In the mid-20th century, US society was conquered by the Planned Parenthood propaganda, according to which women should abandon motherhood as a source of meaning for their lives and replace it with sexual pleasure and for the money. Blacks were the favorite target of this propaganda and, in addition to the checks for single mothers, a cultural decadence took hold of this population group. The misery to which they were reduced was interpreted as a result of slavery, and more corrupting policies were presented as a remedy for the situation – notwithstanding the forceful rebuttals of black intellectuals Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams.
Propaganda did not stop at blacks, nor in the USA. The newspaper The Washington Post carried this headline: “This Texan Teenager Wanted An Abortion. Now she has twins.” The article shows a “victim” of the law, a white 18 year old white girl, with her two white babies. When Texan law passed, she had to take a test to see if she already had a heartbeat. As there was, she kept the pregnancy and married her boyfriend, father of the children. Judging by the story, all is well with the girl, but still the journalist (a Planned Parenthood publicist, according to Matt Walsh) is keen to pity her: “Sometimes Brooke wondered what life would be like if she hadn’t gotten pregnant. . She would have gone to high school . She envisioned an apartment in Austin and enough money for a trip to Hawaii, where she would swim with dolphins in water so clear you could see your toes.” Few people in the world go to paradise beaches. But the propaganda is this: if they don’t have children, women (and only women) will earn lots of money. Sometimes anti-natalist propaganda is made of pro-education propaganda – as if the job market wasn’t already saturated with degrees, and a bachelor’s degree was enough to pay for a vacation in Hawaii.
)Elon Musk attacks antinatalism
So, given the state of affairs, it is heartening to see Elon Musk, a leading US figure, take a stand for natalism. This is one of the issues that opposes Bill Gates to Elon Musk – and it is natural that this is so, since the ESG, adopted by the former and attacked by the latter, is neo-Malthusian and anti-natalist. While directing his tweets against Bill Gates and the owners of Twitter, Elon Musk came to regret that we have not grieved for the unborn, as the response to the pandemic has plummeted birth rates worldwide. More recently, he expressed concern about his adopted country’s birthrate, which is below replacement, and posted the tweet on his profile. last defense of natalism somewhat suspect. Has the reader heard of the movie Idiocracy? I’ve never seen it, but I’ve heard a lot about it because people who like or liked Dawkins generally like this movie. And the Dawkins fan, by definition, is an atheist who feels smarter than the rest of humanity by the mere fact of being an atheist. This atheism is the end of the path of the Protestant who, after problematizing Saint John based on the Bible, problematized Christmas based on Science. Hence he opposes science to religion and finds himself in trouble to explain the history of science between the 16th and 17th centuries, when practically every experimental scientist who challenged the Church was Christian and sometimes Catholic.
For well. In his latest natalist thrust, Elon Musk said: “Watch the opening of Idiocracy. When I ask my friends why they don’t have kids yet (very few do), it sounds just like the movie. It can become a documentary, since it is becoming the truth”. In the video appears the plot of Idiocracy: Science has made it possible for people with low IQs to live long and they have not stopped reproducing. At the same time, people with high IQs kept putting off having children and never had them (the couple like Elon Musk’s friends plan, plan, the man dies of a heart attack after masturbating to collect sperm and the widow freezes eggs waiting for the right man for her to show up). The result is that the intelligent have gone extinct. So, an average guy, frozen from the present day and unfrozen 500 years later, is a genius in the new society of people with low IQ.
Et voilà the hierarchy of humanity again. Instead of races, you can enter by IQ, again with the blessings of the goddess Science and the complacency of the well-thinking.
Glorification of IQ
Certainly Elon Musk has a very high IQ. As for Dawkins and atheism, a google finds that they have rifts (I would bet Musk is an ex-fan), but it also turns out that the differences are nominal, as Musk calls himself agnostic rather than atheist for thinking that agnosticism, rather than atheism, is in line with science. Musk and Dawkins have the same ultimate ruler (Science), neither of them believes in God, and their argument is Byzantine (if you want to know why I’m an atheist, it’s because as a child I thought adults knew everything. I grew up a little, discovered that in matters of religion they only repeated the things they had heard. Then I didn’t believe in anything else, and every time someone full of certainties, like Dawkins, I dislike immediately. I don’t believe in God, nor will I believe in the goddess Science, whose fan club is very arrogant).
Thus, as a good believer of Science, Elon Musk seems to believe in the magical power of genes to make good children. In fact, the scientific consensus points to a correlation between genetics and IQ, as well as recognizing IQ as a good measure of intelligence. As the medieval legacy considers rationality the specific human difference, the Protestant hierarchists of humanity claimed that some races were more intelligent than others, therefore superior; and today atheist hierarchists can consistently pose as anti-racists while choosing IQ.
IQ is more or less like height: we inherit from our parents the genes that give us a tendency, but it is possible to have a lower IQ, or a lower height, depending on the environment. Even if they are well fed, the population of the hinterland of Cariri will be small, because it is the same biotype. A Great Dane, however, if well fed, will be tall. But if you starve the Great Dane in childhood, his growth will be compromised and he will not be tall. In addition, the sertanejo who went hungry in childhood will be even shorter. That is, people have innate differences in IQ, but childhood is crucial for everyone to achieve the best possible. And unlike height, which is limited to physical issues, IQ needs human interaction. You can pick up children with good genetics, feed them well, but if they are dropped in early childhood, they will have serious cognitive problems. The best example of this is the story of Romanian children left in state orphanages. Ceaucescu wanted to increase the birth rate by force, take the children of women who could not raise them, and instead of filling Romania with workers, he filled it with young invalids.
In the US, the debate over IQ always slips into the book The Bell Curve, which examines IQ data racially and places the US black group below the group of US whites, and this one below the US-born or Asian-born Orientals. The book was criticized by Sowell, who is suspicious of black IQ measurements because of their poor literacy (if the test is written, poor literacy hinders performance). Be that as it may, the book’s argument is that an IQ demographic graph is bell-shaped: the dumber and smarter, the rarer. The more average the IQ, the more frequent. Many are average, few are very dumb or very intelligent. The novelty of the book is that financial and professional success is conditioned by IQ: it doesn’t matter if the child was born poor or rich, black or white; if she has a good IQ, she will succeed; if you have a bad one, you will be a failure.
Mothers and IQ
If I were Sowell, I would look at the children from Romania. It’s one thing to be the son of a poor single woman; another, being the son of a single drugged-out. Or, simply, being the doll that a woman uses to photograph and post on Instagram. The world’s first drop in global IQ was recently seen. For neuroscientist Michel Desmurget, the relevant generational cut is having been born with the great presence of the internet. This is associated with “decreased quality and quantity of intrafamily interactions, essential for language and emotional development; decreased time devoted to other, more enriching activities (homework, music, art, reading, etc.); sleep disturbance, which is quantitatively reduced and qualitatively degraded; overstimulation of attention, leading to disturbances in concentration, learning and impulsivity; intellectual understimulation, which prevents the brain from developing to its full potential; and excessive sedentary lifestyle that, in addition to body development, influences brain maturation”. In the end, there is no point in being born with good genes if there is no one who loves you.
Elon Musk is a natalist who does what he preaches. He married and had a child by conventional means with his first wife. The baby died suddenly. Afterwards, he had only with IVF. It was a pregnancy with twins and another with triplets. The mother of his other children is a Canadian singer. Both gave rise to headlines: the first, for having an unpronounceable name; the second, because it was ordered by a woman paid to get pregnant. When the baby arrived at the birth mother, it appears that they were no longer together. An adult daughter made the news for being transgender and wanting to take her father’s last name.
Substitute pregnancy is something very new and very expensive. If I were someone very concerned about IQ, I would do my best to maintain a good interaction between mother and child and stimulate brain development as early as possible. I would want a woman to breastfeed (if she didn’t manage it, she won’t produce milk) and I would run away from a woman who didn’t like to carry her own child in her womb. Given the behavior, Elon Musk seems to think that the genes do everything by themselves, and it takes a genius to impregnate a woman who is not stupid to have good children. But he’s there with his daughter making a fuss at the press.
Is Chomsky that smart?
According to available data, Chinese and Japanese are more intelligent than whites (except for Ashkenazi Jews). However, the whole world – Chinese and Japanese included –, at least until the last century, voted with their feet in the countries built by Christendom. With its humble IQ, the West has built a civilization that others want to live in.
If these IQ fans were as adept at science as they claim, the first thing to do in valuation of IQ would be to look at the biographies of high-IQ people and societies with a high-IQ demographic. In my opinion, the high-IQ characters shown in the opening of Idiocracy are idiots. Noam Chomsky’s political opinions, emanating from his stratospheric IQ, are idiotic. Japan has a lot of smart people, but it marches towards a smaller and smaller population – and not because of planning, but because of difficulties in human relationships, full of virgin adults.
First came the fashion of education : every parent had to make their children study hard to become very smart and succeed in life. The result, described by Michael Sandel in The Tyranny of Merit, is a bunch of mentally ill nihilists. Let’s follow Elon Musk to see if he doesn’t represent a tendency towards genetic engineering as a way to have very intelligent children.
But the root of this evil may be the need to rank and be superior. Can’t an average man have a life full of accomplishments and meaning? Why raise a child like a competition foal?