The Nirvana of Narcissism is already upon us and likely soon come the anti-agathics and gerontological extensions which give exceptionally long life, the ultimate dream of any narcissist.
One thing you can be sure is the poors won't get them. The New Age Narcissists don't think one hell of a lot but they're capable of Malthusian arithmetic when it directly affects them and it's simple arithmetic to extrapolate the consequence of longer life and breeding time for the poors. They will be drowning in poors faster than the bedbugs eat New York City.
(Ed: your disdain for the poor is charming)
I'm one of them and I know already they regard me as a bedbug.
The next thought in their demented, self-absorbed little minds will be population control and now involuntary sterilization will be accomplished through some devious means but we're sure they're capable of it given all the other horrible things they have done.
This is when the doctor starts to smile as that stunt wiped out an enormous part of the gene pool and they may regard it as the greatest eugenics experiment in history, filled with glorious nobility, and that technique worked splendidly for breeding racehorses ... but they're useless for anything else.
Stunting the gene pool is one potential consequence of going Full Monty on self-indulgence. What happens when once you were a wannabe richie but now you're social filth at the bottom of the scale. It seems the same upheaval as exists now is inevitable from that.
That sequence doesn't seem so fanciful but going too far out gets to fantasy and isn't worth all that much to me.
It's easily foreseeable that long-life drugs, techniques, etc are on the near horizon.
It's easily calculable that they cannot possibly work at the existing breeding rate of humans.
Therefore a train wreck is inevitable unless some type of measure is taken to avoid it and, given the nature of humans, it won't be self-regulation of family sizes.
In positive consideration, why shouldn't self-regulation of the family size be a big deal. I have asked many times but have never heard a woman affirm she had to have a baby because of some aching biological need. For all it seems, at least in part, to have been personal choice but there's immense peer pressure as well. You have a biological clock ticking but who gives a steamy crap if you don't want a kid anyway.
That anyone even mentions a biological clock is a false and arbitrary pressure imposed by others so women feel they may 'fail as a woman' if they do not have a baby. That kind of pressure is just flat-out evil and addressing it more positively could be better in terms of some women feel the need to have a baby and, for the maximum chance of health of the baby, women who make that choice should do it before age forty.
Note: that age has been pushed up but we don't know if the incidence of Down's Syndrome went up with it.
The quality of life improves either way as the immediate problem of too many people is obvious when refugees float around by the millions. Population management isn't handled in any kind of way and populations go wild with it.
Extending life may, I repeat, may be good for quality of life as well but it can't happen without the first so it seems some thinking in that direction is warranted. The consequence of failing to do it is this will occur to some deviant before it occurs to you. That would be swell, wouldn't it.
One thing you can be sure is the poors won't get them. The New Age Narcissists don't think one hell of a lot but they're capable of Malthusian arithmetic when it directly affects them and it's simple arithmetic to extrapolate the consequence of longer life and breeding time for the poors. They will be drowning in poors faster than the bedbugs eat New York City.
(Ed: your disdain for the poor is charming)
I'm one of them and I know already they regard me as a bedbug.
The next thought in their demented, self-absorbed little minds will be population control and now involuntary sterilization will be accomplished through some devious means but we're sure they're capable of it given all the other horrible things they have done.
This is when the doctor starts to smile as that stunt wiped out an enormous part of the gene pool and they may regard it as the greatest eugenics experiment in history, filled with glorious nobility, and that technique worked splendidly for breeding racehorses ... but they're useless for anything else.
Stunting the gene pool is one potential consequence of going Full Monty on self-indulgence. What happens when once you were a wannabe richie but now you're social filth at the bottom of the scale. It seems the same upheaval as exists now is inevitable from that.
That sequence doesn't seem so fanciful but going too far out gets to fantasy and isn't worth all that much to me.
It's easily foreseeable that long-life drugs, techniques, etc are on the near horizon.
It's easily calculable that they cannot possibly work at the existing breeding rate of humans.
Therefore a train wreck is inevitable unless some type of measure is taken to avoid it and, given the nature of humans, it won't be self-regulation of family sizes.
In positive consideration, why shouldn't self-regulation of the family size be a big deal. I have asked many times but have never heard a woman affirm she had to have a baby because of some aching biological need. For all it seems, at least in part, to have been personal choice but there's immense peer pressure as well. You have a biological clock ticking but who gives a steamy crap if you don't want a kid anyway.
That anyone even mentions a biological clock is a false and arbitrary pressure imposed by others so women feel they may 'fail as a woman' if they do not have a baby. That kind of pressure is just flat-out evil and addressing it more positively could be better in terms of some women feel the need to have a baby and, for the maximum chance of health of the baby, women who make that choice should do it before age forty.
Note: that age has been pushed up but we don't know if the incidence of Down's Syndrome went up with it.
The quality of life improves either way as the immediate problem of too many people is obvious when refugees float around by the millions. Population management isn't handled in any kind of way and populations go wild with it.
Extending life may, I repeat, may be good for quality of life as well but it can't happen without the first so it seems some thinking in that direction is warranted. The consequence of failing to do it is this will occur to some deviant before it occurs to you. That would be swell, wouldn't it.
No comments:
Post a Comment