This is my attempt to solve the problem Jordan Peterson highlights about how 10% of the population cannot under any economic or political arrangement be productively employed to push a broom across a floor.
This problem may be generalized to cover any forms of long-term unemployability, which is probably closer to about 30% of the population. The traditional ways of addressing this that I can think of right now are:
1. Socialism, which is to say nationalizing the cost. This appears to be the baseline solution for homo sapiens, but I humbly suggest we pursue a solution which does not require eating everyone who actually does anything productive.
2. Imperialism, which is to say genetic debt-fueled expansionism to cover the cost (until the mutation load debt is called). This appears to be the baseline solution for people with significant Yamnaya steppe nomad (Aryan) genetic influence from the northern Caucasus. I humbly suggest we pursue a solution with less slavery and its concomitant miscegenation and decline.
3. Positive eugenics, which is to say stratified breeding of the sort universities were supposed to produce. Nevermind for a moment that this is precisely how you breed Jews in the first place, the observable result has been to positively select for the next generation’s talented tenth from the subset who dislike children and would prefer not to be bothered with them except that they were incentivized by the state to have them. That is, if you cause smart people to breed who would rather not, you’re going to end up with a caste of smart people who would rather not breed. This would be predictable except that social Darwinism has no category for libido-deficient organisms, but then history yet awaits a hominid which is not continually surprised by the eminently predictable.
4. Negative eugenics, which is to say “Let the weak fall”. This is the preferred position of idealists, which is to say people with significant neanderthal admixture. The trouble here is twofold. 1) Idealism of any sort posits a Manichean “spectrum” form of morality (the temptation to reduce all possible sins to gradations of One Ultimate Sin), rather than a deontological “distance” form of morality. This produces the cycle of political realignments which has been weaponized by Alchemists (ref: Overwatch theory) like the Rothschilds. 2) The problem of measuring an individual’s honest idealism to guard against charlatans (or: selecting the watchmen who watch the watchmen who watch the watchmen who…) in order to promote virtuous men up a meritocracy has not been solved and may be insoluble.
5. SCIENCE (lol). I won’t belabor the fatalism of the naturalistic fallacy, but I will blockquote somebody else:
Nevertheless, I think that with us the keyword is “inevitability,” or, as I should be inclined to call it, “impenitence.” We are subconsciously dominated in all departments by the notion that there is no turning back, and it is rooted in materialism and the denial of free-will. Take any handful of modern facts and compare them with the corresponding facts a few hundred years ago. Compare the modern Party System with the political factions of the seventeenth century. The difference is that in the older time the party leaders not only really cut off each other’s heads, but (what is much more alarming) really repealed each other’s laws. With us it has become traditional for one party to inherit and leave untouched the acts of the other when made, however bitterly they were attacked in the making. James II. and his nephew William were neither of them very gay specimens; but they would both have laughed at the idea of “a continuous foreign policy”…
Then there is another way of testing it: ask yourself how many people you have met who grumbled at a thing as incurable, and how many who attacked it as curable? How many people we have heard abuse the British elementary schools, as they would abuse the British climate? How few have we met who realised that British education can be altered, but British weather cannot? How few there were that knew that the clouds were more immortal and more solid than the schools? For a thousand that regret compulsory education, where is the hundred, or the ten, or the one, who would repeal compulsory education?
Eugenics and Other Evils
[Ed: An Edenist once asked me how I would fix the schools. I told him they were performing their function with near-perfect efficiency. He said to be serious and answer the question in the way I knew he meant it, so I said I’d reduce it to three hours of Bible class per weekday and forbid teaching anything else or assigning homework. Realizing his Prussian temperament and my Gaelic one would not strive together, he changed the subject.]
The solution I propose in the title is to offer insurance to low time preference would-be parents who would prefer a predictable premium rather than take a 10% or so risk of total financial ruination due to syndromes like autism or simple bad luck in the genetic lottery. That is, the parents would submit themselves to the actuary’s assessment of their genetic offspring’s viability (their genetic and socioeconomic credit score) and agree to a premium (thereafter a non-negotiable fixed rate!) for the child’s first 30 years of life or so. If the child develops schizophrenia or some other major dysfunction, the insurance could be used to pay for the huge expenses this entails. This falls under negative dysgenics due to the downstream effects of applying the methods of actuarial science to IQ heritability research and the risks of serious genetic disorders which preclude livable wages. By offering a hedge for the risk-averse within the capitalist framework, the costs of breeding children unable to earn their own livelihoods in a complex society could be privatized, rather than nationalized at much greater average cost as they are now.
Or we could go in the direction the Chinese appear to be heading, which is to have many embryos and then abort the ones that look at you funny. But this option is not available to people with the capacity to feel guilt, which I think still describes a few high-IQ white people.
The complexity of our economy is historically unprecedented, such that the economic risks and rewards of breeding are much higher and more difficult to hold in one’s mind. Two parents who are engineers with 130 IQs have comparable chances of bearing a self-made millionaire in IT who will pay for their retirement and a nonverbal autistic child who will put them in debtor’s prison. Privatizing the cost of dysgenics allows individuals to make self-interested decisions about raising children based on price, rather than pushing them one way or another by fanciful public policies. The more responsibility for eugenics we delegate to the state, the more we breed irresponsibility in our nation. The current situation has become untenable, as we have ignored the genetic debt long enough that most of our budget is merely paying down the interest generated by breeding the unemployable (i.e. welfare). Insurance is effectively the inverse of interest and ought to be utilized as such to return genetic risk calculations to the market, where they belong.
The predictable danger is that Western nations, being populated now by unserious clown people, would immediately attempt to nationalize this form of insurance like American auto insurance and British health insurance. This would mean the destruction of that nation within about two generations, I’d guess, which I would classify as a form of accelerationism—a disposition I oppose on religious grounds. But in the event a viable nation remains among the ashes of our genetic legacy a century from now, this idea could be revisited.
Full disclosure: there is a bit of personal motivation behind this idea. I’m greedy to see the data on group selection and Asperger’s, which would arise from this insurance framework naturally. If the Edenism theory is correct, parents with high potential to produce an Asperger’s child (with extreme maladaptation predicted by 4,700% increased risk of suicide) will pay a higher premium but they will be able to afford it because they live in a society which values high IQ, adaptiveness, and personal responsibility.