So, came here from r/trackers to see stuff. And came across various posts from the user "admin" which I can just call Vintologi for convenience (seriously what username is Admin lol? As a title it would make more sense).
While I have seen people essentially shittalk Vintologi, I haven't really notice anyone actually refute his stuff. The weird thing is Vintologi seems oddly logical at some points, yet also completely misses the logic/point of a lot of stuff (considering how dystopian this stuff sounds, it's interesting Vintologi has missed/ignored all those).
So, as a basis, Vintologi seems to promote a male dominated society with a full castes system, with essentially females (and in rarer cases males) being sex slaves.
So the first question that comes to mind is why? The primary argument here seems to be that it would help reproduction. And... I still question why? Sure, reproduction is the primary way by which biological species are still around and how nature functions. But we as humans fight nature and surpass nature. We aren't trying to minmax reproduction, nor are we to act as tools for evolution to continue. As individuals, we have importance, not the fact that we keep reproducing.
By that reasoning, the preservation and quality of an individual is far more important than minmaxing reproduction. One could argue if every individual now is going to die (from aging for example), then why does it even matter if humanity is extinct or not after that? Every current individual would be dead anyway.
But regardless of the matter, most would agree with this to varying degrees and thus with the fact that Vintologi's system is a completely against that.
Now Vintologi has made arbitrary quality of life points, and argues based on those that the net quality would still be higher. Except those values are completely arbitrary. For example "free male with female slave" is assigned a value of 1.6, while I would argue many males would not even want a female slave. And the reverse that is "free female with male slaves" is 1.1, not 1.6.
And anyways, somehow "female owned by male" 0.8, while I would argue the quality would be far lower.
Not to mention, many of the progresses that humanity has made were due to this exact freedom, do you think estabilishing a society that grants rights to enslave 50% of the population, females, would not impact male freedom (when the idea of enslaving is already common) and stall progress leading to a cycle of stagnation with the top trying to remain on top?
Also notice that what is Vintologi is suggesting is an unprecedented slavery system, those of which already have very low quality of life to begin with. And it would abolish many kinds of happiness and quality today, including the happiness of males themselves having females as equals.
And that is putting aside the general arguments against utilitarianism, and the potential horrific implications of taking it too far in various ways.
---
So we have established that Vintologi's society is a dystopian and why it's terrible. But, another core problem is the inherent bias in Vintologi's views towards male dominance, while a strong argument could also be made for a female centered society if one were to minmax reproduction, writing in Vintologi's own style it would be something like:
A single male can impregnate many females, and is functionally not that useful otherwise, a waste of resources as to call it. Having half the population be males is just a waste of resources. Culling the male population so that only 10% or less of them remain, and then giving them the minimum needs and using their sperm so that females can have children and raise them is a practical approach. Females would be happy, and it would overall lead to greater happiness as well.
With resources not being wasted on males, females can have a much more successful time operating society, taking leadership, and controlling population growth.
---
The above not being mentioned or considered by Vintologi shows that not only Vintologi's views lead to a terrible dystopian society, but also are inherently biased and skewed towards male dominance (since he is likely a male himself).
While I have seen people essentially shittalk Vintologi, I haven't really notice anyone actually refute his stuff. The weird thing is Vintologi seems oddly logical at some points, yet also completely misses the logic/point of a lot of stuff (considering how dystopian this stuff sounds, it's interesting Vintologi has missed/ignored all those).
So, as a basis, Vintologi seems to promote a male dominated society with a full castes system, with essentially females (and in rarer cases males) being sex slaves.
So the first question that comes to mind is why? The primary argument here seems to be that it would help reproduction. And... I still question why? Sure, reproduction is the primary way by which biological species are still around and how nature functions. But we as humans fight nature and surpass nature. We aren't trying to minmax reproduction, nor are we to act as tools for evolution to continue. As individuals, we have importance, not the fact that we keep reproducing.
By that reasoning, the preservation and quality of an individual is far more important than minmaxing reproduction. One could argue if every individual now is going to die (from aging for example), then why does it even matter if humanity is extinct or not after that? Every current individual would be dead anyway.
But regardless of the matter, most would agree with this to varying degrees and thus with the fact that Vintologi's system is a completely against that.
Now Vintologi has made arbitrary quality of life points, and argues based on those that the net quality would still be higher. Except those values are completely arbitrary. For example "free male with female slave" is assigned a value of 1.6, while I would argue many males would not even want a female slave. And the reverse that is "free female with male slaves" is 1.1, not 1.6.
And anyways, somehow "female owned by male" 0.8, while I would argue the quality would be far lower.
Not to mention, many of the progresses that humanity has made were due to this exact freedom, do you think estabilishing a society that grants rights to enslave 50% of the population, females, would not impact male freedom (when the idea of enslaving is already common) and stall progress leading to a cycle of stagnation with the top trying to remain on top?
Also notice that what is Vintologi is suggesting is an unprecedented slavery system, those of which already have very low quality of life to begin with. And it would abolish many kinds of happiness and quality today, including the happiness of males themselves having females as equals.
And that is putting aside the general arguments against utilitarianism, and the potential horrific implications of taking it too far in various ways.
---
So we have established that Vintologi's society is a dystopian and why it's terrible. But, another core problem is the inherent bias in Vintologi's views towards male dominance, while a strong argument could also be made for a female centered society if one were to minmax reproduction, writing in Vintologi's own style it would be something like:
A single male can impregnate many females, and is functionally not that useful otherwise, a waste of resources as to call it. Having half the population be males is just a waste of resources. Culling the male population so that only 10% or less of them remain, and then giving them the minimum needs and using their sperm so that females can have children and raise them is a practical approach. Females would be happy, and it would overall lead to greater happiness as well.
With resources not being wasted on males, females can have a much more successful time operating society, taking leadership, and controlling population growth.
---
The above not being mentioned or considered by Vintologi shows that not only Vintologi's views lead to a terrible dystopian society, but also are inherently biased and skewed towards male dominance (since he is likely a male himself).