The Social Engineering Thread

Mist

Ssraeszha Raider
15,209
7d 2h 32m
Reactions
3,722 4,694 0 0
#1
Let women be women and concentrate on woman stuffs, like caring for kids, raising them instead of having strangers do it. Feminism sold them on some bullshit, didnt it?
Let's say I concede your point that there are distinct, statistically significant innate preferences for certain types of work based on gender, along with assuming all sorts of positive and negative stereotypes about men and women and their relationship to work, satisfaction and happiness.

Now let's go back and engage in my thought experiment:

Let's imagine a near-future society where automation has eliminated 50% of the necessary low skill and middle skill labor, and 20% of the high skill labor.
  • It has also disproportionately eliminated more of the low skill and middle skill labor that men found satisfaction in, while there still remains a large chunk of low and middle skill labor that women find satisfaction in, from child rearing and education, to social-skill oriented jobs.
  • I'll even concede, for the purposes of this thought experiment, that many of the remaining highest skill-tier jobs are things that men both find more satisfaction in and are better at (men aren't higher IQ on average, actually slightly lower on average, but have a wider IQ distribution) than women.
  • Let's also assume that men have a higher likelihood/capacity than women to engage in destructive/violent/socially disruptive behavior when not at least partially occupied with satisfactory productive labor, and that men derive a larger portion of their overall satisfaction with life from engaging in productive labor.
If we can accept the above prepositions, would it be ethical to gradually reduce the ratio of males to females in the overall population through selectively weighting the fertilization of embryos? (no gene editing, no death camps, no sterilization, etc.)

Also keep in mind that this process is 100% reversible, in fact, would automatically tend back to a natural distribution simply by ceasing the selection process, should circumstances arise where there was an increase in demand for labor that men found engaging, such as large scale space colonization or anything like that.
 

yerm

<Donors Crew>
2,437
4d 8h 50m
Reactions
4,201 270 0 0
#2
I see nothing unethical about selectively predeterming sex of incoming populations. What I see as wholly unethical is the idea to artificially create a female majority. It has consistently been a source of misery. It is easy to compare things like post-war society hit enough to be markedly female majority to things like post-plague society where balance is not upset, and see a massive difference. One of the happiest times in European history was shortly after the black death. Try finding that after just dead dudes. It's in ancient texts all the time, society fucking sucks with too many women (too little men really). It's even in the Bible; they wipe out a tribe's dudes and the ladies are miserable.

Too many men also sucks.
 

Mist

Ssraeszha Raider
15,209
7d 2h 32m
Reactions
3,722 4,694 0 0
#3
I see nothing unethical about selectively predeterming sex of incoming populations. What I see as wholly unethical is the idea to artificially create a female majority. It has consistently been a source of misery. It is easy to compare things like post-war society hit enough to be markedly female majority to things like post-plague society where balance is not upset, and see a massive difference. One of the happiest times in European history was shortly after the black death. Try finding that after just dead dudes. It's in ancient texts all the time, society fucking sucks with too many women (too little men really). It's even in the Bible; they wipe out a tribe's dudes and the ladies are miserable.

Too many men also sucks.
None of those societies had the level of labor automation inherent to this thought experiment and therefore the historical examples really don't apply.
 

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Donor All-Stars>
19,109
13d 22h 19m
Reactions
46,798 1,611 0 0
#4
Would you want to do the same thing with races?
 
Last edited:

mkopec

<Donors Crew>
13,823
9d 13h 30m
Reactions
15,842 734 0 0
#5
None of those societies had the level of labor automation inherent to this thought experiment and therefore the historical examples really don't apply.
You sound like a luddite, misty. Jobs and post scarcity are in a galaxy far far away.

Where is all this automation, misty? Why am I still wage slaving? Where is my living wage? So I can stay home, smoke weed and play vidja games. fuck women at that point, Ill have an automated vag doll.
 

yerm

<Donors Crew>
2,437
4d 8h 50m
Reactions
4,201 270 0 0
#6
None of those societies had the level of labor automation inherent to this thought experiment and therefore the historical examples really don't apply.
They apply because you have honed in on your last point, this idea that a productive life is a happy life, and ignored other possible issues and also assumed automation removes this option from most men.

Several problems:
- Productivity and sense of satisfaction are natural for both sexes. The women of your society need fulfillment just as much as the men. Where is this coming from if they are not working either and there is a scarcity of male partners?

- Substitution of lesbianism to overcome male scarcity does not appear feasible. Homosexuality is not wholly genetic like sex is (dodging gender bs here), and I also find no reason to believe a double-traditional lesbian house is viable; I suspect (ignorantly I admit) that a neither spouse working environment is not ideal either, even if two ladies.

- Using polygamy introduces serious issues. Automation does nothing here at all. The human nature response to this kind of situation is for competitive violence. Even in places historically where it was tolerated and more ladies you had violence. Wealthy men gobble up, less wealthy fight. This happened all over Asia many times. Polygamy is a bad practice.

- Having a ton of dissaffected ladies who cant find a dude because the problem goes unsolved is flatly unethical.

Basically, women are not fine doing nothing. They need purpose too. Trade the men for robots and you get many of the ladies happy to find meaning in a partnership now missing a potential partner.
 

khorum

Get Raped
<Donors Crew>
14,981
23d 1h 3m
Reactions
31,800 1,501 0 0
#8
Can @Amod threadlock Mist Mist to the Politics thread ONLY please.
 

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Donor All-Stars>
19,109
13d 22h 19m
Reactions
46,798 1,611 0 0
#9
I do find it funny that our first thread dedicated to a serious discussion on eugenics was created by a feminist who want's to breed away men. Out of all the characters we have, the feminist went there first. Right on.
 

Ridas

Pay to play forum
<Donors Crew>
2,232
5d 5h 41m
Reactions
1,820 190 0 0
#10
Why would women be more happy with less men?
 

Mist

Ssraeszha Raider
15,209
7d 2h 32m
Reactions
3,722 4,694 0 0
#11
Several problems:
- Productivity and sense of satisfaction are natural for both sexes. The women of your society need fulfillment just as much as the men. Where is this coming from if they are not working either and there is a scarcity of male partners?
You didn't actually read the first bullet point.

In this hypothetical scenario there is more low/medium labor that needs to be done that women find satisfaction in than there is low/medium skilled labor that men find satisfaction in. For instance, in this hypothetical world we've automated all sorts of manufacturing, transportation and maintenance jobs, but there's still lots of labor intensive child rearing, education, nursing for elderly, that isn't as efficiently automated.
 

Mist

Ssraeszha Raider
15,209
7d 2h 32m
Reactions
3,722 4,694 0 0
#12
Why would women be more happy with less men?
This was not one of the propositions.

This was solely about life satisfaction from application of productive labor.
 

iannis

Chairman Meow
<Donors Crew>
21,668
0
Reactions
11,904 392 0 0
#13
It would be like me saying we should breed ugly chicks away though.

On the order of a self evident truth.
 

kegkilla

The Big Mod
<Banned>
9,191
0
Reactions
11,166 2,019 0 0
#14
why the fuck do we need another thread on this?
 

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Donor All-Stars>
19,109
13d 22h 19m
Reactions
46,798 1,611 0 0
#16
I've got a better idea. Once automation takes over and we have fully working sexbots that can also clean up, take care of children and make sandwiches, we breed out woman to be about 10% of the population that we employ as egg holders.
 

khorum

Get Raped
<Donors Crew>
14,981
23d 1h 3m
Reactions
31,800 1,501 0 0
#17
why the fuck do we need another thread on this?
Because @Tuco got played by our crew of INTERSECTIONAL CUCKS who have been desperate to extricate the post-Trump Left from the bluehairs, BLM and jihad apologists and don't want all of them in the same thread as POLITICS.

fucking LOL @ that.... there's no way to extricate the Progressive Project from the excesses of the SJWs now, whether that be "stunning and brave" dickchoppers, or Jihad-Sympathizing anti-semitic BDS, or BLM rioting for "safe-space" segregation and yes, radical third-wave feminism.

THAT is the Democratic party now, and all these fucks have given up trying to pretend "its only on the internet" and now their game is to UN-INTERSECTIONALIZE it.
 

ZyyzYzzy

Registered Amod
<Moderators>
17,242
15d 12h 6m
Reactions
20,519 1,364 0 0
#18
I've got a better idea. Once automation takes over and we have fully working sexbots that can also clean up, take care of children and make sandwiches, we breed out woman to be about 10% of the population that we employ as egg holders.
???

Why won't we just manufacture eggs (to just accept our DNA) and have artificial wombs to just clone ourselves
 

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Donor All-Stars>
19,109
13d 22h 19m
Reactions
46,798 1,611 0 0
#19
???

Why won't we just manufacture eggs (to just accept our DNA) and have artificial wombs to just clone ourselves
Works for me!
 

iannis

Chairman Meow
<Donors Crew>
21,668
0
Reactions
11,904 392 0 0
#20
Artificial wombs will be a complete game changer. That's one of those techs that you can't really even make educated guesses about what stable form asserts itself after the war over it ends.

Think the washing machine liberated women?

Sci-fi handwaves that. It's always kinda annoying. That tech will create a DEEP social shift.

I think it will homogenize the genders, personally. But I'm biased. That starts the process of gender being another physical attribute like skin tone or blood type. Important, but in no way definitional.

Basically it will create a society of trannies.