Many people talk about white birthrates being too low, or about white birthrates being too high. Some people talk about the populations explosions in the Global South and about the terrible browning of the West, while others talk about the terrible persistence of assortive mating whereby
peoples white people neglect or refuse to breed with alien populations. People, binary-minded ideological creatures that they are, think you must be either pro-white or anti-white. They think there must either be more white people, or fewer white people. They think you must be either pro-interbreeding, or you are racist.
Some think that reproducing while white is a crime if you are affluent and there are so many brown babies are without parents and without education. They apologize on behalf of global overpopulation by saying that it is not overpopulation–but under-education and under-development–that is the bane of our era, and that the entire world population, if packed into a space the size of Texas, would only be as densely populated as Paris.
Here is what I say:
There are most likely non-insignificant discrepancies in frequencies of non-meaningless genetic traits in different human populations. Many of these traits strongly influence reproductive outcomes, especially when these traits relate to time preference, self-control, and egoism–in short, anti-social, maladaptive traits. Similarly, the people who yearn to replicate themselves are not the ones who we want to populate the Earth; it is those who can abnegate their own egos by refraining from reproducing who we want to live alongside, and whom we want to inherit the Earth. By ‘we’, I mean ‘I’, as well as whoever else cares about this world in which we all just want to scrape by and get along a little bit.
And I also say that equal-and-opposite reactions against bad things will behave like pendulums. Just as our war on purported ‘white racism’ has long since evolved into a war on white people. Thus, you’re not going to see me saying ‘white and/or socially adaptive people and peoples should have more children, and all else should have less children.’
Wars are only won by ending wars. All people and peoples should be encouraged to have ~2 children per couple, neither more nor less. Gay people and straight people, white people and black people. This world, and that world.
Perhaps instead of saying ‘encouraged to have children’, I should say this: We, as a global society, should come to value stable replacement reproduction regardless of skin color. It should not be mandatory, but we should see replacement reproduction as praiseworthy.
I want a universal reproductive ethic where people and peoples are not exploited or misled or deterred into having children at the expense of others not having children. Nor do I want the inverse of this.
Regarding state-sponsored and institutional efforts to encourage interracial procreation, which declare “You should procreate with people who are not your skin color”–it is functionally analogous to Nazi-style statements that “You should not miscegenate!” Both are case of social engineering based on the idea that the ‘ends justify the means’–sort of like Radical Jihad’s notion that war is justified if it aims to unite all of mankind under a common banner and common value system and common societal pressures–thereby establishing peace on Earth and the completion of God. Even if the ends were to justify the means, these ways of thinking of evil because hybridizing the human population into a monolithic mono-race is a fool’s errand, especially when it is conjoined to differential evolutionary pressures and double standards based on race.
Just as we should be publically agnostic, though perhaps privately sensitive, with regards to the possibility of meaningful differences in the frequencies of meaningful traits in different human populations, we should also not make prescriptive, state-sponsored assertions about whom should breed with whom. To say ‘Thou shalt breed with X!’ is implicitly to say ‘Thou shalt not breed with Y!’ It is extremely messed up.
I want there to be equality and peace and respect, not inequality and strife and resentment.
I want the world to be sustainable, stable and pleasant.
Here is a video of me talking about gender relations:
Here is a followup to that video:
Some HBD/NRx people dislike that I think all people should aim to have the same number of children on the grounds that I forsake their call for eugenics, be they positive or negative. I, however, would argue that my proposal would be a form of passive eugenics, largely correcting the currently insane disparities in birth rates we are currently witnessing; it would also retain allowances for assortive mating.
Some people have roundly brushed off my demographic concerns on the grounds that “The human experience is miserable. I therefore balk at the idea of bringing another life, especially my own child, into such a world.”
This brand of post-scarcity, post-struggle cynicism is unsound and self-defeating, IMO. If panpsychism is true and personal identity is an illusion, then I would argue that we should hope for the world to be populated by those who can roundly prevail over the travails of the human experience rather than those who can bear it only just enough to ‘keep on surviving’, those who hate their lives but are terrified of death; we should want the world to be populated solely by people who can construct meaningful realities for themselves rather than those who are enslaved by their egos and who constantly flee from the negativity of coarse reality. To have the cognitive wherewithal and capacity for the abnegation of ego necessary to refrain from reproducing–I see this as a talent commensurate to the talent necessary to construct a beautiful reality.
If panpsychism is true–and it is–then if these beautiful ones refrain from reproducing, then the world will be populated by the miserable ones. There is no ‘my’ children or ‘your’ children in this quandary.
For the HBD nerds out there, here is are my stances on the evolutionary pressures associated with free-love and postponed fertility. Also, here is a classic satirical videos in which I touch briefly upon my not-so-satirical adoration of pro-social traits which are expressed as self-abnegating ‘cuck’ tendencies.
Regarding interracial coupling:
My stance on interracial breeding is that it MUST NOT be thought of as an inherent good, but I do so in the same way that I say that intraracial breeding MUST NOT be thought of an inherent good. Both are extremely problematic things to value.
Similarly, race is a meaningless category to me beyond the fact that it is a predictor of traits. IE: traits > race. In this regard, for our current society at least, I count Asians and whites as mostly interchangeable.
One thing that I’m reluctant about with interracial coupling, however, is the way in which there are apparently some gender+race combinations that win out. Black women and Asian men are abused by this; however, I feel that these race+gender preferences may be partially influenced by the media. (However,
Though it’s difficult to tell people they are permitted to do something without insinuating that they *should* do something, I wonder if interracial coupling should be gently discouraged, if only to respect the interests of black women and Asian men. Nevertheless, the jury (in my head) is still out on this one because it is difficult for ‘gentle encouraging/discouraging’ to not ossify into rigid dogma.