Long-term disability insurance premiums for children with IQs below employability

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?

-G.K. Chesterton
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.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Long-term disability insurance premiums for children with IQs below employability

  1. bicebicebcie says:

    “95% of Homo Sapiens cannot think because of the biology of their brains. The 5% who can are not Homo Sapiens, they are Neanderthal hybrids. Therefore, no Homo Sapiens is capable of reasoning. Not even one.” Tex predicted this

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      There’s an argument to be made that
      IQ is not thinking because many high IQ
      Asians and Jews also can’t think properly.

      • bicebicebcie says:

        Sure, IQ doesn’t mean action. IQ is negative to survival when there is no megafauna with/and/or extremely hostile climate, and with the sapes IQ transforms into autisticaltruism with decling T-levels.
        . But in working terms there is always a job for dullards, if the Melons were not bound by jewery and taboo that 50% global wealth of the 1% could easily employ sapes in the worship business. 4 billion sapes worshipping for 1doller per day is very feasible, even affordable! I think this was a very good post which have to excuse my subpar replies. That is a sign of quality right there!

  2. Fox says:

    This whole discussion presumes that those ten percent are naturally this way. There are iq studies from india (and other countries) which show that children living in districts with high fluoride drinking water score significantly (half to one SD) below comparable children in districts with low fluoride water.
    Almost a century of water fluoridation in the us should not be overlooked.
    Further, there are other factors besides fluoride which reduce ability.

    • Brilliand says:

      The 10% number comes from the mathematics of the bell curve. However, there’s no guarantee that the population actually matches a bell curve at the extremes – the bell curve is just a reasonable assumption because it’s what things tend toward when there’s enough random factors. There’s still an open question of how common this problem actually is.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        >The 10% number comes from the mathematics of the bell curve.

        That’s not correct, or at least has not been established as the root cause. The 10% number comes from the policy which arbitrarily sets the cutoff at 83.

        • Brilliand says:

          I figured it comes from the mathematics of the bell curve because Peterson has shown a tendency to derive population percentages from the mathematics of the bell curve in the past (see: the question of what percentage of people over a certain IQ level are Jewish), and in this video, he jumps from “83 IQ or lower” to “10%” without explanation. The actual probability of 83 IQ or lower (according to the mathematics of the bell curve) is 13%, which is close enough that he may have been rounding/estimating.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >This whole discussion presumes that those ten percent are naturally this way.

      You insure against nature and nurture because it’s measured by outcomes. But the research on IQ is very clearly indicating a stronger influence from nature.

      • Fox says:

        Yes, if neither party suffers from extreme factors such as malnutrition or, as those studies show, high fluoride water. You’ll note that in the indian studies, the high fluoride water students scored very low according to indian standards (which aren’t that high).
        Think about it like people with a ceiling around 90 scoring 75 with high fluoride water and other unhealthy conditions, but 85 with low fluoride water + the other conditions.

  3. Patrick says:

    You missed one: Anarcho-Primitvism brought about by the end of the Holocene and/or man-made disaster.

    • Patrick says:

      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.

      This is, I think, what FinTech/InsureTech is attempting to do. Create the ultimate ‘Value Game’ for the nightmare circus clowns sort of like Hunger Games/Battle Royale amongst the Plebians.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >You missed one: Anarcho-Primitvism brought about by the end of the Holocene and/or man-made disaster.

      I daresay that’s the extreme form of negative eugenics.

  4. Patrick says:

    Personally I think the answer is sort of like what’s happening already. The 5% with any remaining talent are peeling away and forming digital guilds and online cottage industries funded by ICOs, Crowdfunding and such and moving out of the cities to Nerdlandia.

    The clueless slave hoards then get locked into the shitty end of the Gig Economy where they are slowly crushed in a Black Mirror-esque dystopian nightmare circus city where every aspect of life is gamified, collateralised and hedged by the Skynet AI, whose value function is set to ‘Obey the Whims and Fancies of the Technocratic Elite give or take Eugenics’. This will be sold to them as Techno-Libertarianism or Technonationalism because that level of thought and morality will be the high level limit.

    Some Plebs might be able to win their freedom via Colluseum Deathmatches streamed live exclusively via YouTube.

    And if Putie Poo keeps his finger off the red button, the thing will mange itself. Who needs Hell when it’s right here on Earth?

    • Patrick says:

      Knowing what I know about who I know, I know that they know that I know that this is what they know, if you know what I mean

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Personally I think the answer is sort of like what’s happening already. The 5% with any remaining talent are peeling away and forming digital guilds and online cottage industries funded by ICOs, Crowdfunding and such and moving out of the cities to Nerdlandia.

      I hesitate to be optimistic about organic policy decisions, although they may be better than the alternatives. My expectation is that humans will choose the solution which maximizes evil, sin, suffering, stupidity, lunacy, and pure short-sightedness. White flight accelerationism, sounds like. I’m not convinced we’ve changed the material conditions which produced the problem.

      But I’m an eternal cynic that way.

  5. VidereLicet says:

    Uncle Sam should cut back on the amount of money it spends on all kinds of foreign aid and use that money to give the 10% of the population incapable of working because they’re so stupid their very own websites where they can join with all the stupid useless webmasters who already have websites. There’s always room for more stupid useless websites in the ever expanding Noosphere, an ever expanding Noosphere cries out for an ever expanding number of stupid useless webmasters.

    Heck! Uncle Sam loves stupid useless webmasters, Uncle Sam actually depends ALOT on stupid useless webmasters, they help muddy the waters for Uncle Sam with all of their two-faced dissimulation and all the abridgement in their narratives about history, society, culture. Uncle Sam already employs ALOT of stupid useless webmasters. The stupid useless webmasters of the “alternative” media just abridge a bit differently than the MSM and Madison Ave and Hollywood abridges, but it’s still abridgement and that’s the most important thing to Uncle Sam ; Uncle Sam who loves dirty filthy muddy waters for muddy waters = looking in all the wrong places for solutions whereby The Status Quo always remains The Status Quo and nothing ever changes for the better, muddy waters keeps the population confused and keeps Uncle Sam In Power. Heck, there’s sh*tloads of stupid useless webmasters on Uncle Sam’s Deep State Noosphere payroll already, might as well just hire the other 10% of the population who are totally stupid and completely useless and give them their own websites so they also can be stupid useless webmasters. Easy Peasy solution to an ostensibly intractable population problem.

  6. bicebicebcie says:

    Number 2, imperialism: “It is the Cro-Mags who are insane enough to hate themselves, betray their own and encourage the displacement of their own majority. They are crazy and were never well. This sort of behaviour is not seen in healthy animals. No functioning, field-tested and debugged biped would behave the way they do.” <— A Feature! Not a bug, you can rule 1 billion people if they are all the same guy. Functioning dullards. Don't need a lot of muscle unless a real ITZ happens in which case all falls aparty anyways.

    Isn't this Tharded Warrior Kings leading crom regiments, with Melon backers ($), which then usurp the creation when the king meets his end on the battlefield? Which one here is the one guilty of not stopping until the world is "saved"? I think it is the thard. Good thinkg about this is that everyone is employable for warrior-type duties. Especially if they accept pay in bread, wine or american dollers.

    Your job is now to stand around doing nothing as a sentinel. The irony here is that that sapes will always fail at this and only high IQ thards can do that job, as evident by the melon-thal pyramid alliance which ran for millenia. But that isn't number 2 however, maybe the "utopian" kind.

    I brazenly believe that believe that thals could make that which is even discarded by A.I, namely communism, work.

    Not having a job doesn't mean failure at all in this world we live in you know. 8 billion sapes is the proof of that. Now it just became even more interesting.

  7. Patrick says:

    Would JP’s conclusions suggest that the cultural enrichment of white nations with races with average IQs lower than 83 could be a means by which one could deliberately destabilise them socially…

    But only if you were of a particularly malevolent, scheming and sadistic sort of mind… obviously… not like the Jews… hypothetically in Minecraft

  8. Tom Kratman says:

    Peterson doesn’t quite understand that military minimum. We’ve gotten _some_ use out of extremely low IQ people; see Project 100000 (though it was a lot more than 100000). This was a basically lefty program – remember, lefties believe in the malleability / perfectibility of Man via environment/nurture/education/training with even more intensity than Catholics believe in transubstantiation of the bread and wine – inflicted on DoD from 1966 to 1971.

    The problem was not, as he claims, that they couldn’t be trained to do anything useful; they could be and often were. No, the problems were that a) they were a pain in the ass to their chain of command greater than any use we got out of them and b) contrary to lefty expectations, the experience did NOT make them more happy and productive citizens, post service.

    I’m fairly certain there are things we could have these people doing in society. The problem is that getting them in a position to do them would require a degree of organization and coercion – oh, and degradation – that our society will tend to reject. Whores can be pretty freaking stupid, for example, and still earn a living. We don’t like prostitution, though. And a national lawn-mowing collective? With physical punishments for failure (because the very dumb have trouble understanding anything more subtle)? I don’t see that happening.

    There are two kinds of negative eugenics we could use: execution of common law felons (which would, at least, tend to get the dumber ones out of the gene pool) and involuntarily sterilization, a la Buck v. Bell. (Sadly for the latter approach, Carrie Buck appears to have been perfectly normal and the victim of a bureaucracy and judiciary gone mad and wicked, both.)

    I would suggest, too, that eliminating all forms of student aid to help people get through the four-five year exercise in expensive lefty indoctrination might help, as would sending about 90% of academia to the unemployment lines and soup kitchens.

    • Patrick says:

      Ah but Mr Kratman, you miss the true point of this Melon magic. JP needs people to accept the premise to then enforce IQ-based immigration laws such that the Aristocratic Patriarchy can still employ Sanjay Gupta the Java developer without being forced to pay for Dindu McChicken’s Baby Momma’s child support.

      So you are right, but JP is just a tool of the side of the system that wants to start eugenics programs on the lower classes while still race mixing them so they are dependent upon technology, urban infrastructure and the Melon narrative so that they are more… well… programmable. Between 90 and 120 people are programmable. Living in a smart city. Sub 80 IQs couldn’t live in a smart city, they’d see right through it, like the crows and the seagulls do.

      Aside from these minor technicalities I agree with you. You’re a top bloke.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I’m in favor of executions and 100% opposed to castration. That’s a vindictive, feminine way of removing someone from the genepool (and encourages slavery to boot) even if it appears more merciful on the surface (it’s not).

      But even more than executions, I favor banishment for many crimes which demonstrate incorrigible antisociality.

      • VidereLicet says:

        Well, you’re certainly doing a great job of eliminating the flat earth geocentrics that are brazen enough to come by here so you know how to cull the population of incorrigible losers. WE know everything there is to know about the Universe so no need to question the Heliocentric theory, total waste of time to question scientists/astronomers/physicists. WE wouldn’t want to waste their time by asking them Empirical Science questions about their Heliocentric theory. Only losers ask scientists scientific questions. Us High IQ intellectuals, WE take everything the scientists/astronomers/physicists say about the nature of Earth and the nature of the Universe On Faith and On Faith Alone. So obviously Heliocentrism is “not really” a religion, it’s obviously “real” “science”.

        Religion is about being skeptical and inquisitive and asking the priests alot of questions about their religious assertions ; Science is about believing the assertions of the scientists/astronomers/physicists On Faith and Faith Alone, lol.

      • Tom Kratman says:

        Not castration, sterilization. It’s the _humane_ form of genocide… But even with sterilization, Carrie Buck illustrates that a) the state cannot be trusted with that kind of power, and b) the judiciary is no check on tyranny. (Why with the power of execution and not the power of sterilization? The latter is social engineering, which is an absurdity, especially in the hands of those who think they’re capable of it, while the former is merely a corrective measure in the interests of public safety, for defensive reasons.)

        Banish to where? Nobody’s going to take our losers, not in the numbers we’d have to exile. Moreover, they know their way around so could certainly sneak back in and would harder to catch the second time.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          >Not castration, sterilization.

          As you say, social engineering makes the frogs gay.

          >Banish to where? Nobody’s going to take our losers, not in the numbers we’d have to exile.

          I was referring to crime, and being a loser is not a crime. I wouldn’t execute them either (although sentiment is obviously running in that direction).

          • Tom Kratman says:

            If he’s a criminal and we caught him, he’s a loser. In any case, no one’s going to take them nor, once we have the internal enemies in our hands, should we do other than kill them. Unless you’re talking about mere malum prohibitum offenses, in which case a severe flogging should suffice for a first offense.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >If he’s a criminal and we caught him, he’s a loser.

              It appears we make be talking about different things. Who’s “he”?

              >In any case, no one’s going to take them nor, once we have the internal enemies in our hands, should we do other than kill them.

              Should I understand this, in the context of the OP, to mean that you would execute everyone with a sub 83 IQ?

            • Tom Kratman says:

              Whoever we caught in the commission of a capital offense (common law felonies, basically).

              No, I’m just referring to executing certain criminals, irrespective of IQ (in which measure I don’t have all that much faith, anyway). And I do not see how any program of exile is likely to work.

              No, not primarily. You should understand it in the context of a very limited eugenic effect from putting to death common law felons (-).

        • bicebicebcie says:

          “Banish to where? Nobody’s going to take our losers, not in the numbers we’d have to exile. Moreover, they know their way around so could certainly sneak back in and would harder to catch the second time.”

          Shit them back to the third world, which is what they are unironically doing to us (which we accept). There and back again, with some white-lefties on the way back home joining them.

          • bicebicebcie says:

            *ship (no I did not write “shit” on purpose altho the post was better for it, god works in mysterious way,)

            if they are backshitted they are easily spotted should they try to break and enter into civilization. one could even smell them before one sees them

          • Brilliand says:

            Or just banish them to the wilderness, away from the cities. The country’s claimed “borders” are way too expansive; all we need to banish people from is inhabited areas. (Just like we banish wild bears from those areas…)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s