i called him out on that

social status does not automatically result in more children

for higher levels

in fact, it may be the opposite

at least today

yes

yes people will k-select themselves out of genetic relevance

and that problem does not solve the population expansion of undesirables

but before industrial revolution we were only breeding high iq people

it just doesn't

they will just breed

because they can

the Chinese actually have a fairly organic eugenic system

only in hard times do the upper class survive while the lower class is wiped out. like the black death. now most english people are related to one of the kings, since all the poor people died off.

due to the shortage of women

the problem, as i see it, is that high social status in an affluent society is a novel environment that is mismatched to the evolutionary environment

for cultural reasons and government policy

the evolutionary environment that selected their genes

but that is rapidly becoming not the case anymore

not been the case since the IR

it seems like being materially wealthy and comfortable should result in more kids

infant mortality rates bombed

but that's not the environment that produced these people

it doesn't

it really just doesn't

they need high stress, disease, lots of pproblems

at least in the west

yeah the industrial revolution has made it possible for people to survive that would have died off.

struggle

and that is a big reason why we need government

humans require a struggle

life is conflict

would the situation be less dysgenic without welfare and such things?

of course it would

maybe

but it would still be dysgenic

too much soo

probably

*so

deadly amount

not necessarily