# Try to save ethnic crisis in developed countries

## Recommended Posts

I know My theory will irritate a lot of people, but I have to move on. According to the latest news, data reported showed the country recorded 275,815 births in 2020, compared with 307,764 deaths. The number of deaths exceeded that of newborns. South Korea experienced negative population growth for the first time. I want to save a lot of good nations. This post is just a part of my book. Apologize in advance, English is not my mother language so there will be some language bugs.

The fifth disadvantage of capitalism is adverse elimination of genes because of reproduction professionalization whatever in mixed blood or not. In violence civilization, principles of selection by nature is the Survival of the Fittest, which controls the evolution of all life. What is the essence of principle of selection? It is the non-random differential reproduction of genes, which is why I don't think reproductive rights is one of “human rights” because it involves the category of genes. Natural selection, as an invisible hand, is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working for the own good of the being. so, in a state of nature, natural selection will be enabled to act on and modify organic beings at any age, by the accumulation of profitable variations and the elimination of injurious variation at the same time, or the species would become extinct. That is why we shall see how Natural Selection almost inevitably causes much extinction of some injurious genes accompanied by elimination of some individuals. In short, this is a positive elimination because the winners are eligible to reproduce, so we can view the interests of the winner individual interests, group interests and profitable genes interests are consistent, but there is a divergence of interests between the three in our human contract civilization. Like I said before the biggest disadvantage of pensions is that the genes in successful individuals are doomed to be eliminated, because the supplier must be the one with the lowest opportunity cost who must make no greater achievements in other industries. In short, the suppliers in reproductive market are “lemons.” Of course, this conclusion is based on that a successful survival machine has better genes than a failed survival machine. In China, the government is already going to cancel one child policy gradually due to a pension gap, and even the local government began to give birth subsidies, although Chinese population is still growing. I am sure it is going to happen that those genes in urban people are replaced by those in rural people. It is because urban people are facing higher costs. Not only have they to raise their children, but also spend lots of money on other interest classes, such as piano class, dance class, English language, swimming class, taekwondo Class and so on and so forth. One of my female colleagues, who has a ten-year-old son only, told me that she is more exhausted on Saturday and Sunday she sends his son to Various kinds of classes than she is on work from Monday to Friday. In addition, we must admit that urban people have a higher opportunity cost than rural people. In terms of incomes, urban people basically have pensions, so they don't need the financial support from their children. After considering their costs and benefits together, more and more urban people would exit the reproductive market because they are unqualified suppliers. The rural people are facing the opposite situation. In terms of costs, their children would not learn those things like piano; in terms of incomes, many rural people still have no pension, so they have strong incentives to invest for their old ages. Based on one of the Ten Principles of Economics: People respond to incentives. Bearing a child, like any decision, has an opportunity cost. When the opportunity cost rises, people will choose to have less children. In short, on the farm, children can be assets; in the city they are liabilities. So the worst of the predictions did not come true, and the terrible logic of Malthus's calculations was confined to those parts of the world where wealth and progress lagged. There is an old saying in China: The saints fear the causes while the mortals fear the results. In chemical terms, a free radical would trigger chain reactions, which are spontaneous. Instead of complaining about chain reactions, you should stop free radicals. To be exact, the genes of the poor will gradually replace the genes of the rich, because only the poor will become qualified suppliers in the reproductive market. For the same logic, even if the Germans and the refugees are not mixed blood, the Germans with low fertility will be also replaced by refugees. When there is no immigration, we can regard Germanic nation as an Isolandian reproductive market isolated from the rest of the world, and the price adjusts to balance domestic supply and demand. After immigration, what would happen? I think it depends on the world price and domestic price. Apparently, for Germany, the domestic price is much bigger than the world price in productive market. To be exact, prices in developed countries are far higher than those in developing countries. It must inevitably lead that Germany, as developed country, become importing country in reproductive market, while these refugees become reproductive exporters. Now consider the gains and losses from immigration. Once again, not everyone benefits from it. Immigrants have replaced some people's jobs. The key question is who has been replaced? As the equilibrium price drops in reproductive market, more and more marginal Germanic people, as the original supplier, are forced to exit the reproductive market. As same as externalities, racism is reciprocal. These people are the most hostile to immigrants because they become new losers. In recent years, racial discrimination has become more and more serious in white countries, called Neo-Nazism. I saw a piece of news recently: A white woman has been caught on video hurling racist abuse at an Asian family at a Perth shopping centre. "I was born here, you're not," the woman could be seen yelling in the video. "And all you do is breed these things, rats." "You bloody Asians shouldn't be here either, you get out of this country." Does what this foul-mouthed woman says make sense? Of course, it doesn't make sense. It is because these Asian little rats were also born in Australia too. The first generation of Asian immigrants did the same thing in recent decades as the whites did in 18th century on the continent of Australia. The only difference is that the former resort to contractual civilization nowadays but the latter to violent civilization 18th century. Of course, the outcome of white people will be also same in 200 years later as that of aboriginal Australia 200 years ago. Is this a Karma? History is always strikingly resemblance. In June 2020, footage has emerged on social media of Black Lives Matter protesters in a British town being told by one of a group of men nearby to 'go back to Africa'. In 2017, St. Petersburg mayoral candidate Paul Congemi made the comments while addressing rival Jesse Nevel, a white supporter of the socialist Uhuru Movement, which seeks slavery reparations for African-Americans. "Mr. Nevel, you and your people, you talk about reparations," Mr. Congemi said, "The reparations that you talk about, Mr. Nevel, your people already got your reparations. Your reparations came in the form of a man named Barack Obama." Mr. Congemi continued, "My advice to you, my advice to you, if you don't like it here in America, planes leave every hour from Tampa Airport. Go back to Africa, go back to Africa." Here I have two questions: Should the winners compensate the losers in contract civilization? Similarly, should the winners from compensate the losers in violent civilization? ②If compensation is really needed, I do deem native Indians should be at the top of the list. Seriously speaking, Britain and the United States did send blacks back to Africa for many reasons at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century. In 1787, the British government settled 300 former slaves and 70 white former prostitutes on the Sierra Leone peninsula. Within two years, however, most members of this settlement had died from disease or in clashes with local tribes. In many respects, the American program traced British efforts to resettle freed slaves in Africa following that nation's abolishment of the slave trade in 1772. On Feb. 6, 1820, the first organized group of emigrating freed slaves departed from New York to Freetown, Sierra Leone, in West Africa. The enterprise was organized by the American Colonization Society, founded in 1816 by Robert Finley (1772-1817) with the mission of returning freed American slaves to Africa. In 1819, Congress had authorized the return of freed black slaves. The lawmakers appropriated $100,000, a large sum at the time, to be used in returning displaced Africans who had been brought to the United States illegally after the abolishment of the slave trade in 1808. With congressional approval, the American Colonization Society in 1821 founded the colony of Liberia, south of Sierra Leone, as a permanent homeland for freed U.S. slaves. Liberia was "modeled" on the United States, including the Constitution and electoral system. The United States tried to make Liberia a paradise in Africa, but unfortunately, paradise doesn't exist at all. An equal and peaceful situation (win-win game or orgasm together) assumed by the United States between free blacks from the United States and local blacks did not emerge, and Liberia remains mired in war and poverty. Facts proved that another utopian dream was broken. Like I said before there is no short cut in evolution. It is very difficult to finish leap-forward development under the framework of democracy. To be frank, there is no solution to the problem of race because it involves not only individual interests, but also genetic interests. White people are indeed suffering reverse elimination at the genetic level. By the way, since white people would be eliminated one day, who dominated this tragedy? Is it really because white people are kind? Of course not. Those people who are the beneficiaries of immigration dominated this ethnic invasion. Apparently, apart from those intruders, white capitalists at the top are the beneficiaries of immigration because they can enjoy cheaper products and services. Capital is always so short-sighted. It wins again. The former deputy mayor of Italy, Ceccano, Massimo Ruspandini, after the publication of the poster on his Facebook page at that time, "The first ciociaro born in 2019 was Chinese with small eyes." What I want to tell him is don't discriminate yellow people, and maybe in another 100 years his eyes is full of black. I am not alarmist that some demographers have predicted the U.S. will become a majority-minority nation by 2050, with African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics and other minority groups outnumbering the people we call white. The shift in the nation's racial demographics have already been stark. In 1965, whites represented 85 percent of the population, with the other 15 percent made up of African-Americans. These days, white people make up just 60 percent of the nation, while Hispanics account for 18 percent and Asians about 6 percent. I don't believe it is an alarmist talk because in the Toronto subway there are already full of black and East Asian and Indian faces. Some white Italians deem the place in north of Rome is Italy, and the place in south of Rome should be called Ethiopia. Paris has been historically known for the large number of black people from African immigration or who came from overseas territories. How to change this situation? Frankly speaking, it is very difficult to change it. I have no idea. Like I said before, for any vested interest, it's easy to put them in, but it's hard to force them out. We must figure out what the essence of natural selection is. The essence of natural selection is the non-random differential reproduction of genes. Whites are quickly penalized and marginalized already by so-called modern civilization of capitalism. White extinction is the inevitable result of reproductive incomplete professionalization. From the view of genes, the white genes are being hunted now because good genes would be selected by successful individuals previously, but now bad genes would be selected by failed individuals after pension. Evolution is the process by which some genes become more numerous and others less numerous in the gene pool. Before pension, the rich had more surviving children than the poor. That meant there must have been constant downward social mobility as the poor failed to reproduce themselves and the progeny of the rich took over their occupations. I agree with Gregory Clark who is an economic historian at the University of California that the modern population of the English is largely descended from the economic upper classes of the Middle Ages." Meanwhile, as the progeny of the rich pervaded all levels of society, wealth could have spread with them. On the contrary, after social pension, future population will be largely descended from the economic lower classes of the present age. Like Malthus and Ricardo, I bitterly opposed the childbirth subsidy, because it only encouraged the poor to have children. The emergence of pensions will inevitably lead to reproductive professionalization and then bad genes drives out good genes. We can name this atavism or adverse elimination, and the tendency of atavism may often prevent the work of selection. You can easily find that the differences in population growth around the world are large. In developed countries, such as the United States and those in Western Europe, the population has risen only about 1 percent per year in recent decades and is expected to rise even more slowly in the future. Meanwhile, the situation in Japan and South Korea is also not optimistic, and fertility rate of them has hit a record low. According to the latest news, data reported showed the country recorded 275,815 births in 2020, compared with 307,764 deaths. The number of deaths exceeded that of newborns. South Korea experienced negative population growth for the first time. In addition, statistics show that due to the continuous rise in the proportion of the population living alone, the number of households in South Korea exceeds 23.09 million, a record high. The proportion of one-person and two-person families accounts for 62.6% of the total number of households, in other words, more than 60% of South Korean families live with only one or two people. By contrast, in many poor African countries, population grows at about 3 percent per year. At this rate, the population doubles every 23 years. Should the South Korean government controlled by big capital groups open immigration? Immigration can really solve the population problem, but it is a very short-sighted strategy. However, isn't Capitalism always short-sighted? Albert Einstein once called compounding "the greatest mathematical discovery of all time." The reproductive function is a crazy exponential function. In fact, Adam Smith sees two deep-seated laws of behavior. The first of these is the Law of Accumulation. Never underestimate an exponential function whose essence is to accelerate accumulation in one direction. Woe to him who did not accumulate. "The decay of population," moaned William Paley, the theologian-reformer, "is the greatest evil the state can suffer, and the improvement of it the object which ought... to be aimed at, in preference to every other political purpose whatsoever." It is high time that the governments of developed capitalist countries should undertake the important task of reproduction. All troubles stem from a major misconception: Reproductive right is considered as a kind of human rights. I'm sorry to tell you that the conception of reproductive right does not belong to the category of human individuals, but the category of genes. With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten, but human beings are still in oligophrenia period. Only when we don't acknowledge that reproductive right should be regarded as a kind of human rights can we continue our discussion. Those people, whether to enter or exit reproductive markets, all make rational decisions, but according to a basic principle of The Game Theory, rational choices leads to bad outcomes. All industries can be professionalized around the world without intervention, except for reproduction, because the profession of reproduction involves not only individual interests, but also genetic interests. Obviously, in the current situation, genetic interests and individual interests are contradictory. How to solve this contradiction? I think there are only two ways to solve this contradiction. One is to return back to the previous equilibrium state by abolishing socialized pension, and the other is to reach the next equilibrium state by government intervention in the reproductive market. The former is the complete privatization of reproductive costs and benefits, and the latter is the complete nationalization of reproductive costs and benefits. I personally deem the latter is better than the former because compared with the former, the latter is more specialized. Since the government intervened in providing for the aged, it must intervene in medical treatment, education and finally reproduction. Reproduction industry must accord with the principle of "all-or-none." I know that so far intervening in the human reproductive market is still a very sensitive topic because in our times of higher morality all reason is drowned out. Talking about this topic, we cannot avoid a person (Adolf Hitler) and his eugenics project. Obviously, Hitler did object to the intermarriage and mixed blood and have a special preference for purebred. Heinrich Himmler, who was the commander of Adolf Hitler's Schutzstaffel, and later of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, founded the Lebensborn project on December 12, 1935, the same year the Nuremberg Laws outlawed intermarriage with Jews and others who were deemed inferior. Lebensborn project can be called "wellspring of life" or "fountain or life." Lebensborn project was the inverse of Hitler's genocidal policies. While other legislation focused on isolating and destroying those the Nazis considered unworthy, Lebensborn was meant to repopulate society with the best of the best: a new crop of racially pure Aryan children. For decades, Germany's birthrate was decreasing. World War I had decimated the Germany’s young male population. Nearly 2,000,000 German soldiers were never coming home. Marriage prospects for German women in the 1920s and 30s were especially grim, a circumstance that led to a number of unwanted out-of-wedlock pregnancies. In 1935, the German government estimated that as many as 800,000 pregnancies were ending in abortion every year. To Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, this was an unconscionable waste of young Aryan children who might be swelling the ranks of the nation's depleted population and bringing them closer to their goal of a racially pure society. It was in that context that the Lebensborn project was created, which goal was to reverse the decline and increase the Germanic/Nordic population of Germany to 120 million. Nazi Germany thought they were seeking a way to save itself from disastrous population decline. The first Lebensborn home was opened in 1936 in Steinhoering, a tiny village not far from Munich. Ultimately, there were 10 Lebensborn homes established in Germany, nine in Norway, two in Austria, and one each in Belgium, Holland, France, Luxembourg and Denmark. In Lesbensborn project, both mother and father needed to pass a "racial purity" test. Blond hair and blue eyes were preferred, and family lineage had to be traced back at least three generations. Of all the women who applied, only 40 percent passed the racial purity test and were granted admission to the Lebensborn project. The majority of mothers were unmarried, 57.6 percent until 1939, and about 70 percent by 1940. Leaders of the League of German Girls have intimated to their girls that they should bear illegitimate children; these leaders have pointed out that in view of the prevailing shortage of men, not every girl could expect to get a husband in future, and that the girls should at least fulfill their task as German women and donate a child to the Fuhrer. The German Reich was doing its best to make motherhood into an Olympic event, issuing a Mother's Cross of Honor in three classes: bronze, silver, and gold. The lowest rank required a woman to conceive and raise at least four children, while the highest honor recognized a woman who had given birth to eight or more. The Cross of Honour of the German Mother was given to the women who bore the most Aryan children. Those who bore the Mother's Cross of Honor received unique privileges: they could jump to the front of lines, receive government subsidies designed to help them care for the kids, and even have special access to the best meats from butcher shops. At least 7,000 children were born under the project, which ran from 1935 until 1945. Frankly speaking, I don't know how to evaluate this project. Objectively speaking, Hitler was indeed far sighted because he did sense the trend of reverse elimination and genetic survival of the fittest although he resorted to violent civilization to solve them. One thing I can't understand: Hitler himself didn't have blond hair and blue eyes either. Needless to say, Hitler is known as the King of Murder in the 20th century. Hitler and the Nazis had two criteria by which they measured the worth of a human life: race and utility. In the sequence of events, Nazi genocide actually began with the disabled in 1939, around the time World War II started, and was then extended to the Jews in 1941. The entire genocidal project continued until 1945, or basically the end of the war. In 1920, before Hitler's massacre, Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche published a short book titled, Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life, which made the theoretical foundation for the subsequent massacre. This book put forward an argument for the systematic elimination from society of those who were deemed to be unfit, disabled, mentally defectives, incurably ill, mental retardation, stunted and deformed children, incurable idiots and useless burdens. Two authors argued that the law should allow and the bureaucracy should enable the euthanizing of "unworthy life." I can imagine how much they have been attacked, criticized and criticized by human rights activists. Unfortunately, these retarded idiots and disabled people are still useful to some people, otherwise, who can they sell medicine to? Apparently, capitalism wins again. I admit that this individual extinction is absolutely illegal under contractual civilization unless we degenerate back to violent civilization. The more crucial question is who and how judges them whether useless or not? To be honest, it is difficult to distinguish between genius and madness before the truth is known. Aristotle ever said that no great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness. Arthur Schopenhauer ever said that genius and madness have something in common: both live in a world that is different from that which exists for everyone else. In my opinion, the only difference between insanity and genius is measured by whether he/she is with the truth or not, so I oppose the extinction of individuals. Now, the question is how do we reconcile the two interests of individual and gene? Here's a compromise strategy: Individuals are allowed to survive, but not to reproduce, namely, separate reproductive rights from survival rights. Reproductive control is necessary, otherwise degeneration is inevitable both at genes and individuals' levels after generations of accumulation in the bad direction especially after the division of reproductive labor. We should let the evil family genes like Bagwell disappear. Maybe you would question that it would lose the genes of genius. Absolutely not. Genius is a kind of probability chosen by God, like the winner of the lottery, without any repeatability. Although the world has fallen into a wave of mediocrity, I am glad to see that genetic screening has long begun with embryo testing. When unborn child was diagnosed with serious illness, like Down syndrome, doctors always advise pregnant women to choose abortion. Essentially, this selective abortion is a kind of gene screening by eliminating pathogenic genes and diseased individuals. Do these diseased fetuses have human rights? The logic is both merciless and inexorable. We can't go too far on the way of irrationality, but it seems we have already been misled too far on the road to mediocrity. Let alone the right of human reproduction, our human beings can't even reach a consensus on whether pets should be castrated. I saw a news recently that a Chinese castrated her cat, which had aroused criticism from unwashed masses who believed castration was cruel and violated the reproductive rights of animals. Do you think such intelligence is suitable for the election? To be honest, in my opinion, castration is not only for pets, but also for many men who have violent tendencies and pedophilia because castration can reduce their aggression and libido. Kindness to them is cruelty to the innocent. Kindness to them is cruelty to the innocent. By the way, what are the similarities and differences between Hitler and Merkel? The same thing is non-random elimination genes, while in the evolutionary game of "Hunt or be hunted", the difference is the former chose to hunt in violent civilization by hard landing and the latter chose to be hunted in contractual civilization by soft landing. If the Homo sapiens had the moral realm of Merkel, they would have been eliminated by Neanderthals. Normal evolution needs to be in a wavy upward pattern, and the amplitude should fall within the threshold, which could be view as a virtuous circle. Now is the time for her to pull back before it is too later. In fact, some prescient governments had enacted laws to intervene in this adverse elimination but had been defeated by human rights. In America, the eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup. Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and "immoral". Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community. Eugenics supporters' advocates for the removal of genetic "defectives" such as the insane, "feeble-minded" and criminals, and supporting the selective breeding of "high-grade" individuals. Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying. The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907, followed closely by Washington and California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. While California had the highest number of sterilizations, North Carolina's eugenics program which operated from 1933 to 1977, was the most aggressive of the 32 states that had eugenics programs. An IQ of 70 or lower meant sterilization was appropriate in North Carolina. Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. Although compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States. A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both. In the 1970s, several activists and women's rights groups discovered several physicians to be performing coerced sterilizations of specific ethnic groups of society. All were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or mentally retarded women, while no abuses against white or middle-class women were recorded. In Japan, a "Eugenic Protection Law (EPL)" permitted involuntary sterilization of people with intellectual or mental disability from 1948 to 1996. More than 16,500 women and men were sterilized against their will. The objective of this law was "to prevent birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect life and health of mother, as well." (Article 1) Under Article 3 anyone could be voluntarily sterilized if: (1) he/she or the partner had hereditary "psychopathia," "bodily disease" or "malformation," or the partner "has mental disease or feeble-mindedness"; (2) he/she or the partner's relative within the fourth degree of kinship had hereditary "mental disease," "feeble-mindedness," "psychopathia," "bodily disease," or "malformation"; (3) he/she or the partner was "suffering from leprosy, which is liable to carry infection to the descendants." In fact, EPL called sterilization a "eugenic operation," which was done either voluntarily or involuntarily. In 1996 the eugenic provisions were repealed, and EPL was revised producing the "Maternal Protection Law," which allows only voluntary sterilization and abortion. As I expected, the reason for the abolition comes from human rights and women, and ignorant and kindhearted women made a great contribution again in human degeneration. To be honest, this anti-degeneration has never stopped, but it has changed one way. In other words, there are substitutes. Congenital anomalies contribute a significant proportion of infant morbidity and mortality, as well as fetal mortality. The most prevalent conditions include congenital heart defects, orofacial clefts, Down syndrome, and neural tube defects. Since the introduction of ultrasound in the 1970s, ultrasound technology has greatly improved. Advances in medical technology now enable doctors to identify disabilities within the early weeks of pregnancy. Screening can detect problems such as neural tube defects, chromosome abnormalities, and gene mutations that would lead to genetic disorders and birth defects, such as spina bifida, cleft palate, Downs Syndrome, Tay–Sachs disease, sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, and fragile X syndrome. It is common practice for the doctor to recommend an immediate legal abortion, when a disable fetus found. The understanding is that if the abortion is performed as early as possible, it will be safer and less psychologically traumatic. The couple are usually advised that termination is the sensible decision and consoled with the prospect that they can try again. There is no essential difference between a compulsory sterilization law and abortion after medical detection, and both belong to the category of Eugenics, which can be viewed as a major victory for good genes against the bad. Unfortunately, there are still some people against ending a pregnancy due to fetal anomaly, under the name of "Human rights". What crazy people! What crazy human rights! What crazy equalitarianism! In rural China, many pregnant women do not go to the hospital for medical detection at all. Because of lower opportunity cost, they prefer to give birth to a baby, and they decide to raise or kill based on whether baby is healthy or not. Of course, the best strategy for irresponsible parents is to put disabled baby in baby hatch and throw them to the government. Few people know about India's monstrous attempt to sidestep an 'overpopulation apocalypse'. Overpopulation has been India's major concern for almost five decades. I am not going to repeat the reason. During the period 1891-1921, India 's population remained almost stationary. During the thirty years between 1921 and 1951, the increase amounted to 109 million or an average 3.63 million a year. In 1951, India 's population was approximately 361 million. The year of 1951 is also termed as population explosion year. The growth rate of population was 21.5% in the decade of 1951-1961 compared to the previous ones. During 1961-1971, the growth rate of population was 24.8%. In order to limit its population growth rate, India has been using sterilization as a method of population control since 1951. From 1972, attempting to sidestep an overpopulation apocalypse, the World Bank loaned India's family planning program tens of millions of dollars to implement a crash sterilization program. The Iron Lady of India, Indira Gandhi, who is the only daughter of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, then Prime Minister of India, received the power to rule by decree from the Indian president in 1969. In particular, Gandhi was convinced population control was essential for India's economic development, and so, he argued family planning should be a way of life. She immediately declared a state of emergency, suspending numerous civil liberties. This freed her government to forcibly sterilize millions of Indian men and women in the 21 months that followed. More than one million men were sterilized in India in 1971, and a little more than three million were sterilized just two years later in 1973 — neither, of course, inconsequential numbers. What set apart the Gandhis' effort, however, was the sheer size and aggressiveness of their program, with 6.1 million men being snipped in 1976 alone. Public officials mobilized en masse to meet statewide sterilization targets. The sterilizations that followed were carried out under so-called "compul-suasion," (a combination of compulsion and persuasion), with a heavy emphasis on the former. Muslims, along with the illiterate and the lower castes, were disproportionately sterilized. Sterilization was no longer a choice but a mandate. But in a country where being a man was defined by his virility, sterilization was a tough sell. Numerous misconceptions associated with vasectomies didn't help. Some people believed the procedure caused death on the operating table; others thought they'd lose weight — or worse, their sex drives. It did not take long, given these horrific tactics, for public anger over the forced sterilization campaign to result in riots. After a series of violent "anti-family planning" protests, Prime Minister Gandhi called a halt to the mass sterilization campaign in March 1977, and her Congress Party was crushed soundly in that year's elections, with both Indira and Sanjay losing their seats. She returned to power three years later, but was assassinated by her own bodyguards and Sikh nationalists in 1984. As for the sterilization program, it was a failure by every measure. Many human rights activists regard the emergency period as "The Dark Age of Indian Democracy" in in the history of India. One of Indira Gandhi's most unpopular policies during her time in office was government-enforced sterilization as a form of population control, which became a stain on her whole life. Is iron lady really wrong? Of course not. There is nothing wrong with sterilizing low-level populations because poverty is inherited just as same as genes. But why failed? After discussing Singapore, I would like to elaborate on the causes of the failure of sterilization program. In Singapore, Eugenics is part of family planning. As early as the late 1960s, just a few years after Singapore's independence in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew revealed his views on the relationship between genes and talent. A proponent of nature over nurture he stated that "intelligence is 80 percent nature and 20 percent nurture" and attributed the successes of his children to genetics. In one of his speeches, he argued that unless the better-educated citizens reproduced at a higher rate, the future of their progeny would be at stake because less economically productive people—the "social delinquents"—would live off the nation's scarce resources. In 1984, the Singaporean government also launched the Graduate Mothers' Scheme to boost fertility among married, educated women and a sterilization program to decrease fertility among the uneducated. The government prioritized college-educated mothers for housing and their child's school admissions and subsidized their deliveries in hospitals. The second component of the eugenic-based policy, the sterilization program, offered married women whose educational level was not beyond junior high school and whose monthly household income was less than 750 Singaporean dollars a grant of 10,000 Singaporean dollars to undergo sterilization of their own accord. The Prime Lee is really brilliant guy. The essence of this policy is an exchange between individual interests and genetic interests, and everyone has to face trade-offs. This deal, what is more, is for only one special group of people, married women. This policy, which is no less than best strategy of killing two birds with one stone, is the most stable strategy so far. On one hand, this policy is highly targeted because Lee knew reproductive rights are in the hands of married women, so he didn't want to waste any money on men or unmarried women. As a result, Lee can achieve his purpose at the least cost. One the other hand, He took human rights into account so he chose to help the poor conditionally. Married women who wanted to be subsidized had to give up their reproductive rights. He turned violent sterilization into transactional sterilization. Now let me answer the question at the end of the last paragraph why the birth control program succeeded in Singapore and China, but failed in India? In my opinion, there are three reasons. First and foremost, in China and Singapore, the targets of sterilization are married women, but in India, the targets of sterilization are mostly unmarried poor young men. This mistake is fatal. On one hand, women are the main body of fertility, so sterilization on male is not an effective way to control population. On the other hand, women are already castrated and isolated from human orgasm by God, so sterilization doesn't cost women anything because they have nothing to lose. But in the patriarchal world, men equate sterilization with castration. After sterilization, they will become eunuchs and cannot experience climax. For example, if you are going to cut my clitoris, I will fight to the death, but if you are going to cut another woman's clitoris, she may not resist. People with different opportunity costs must make different choices. In today's Chinese society, few men are willing to do ligation, let alone the young Indian men of the 1970s. That let the weak be more unfortunate is the eternal subject of evolution since the strong could resort to violent civilization to threaten the precarious contract civilization. Men in low civilization don't care about the harm of birth control ring and side effects of contraceptives to women's body, and only care if they are comfortable; men in high civilization, such as in Canada, most men choose vasectomy for a permanent type of birth control. Of course, this is a coevolution. This is due to the different counter-strategies given by women at different levels. Different independent systems will produce different equilibrium states. Secondly, China and Singapore are dictatorial system, and India is democratically elected system. You see, like I said before, dictatorship is not the worst system, and democracy is not the best. Pyramid society matches dictatorship well, but does not match democracy whose essence is to cater to the public. The greater the gap between the rich and the poor, the less democratic a society could be. Finally, Lee turned violent sterilization into transactional sterilization by conditionally subsidizing the poor, but Gandhi adopted forced sterilization which is indeed contrary to the contract civilization. Maybe there were so many people to be sterilized there, Gandhi didn't have so much money to subsidize. China embodied the superiority of dictatorship again. The birth control plan can be completed without spending any money (applause). Everything has a cost. Precisely speaking, China's sterilization is no more than a population control program, not eugenics program. Authoritarian governments are less likely to offend the mobs at the bottom either. Their power comes from the violent proletarian revolution, so they are afraid of losing power for the same reason. At present, the vast majority of Chinese are descendants of the people at the bottom, as a result of which many Chinese are vulgar because vulgarity could be inherited as same as genes. The old Chinese proverb says, that "it could build a nouveau riche overnight, but it takes three generations to make a gentleman." So far, there is no gentleman in China but nouveau riche only. Similarly, it would take three generations to create a qualified migrant and a qualified urbanite as well. Evolution needs to be done step by step. If influx with zero threshold, the society would face a game of who assimilates whom, which must lead to chaos and eventually degeneration maybe. Like I said so many times, everything has a cost, and it's not a good thing to evolve too fast because any evolution with zero threshold can only generate false prosperity in short-term but store up trouble for the future. This is why I am so afraid to hear the words like liberation and freedom which don't exist in God's dictionary. Similarly, it's not a good thing to be rich overnight. Wealth out of your control will be your bane as well. Oh, I am just getting far from my subject, let's get back to Singapore. The essence of Premier Lee's overall strategy is to separate human rights from reproductive rights. But he didn't realize the essence of marriage was a transaction between women and men, and didn't take into account the cost of marriage for women. As the opportunity costs of educated women increase, more and more well educated women choose to withdraw from the marriage market and the reproductive market. Recently, Singapore has seen the birthrate of Chinese ethnics plummet so fast that it worries about underpopulation. After twenty years of the slogan "Two Is Enough," Singapore officials declared: "Have three—more, if you can afford it!" Lee was indeed not an egalitarian in terms of his reproduction strategies. Despite the 1980s backlash, the inheritability of intelligence remained Lee's pet topic in the years that followed, and indeed to the end of his life. He described his belief that intelligence is genetically determined as a "hard truth" that has kept Singapore going. In his eyes, no amount of government intervention and social engineering can significantly change a person's lot in life as it has already been predetermined by the quality of the genes that they are born with. Government officials can equalize opportunity at the starting point for all, but they cannot ensure equal outcomes. But the result is not what Lee envisioned. However, birth rates across the board remained low as Singapore became a highly affluent and consumerist nation where having children, even if subsidized, could be a burdensome, expensive affair for most citizens. Lee was alarmed that as of 1983, 16 percent of graduate women remained single compared to 5 percent of men. Unmarried female college graduates themselves were frustrated with the government for publicly airing their singlehood and implicitly accusing them of prioritizing their own interests over national ones. They argued that the root of the problem was deeply structural, complaining that their juggling of both career and family duties was difficult in the implicitly patriarchal Singaporean society. They said that this was compounded by a lack of empathy for their difficulties from their male Singaporean counterparts. Why is it? The answer is that division of labor is not detailed enough. Let me put it another way, trapped in the limitations of his times, Lee didn't distinguish between bearing and caring, or separate the responsibilities of the uterus. It can't be blamed on him, nor can it be separated in his time. His wisdom was that he knew to select highly educated women as qualified bearers, but he didn't realize that those women are not qualified carers because they had higher opportunity costs. How to deal with it? Let's have a look and get a lesson from other non-human beings. I have always believed that other non-human beings are rational because the price of their irrationality is death. Now let's review some words in The Selfish Gene by Dawkins: A social insect colony is a huge family, usually all descended from the same mother. The workers, who seldom or never reproduce themselves, are often divided into a number of distinct castes, including small workers, large workers, soldiers, and highly specialized castes like the honey-pots. Reproductive females are called queens. Reproductive males are sometimes called drones or kings. In the more advanced societies, the reproductives never work at anything except procreation, but at this one task they are extremely good. They rely on the workers for their food and protection, and the workers are also responsible for looking after the brood. In some ant and termite species the queen has swollen into a gigantic egg factory, scarcely recognizable as an insect at all, hundreds of times the size of a worker and quite incapable of moving. She is constantly tended by workers who groom her, feed her, and transport her ceaseless flow of eggs to the communal nurseries. If such a monstrous queen ever has to move from the royal cell she rides in state on the backs of squadrons of toiling workers…. In Chapter 7 I introduced the distinction between bearing and caring. I said that mixed strategies, combining bearing and caring, would normally evolve. In Chapter 5 we saw that mixed evolutionarily stable strategies could be of two general types. Either each individual in the population could behave in a mixed way: thus individuals usually achieve a judicious mixture of bearing and caring; or, the population may be divided into two different types of individual: this was how we first pictured the balance between hawks and doves. Now it is theoretically possible for an evolutionarily stable balance between bearing and caring to be achieved in the latter kind of way: the population could be divided into bearers and carers. But this can only be evolutionarily stable if the carers are close kin to the individuals for whom they care, at least as close as they would be to their own offspring if they had any. Although it is theoretically possible for evolution to proceed in this direction, it seems to be only in the social insects that it has actually happened…. Social insect individuals are divided into two main classes, bearers and carers. The bearers are the reproductive males and females. The carers are the workers—infertile males and females in the termites, infertile females in all other social insects. All the troubles, caused by capitalism, should be solved by a capital way as well. What lessons can we draw from these so-called lower organism ants? Apparently, the ant colony, completely controlled by genes, has a strictly division of labor on reproductive strategy that some of them never work at anything except bearing and some of them are responsible for caring. Of course, this division of strategy, based on genetic perspective, would be evolutionarily stable only under the conditions that the carers are close kin to the individuals for whom they care. What about our human beings? It is not necessary in human beings because of Capitalist Professionalization, and it results in it that some unqualified people need to be carers as their profession. I am not sure, maybe until one day God allow the separation reproductive rights from mating rights, and I think that depends on the real awakening of women that they must refuse to breed for free for the poor guys. Austria and Bavaria still upheld the16th and17th edicts prohibiting paupers from marrying. Pension, as the inevitable result of the division of labor by capitalism, is the largest Ponzi scheme by far. The essence of any Ponzi scheme is the game which always need more newcomers to enter. More precisely, Ponzi scheme of pension needs someone or something who can give tax, no matter what the man looks like, and even a dog is all right, just pay the tax. Just because of the essence of pension, the two conditions of American immigration are either talented person who can create wealth for the United States, or rich person who can bring wealth for the United States. In short, America also need money. According to the United States Census Bureau, the Asian American population, including those of multiracial and Hispanic and Latino ancestry, had increased to 20,908,701 by 2016, which has doubled over twenty years ago. I don't know when Humanism had instilled a naive idea to human beings that "reproduction is great, or mother is great, or a woman who does not have a child is incomplete." All these propagandas are for reproduction, and the fact is nothing is great in evolution. Stop all lies about praising your mother's greatness which only encourage irresponsible breeding. Have you ever seen the movie of Capharnaüm (2018) which tell us a cruel fact that human reproduction is not because of love but only reproductive instinct and money? An American TV show, The Act (2019), which is based on a true story, tells us how murdered Missouri mom named Dee Dee Blanchard scammed the world, defrauded a lot of donations and controlled daughter named Gypsy by faking girl's health problems. Kids are no more than the cash cow for these people. The book of Half the Sky tells a truth that Africans care more about whether they can get dollars than whether their daughters to school or not. So, the best strategy for keeping girls in school is not to convince their parents that going to school is useful for girls, but give parents dollars if they keep girls going to school. Compared with Marybeth Tinning, these mothers are not too vicious because they just want money from their children, not their lives. Hong Kong pop diva Anita Mui died in 2003 of cervical cancer at age 40. In the will, Mui wrote that her money would go to a trust that would disburse HK$70,000 monthly to her mother because her mother and brother were addicted to gambling. Mui who passed away in 2003 due to cervical cancer had set up a trust fund to disburse monthly allowance to her mother and elder brother. When Anita was still alive, she even helped to settle her brother's gambling debts. Besides her mother's living expenses, Mui set aside up to HK$400,000 as university expenses for each of her brother's four children. Despite being given a monthly payment of HK$70,000, her mother, Madam Tam Mei Kam, was not contented and had attempted several times to request for more. Americans are no greater than Chinese. Vanessa Bryant gets sued by own mother after Kobe's untimely death. Sofia Laine filed a suit against her daughter Vanessa Bryant, seeking financial support on the grounds that she worked unpaid as a "longtime personal assistant and nanny" for the family for years. According to court documents obtained by People magazine, Laine has claimed that the late Kobe Bryant had "promised to take care of" his mother-in-law "for the rest of her life." In a statement posted on her Instagram Story, Vanessa Bryant accused her mother -Sofia Laine -of trying to "extort a financial windfall from our family." "I have supported her for nearly 20 years, and she was never my or Kobe's personal assistant, nor was she a nanny," Vanessa told the outlet. The 38-year-old, who previously also insisted she has continued her financial support to her mother, called the lawsuit "frivolous, disgraceful and unimaginably hurtful." Kobe's parents also troublemakers. Kobe's relationship with his parents became strained in 2013 after they attempted to auction off some memorabilia from his early career for \$500,000, according to ESPN. Kobe got a court order to stop the auction, and his parents publicly apologized in a statement: "We apologize for any misunderstanding and unintended pain we have caused our son and appreciate the financial support he has provided over the years." The words that "It's the economy, stupid'' never go out of fashion, right? I can understand their parents because anyone who invests needs a return. When I first started working, my mother also thought that I should give all my salary to her to manage. But I refused. To be honest, I think animals is great than human beings from the point of individual because they don't expect any positive feedback from their offspring. More precisely: nothing can be called great in evolution, some controlled by gene egoism and some by individual egoism. The nature of pensions determines that human beings themselves become scarce resources. The threshold of reproductive rights is reduced again and again, even to negative. As I said before, zero threshold can only generate false prosperity in short-term, which will inevitably lead to confusion in the long-run. It is high time that we should distinguish bearers from carers, otherwise professionalization of reproduction tends to fill the world with those who are with stupid and defective genes because they have lower opportunity costs. Let's wait and see. Like the cost of education has been transferred from individuals to all taxpayers, and similarly, when the whole society takes all cost of children, it is the responsibility of the government to choose good genes to reproduce according to certain rules. It is logical when I have to pay for upbringing costs, I have the right to choose better genes to synthesize survival machines to support me. To put it another way, all taxpayers are shareholders, who have the rights to decide what kind of survival machine to build because they pay the price, while the government is the management and executor elected by all taxpayers. In this system, Children are not flowers but slaves. We must admit a cruel fact that slavery is a wide spread phenomenon among animals. That's the essence, the cruelest essence. In my opinion, the only way to stop the adverse elimination of genes is separation the reproductive rights from parenting function or establish a certain reproductive threshold. For all physiologists admit that the specialization of organs is an advantage to each being; and hence we also need to adopt a more specialized approach to solve this problem. I guess, in future, human beings would adopt a mixed strategy which includes two main strategies: One is you have the right to spread your genes but you have to bear all the costs; the other is you only provide your gametes, and the rest of things is none of your business related to whether selected or not, and fused with who's gametes. In other words, from individual perspective, they are professional carers, and caring the next generation which do not belong to them is only for money. I guess, in future, paying gametes is like paying taxes, which is also the price we must pay for the virtuous circle of human civilization. The existing breeding strategy will inevitably lead to a result that more and more poor people are breeding professionally. Don't forget that in a hierarchical society, poverty can be inherited just as same as genes. On the one hand, the rich will increasingly be reluctant to pay taxes to support the poor's children. According to The 80/20 Rule that the richest 20% control over 80% of the wealth. In America, one survey who owned America's wealth in 2019 showed that the top 1% owned 29%; 40% owned 30%; the bottom 50% owned 6%. It is normal thing that the top 50% is unwilling to give money to support the offspring of the bottom 50%. On the other hand, if there are more and more people at the bottom, the proletarian violent revolution will happen sooner or later. My mixed strategy can solve these two problems. On the one hand, the rich will be happy to pay taxes because they may also be raising their own children. One the other hand, it can block the inheritance of poverty. Suppose an extreme example: What would happen if every North Korean had half of Kim's genes. There is no difference between a popular election and a dictatorship. This is the highest level of Communism: the high unity of individual interests and genetic interests. Only by doing so can we maintain a positive elimination. We have already seen how it entails extinction; and how largely extinction has acted in the world's history, geology plainly declares. No one I think can have marvelled more at the extinction of species, than human have done. The race of human was already old, but man remained a child. There are only two ways in evolution: hunt or be hunted. We can regard this process as the application of the principle of selection by man's selection. Frankly speaking, artificial selection has been used for many years under domestication. According to my old rules, let's take a look at what Darwin said first in Origin of Species:

Under domestication, it may truly be said that the whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic…. One of the most remarkable features in our domesticated races is that we see in them adaptation, not indeed to the animal's or plant's own good, but to man's use or fancy…. But when we compare the dray-horse and race-horse, the dromedary and camel, the various breeds of sheep fitted either for cultivated land or mountain pasture, with the wool of one breed good for one purpose, and that of another breed for another purpose; when we compare the many breeds of dogs, each good for man in different ways; when we compare the gamecock, so pertinacious in battle, with other breeds so little quarrelsome, with "everlasting layers" which never desire to sit, and with the bantam so small and elegant; when we compare the host of agricultural, culinary, orchard, and flower-garden races of plants, most useful to man at different seasons and for different purposes, or so beautiful in his eyes, we must, I think, look further than to mere variability…. The key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to have made for himself useful breeds…. We see an astonishing improvement in many florists' flowers, when the flowers of the present day are compared with drawings made only twenty or thirty years ago. When a race of plants is once pretty well established, the seed-raisers do not pick out the best plants, but merely go over their seed-beds, and pull up the "rogues," as they call the plants that deviate from the proper standard. With animals this kind of selection is, in fact, likewise followed; for hardly any one is so careless as to breed from his worst animals…. I could give several references to works of high antiquity, in which the full importance of the principle is acknowledged. In rude and barbarous periods of English history choice animals were often imported, and laws were passed to prevent their exportation: the destruction of horses under a certain size was ordered, and this may be compared to the "roguing" of plants by nurserymen…. Some of these facts do not show actual selection, but they show that the breeding of domestic animals was carefully attended to in ancient times, and is now attended to by the lowest savages. It would, indeed, have been a strange fact, had attention not been paid to breeding, for the inheritance of good and bad qualities is so obvious…. We see the same process of extermination among our domesticated productions, through the selection of improved forms by man. Many curious instances could be given showing how quickly new breeds of cattle, sheep and other animals, and varieties of flowers, take the place of older and inferior kinds. In Yorkshire, it is historically known that the ancient black cattle were displaced by the long-horns, and that these "were swept away by the shorthorns" (I quote the words of an agricultural writer) "as if by some murderous pestilence."

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

This is poorly attributed copypasta, far too long for the opening to any meaningful discussion, mixes religion with science and politics, makes soapbox assertions that can't be supported, and is basically eugenics and racism and we're not interested. Stop posting this garbage or you'll be banned.

×