense that biology is not necessarily destiny.
It is clear that it would be socially possible for Humans to be socialized to live somewhat more behaviorally akin to the Bonobos; however this requires thinking differently about how sexuality could potentially shape the Human future. Procreative eugenic associations therefore need to be organized so as to promote ethically eugenic technologies, ethically eugenic policies and ethically eugenic social practices that would serve to reshape the nature of how sexual relations are perceived and how sexual urges are indeed acted upon. Internet, social media as well as transformative-subversive social/political pornography certainly offer much potential in this regard. Desiring more genetically intelligent and otherwise psychometric advanced children is in fact to care about the Human children to come and the wellbeing of future generations of Humans.
This is highly responsible and needs to be encouraged also by means of innovative socio-sexual practices as would also be responsibly hosted by an emerging ethically eugenic civil society. Responsibly liberal-democratic and ethically pro-eugenic organizations and movements of civil society would thus surely be indispensable indeed in ensuring the emergence of an ethically responsible eugenics as opposed to dysgenically irresponsible genetic laissez-faire.
First published in 2015