Essentially, any charity meant to address poverty needs to also implement some check against the subset of the population which requires it becoming a more dominant representation of the population as a whole.

Which is extraordinarily tricky.

The best selection mechanism, historically, in my understanding has actually been *lethal scarcity.* But only in certain contexts. And this is something which is difficult to replicate artificially, on top of carrying all kinds of ethical ramifications, and the capacity to be ideologically exploited.

Basically, a regime tends to operate like an organism, and will seek to perpetuate itself over serving its official function. Such a regime granted power to affect the reproduction of the masses will almost certainly choose to perpetuate those phenotypes which its operators believe can be most easily exploited to perpetuate and expand itself.

The irony being, if it *doesn't* do this, it will likely become unsustainable far sooner, and be replaced by another system which does.

So, simply by virtue of evolutionary reality, a system which prioritizes perpetuation of itself above service too its goals will almost always be the more successful and stable system long term.

There isn't a formal term for it because JF is speaking out his ass. I've looked at his CV he has done no work in evolutionary biology at all. I also bothered to read his book which seems like a poor understanding of Dawkin's *Extended Phenotype* mixed with some of the nuttier things Marghulis said....

Oh no, he doesn't have a funny little hat in evolutionary biology? Obviously must be wrong. What's Destiny's funny little hat in?

fatherhood

He has a biology degree but his work was mostly in neurology. You don't really have to know much about evolutionary biology for that.

I've not read his book, but I've heard his argument on the Revolutionary Phenotype. It's apparently a concern shared by a lot of "big brained nibbas" but his reaction to this concern is over the top.

Furthermore, his idea that it can be avoided. It can't be avoided.

Not unless we go extinct first.

Or regress to a point where we can no longer devise technology.

I wonder when we'll have enough processing power to make like something as intelligent as a dog or animal with lesser Intelligence

What animal has the smallest processing power

We do, they're called "antifa"

Like I said he borrows some of Marghulis's nuttier ideas. She did brilliant stuff on the evolution of eukreatic cells then smoked too much devils lettuce and came up with Gia Hypothesis.

Yeah, I'm not gonna pretend his concern is original.

Or even accurate....

My own position is that humanity has already passed that threshold. But rather than having our selection based on any single AI, it's based on a gestalt of many, as well as symbiotic with the kinds of technology we create.

Humanity invents hammers, but access to a hammer also transforms the dynamic of human prosperity, and which attributes are the most valuable, and by how much.

Widespread literacy almost certainly transformed human attributes long term. Selecting for people who could more easily become literate in societies where literacy had value. And it becomes *more* valuable the more things can be done with it, up until the point where people choose for whatever reason to subsidize the existence of the incurably illiterate.

If you want a better grasp on quantitative genetics, watch stuff by Sean Last, or Alternative Hypothesis (Ryan Faulk)

Sure we generally refer to these as cultural technologies. They are not unique to humans bout our species uses them to an exponentially higher degree.

If Last is as bad at it as Faulk I'll pass.

>as bad at

The data he refers to isn't even fringe.

What specifically is he "bad at"?

Faulk is a sperg who spent 8 years trying to invent his own theories because the real ones wouldn't say what he wanted them to.

You'll notice a common thread among evolutionist everywhere. Not a one of them is arace realist.

One of the few big errors Faulk made, he admitted to, and that was in regards to overnormalizing averages. Which are even still statistically and demographically effective. They're just a very blunt instrument of selection.

LOL

so, basically, you actually *haven't* watched his videos

He loathes to dignify your "funny hat" fetishism with a response, but he does provide a rebuttal.

Only a couple and that was enough to write him off. Possibly worse than Mollymeme.

Most of the biologists agree with *him* they just don't use the same explicit language he does most of the time, because the university system is often very progressive.

Maybe present an actual argument.

Kek. None of them do.

Then you really are poorly informed

This is like where building 7 shit ends up being holographic planes and cruise missiles. You have to invent a grand conspiracy because the only other alternative is that a basement dweller like Faulk simply doesn't know what he is talking about.