Arguments against Vintologi

Nmaa

New member
Messages
6
#1
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).
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#2
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.
I would like to clarify that having a society totally dominated by males (where no females have any rights) might not be the best policy. I did post a thread about this where i did look into it here:

https://vintologi.com/threads/what-about-abandoning-female-sexual-freedom-completely.1632/

Females might be forced into reproduction due to "societal survival of the fittest" but if that is the case it will likely happen regardless of whether or not i advocate for it.

But you can get to the desired fertility rate utilizing just 5% of the female population.

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.
It's nearly impossible to get those quality of life values currently so we can only guess.

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.
That's probably true today but is that due to innate desires or due to societal conditioning?
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#3
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.
Culling males like that would not improve reproduction, instead there would be less resources available relative to the number of females due to fewer males working for the economy.

It would also force females into polygamous relationship but females often want to have a male for themselves (and get very jealous if he is with other females).

Males are also very useful as cannon fodder in wars.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#4
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?
I don't really believe in freedom on a fundamental level. It's about what types of experiences you want in your lives.

It's also worth noting that the suggested governance system is gender-neutral.

An: senator of rank n
Bn: first successor to senator n
BmN+n: successor m+1 to senator n
C0: approved by the senate the highest levels of service but not yet selected to be A or B citizen.
C1: approved to be judge or high official.
C2: citizens allowed to carry heavy weapons
C3: citizen allowed to carry light weapons.
C4: full citizenship.
C5: permanent residence.
C6: temporary residence (can be extended by paying fee).
D0: very high-value child/teen under guardianship/custody of C0/higher. Will instead be given C2 citizenship at 16
D1: high-value child/teen under guardianship/custody of C1/higher. Will instead be given C3 citizenship at 16.
D2: high-value individual reduced to property of C0 or higher for an indefinite period of time.
D3: valuable individual reduced to property of C1 or higher for an indefinite period of time.
D4: individual (such as a child) where C4 or higher have custody. Will instead be given C4 citizenship at 16.
D5: slave/child you are not allowed to injure (minor punishments allowed).
D6: slave not allowed to be killed or seriously injure (loss of limb, brain-damage, sterilized, etc).
D7: slave you are not allowed to kill or give serious brain-damage.
D8: slave with no rights.

Em: less/no rights, class m
Fq: military target of value {F0 value}*10^(q/10)

N = the number of senators
0 ⩽ n < N
Fq: military target of value {F0 value}*10^(q/10)

N = the number of senators
0 ⩽ n < N
 

Nmaa

New member
Messages
6
#5
It's worth mentioning that the "best" policy for a society is a rather vague concept, because it heavily depends on what you want out of a society.

So, Social Darwinism or "societal survival of the fittest" as you call it, isn't really a thing humans completely operate by, and we can see how every attempt at doing this has failed so far.

I am not saying humans don't have any traits that make them trample on weaker people, they do have those too (and we can see those showing themselves in society, like with bullying), but humans have evolved to help the weak, and make them stand by their side. They are very social creatures, with features to help their elderly, weak and disabled.

That's why even disabled people or weaker people are helped, and there have been discussions and uprisings leading to stuff like slavery being abolished.

This is especially true if it's for a group as large as 50% of the population, and humans have a group mentality, so if you enslave even some females on the basis of being female, the others would be upset too. Males would be upset too.

So this relates to the point of men not wanting female slaves, yes, there is an innate basis for this due to this. This also relates to the basis of human social interaction of wanting equals to experience life with too.

This is also assuming females are weaker than males, which isn't true per se. Well, physically, yes. But human physical strength is hardly basis for overall human strength. You did mention males being better in mental sports (I don't know where, but I read this somewhere), but you were being selective about the tasks, and in those sports, there are vastly more male participants than females, so it makes sense the top players would be mostly male.

There are studies showing males performing better in some tasks, and some studies showing females performing better in some tasks, there is a lengthy Wikipedia article on this you can check out (it does list its sources, so feel free to check the research papers), that overall says, the difference is really questionable, overall they are rather equal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence
---

Culling males would reduce the workforce, but also drastically decrease demand. You do have a point though, but then even with your point, enslaving males, using them as work or cannon (ideally you want to not have wars) fodder would work better. And then there would be selective culling so that they always provide more resources than take, and spending minimum resources on them. They aren't really as precious as females when it comes to reproduction, so it makes sense for them to be enslaved and used as fodder.

---

What kind of experiences you want in life is exactly why freedom is important though. If you don't have freedom, you can't choose that.

And again, what "system" works best depends on your goal for society. What are you trying to achieve by "best" policy? For example, I wouldn't consider any society like that good at all (even just with the gender neutral version of your castes system). It's rather dystopian like I said.

And yes, I agree overall happiness values would be hard to pin down, but I disagree with your take that there would be more overall happiness (even due to the aforementioned point of humans themselves not wanting a society like that, but other factors too).
But utilitarianism when taken too far, can lead to some terrible (or what I consider terrible) outcomes by itself, even if you manage to do it.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#6
So, Social Darwinism or "societal survival of the fittest" as you call it, isn't really a thing humans completely operate by, and we can see how every attempt at doing this has failed so far.
"societal survival of the fittest" isn't "social darwinism".

In fact there is often a conflict between natural human desires and what makes societies competitive.

We are for example seeing ukraine losing territory gradually now due to the west being unwilling to fight boldly in ukraine to actually win and expand our borders. Putin on the other hand keeps attacking civilians and he doesn't care too much about russians dying for his war, this gives him a bid advantage (in addition to the nuclear deterrence).
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.
One fundamental beliefs in vintologi is consciousness being eternal meaning that while our physical bodies are going to die our conscious experiences will continue in after that (even if you lose all memories of any past life).

That's why vintologi is more focused on long-term consequences instead of trying to make people live good lives for the moment.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#7
Culling males would reduce the workforce, but also drastically decrease demand. You do have a point though, but then even with your point, enslaving males, using them as work or cannon (ideally you want to not have wars) fodder would work better. And then there would be selective culling so that they always provide more resources than take, and spending minimum resources on them. They aren't really as precious as females when it comes to reproduction, so it makes sense for them to be enslaved and used as fodder.
Direct slave labor tends to be ineffective.

The main remaining utility is for sex slavery.

But you can forcefully transition males if the goal is just sexual enjoyment rather than reproduction.

War probably cannot be avoided until we have formed a stable world-government, it's nearly impossible to get there without a lot of warfare since it's hard to get over 200 countries to agree on a single world government.

And even if some agreement could be reach it would probably be far from ideal since then there would not be a process in which incompetent governments are weeded out as they lose in war(s).
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#8
What kind of experiences you want in life is exactly why freedom is important though. If you don't have freedom, you can't choose that.
You can get a lot of interesting experiences from having someone else choose for you.

People tend to make bad decisions when they decide for themselves (such as using drugs).

We have seen the results of liberalism and it really hasn't worked out too well.
 

Nmaa

New member
Messages
6
#9
What would "societal survival of the fittest" be if not Social Darwinsm? The idea that the strong should be above the weak and should be subject to them (strong and weak definitions can vary). How the "fittest"/"strongest" would/should survive the best in a society.

I am not sure how the example you provided relates? Are you saying those who play dirty have an advantage over those that don't? What does have to do with men and women? Because if anything women are known for playing dirty plenty too.

Also it's incomplete:

It's true that Europe not going full throttle into war might have helped Russia, but it's also true that it possibly avoided a lot further complications, which might have made things worse.

And the same stuff that caused Russia not to care about human lives and rights (corruption), also have caused it to massively underperform in the war. Most everyone expected Russia with its seemingly huge advantages to quickly take over Ukraine and be done with it, yet it couldn't and is still 2 years later, struggling, having suffered massive damage and causalities.

---

Long-term consequences in where? Turning someone's life to hell in this world wouldn't give them a good afterlife, would it? Neither would it benefit the people living in the mortal realm.

And if consciousness is eternal, then it doesn't matter if humans go extinct or not since their consciousness would continue existing anyway.

---

There are various forms of slave labor, with different effectiveness scales. I don't see how it is not effective. Society would be structured among working males providing for the ruling females. Also why would you transition them? Not only do we currently not have the ability to do it perfectly but also who are you trying to please sexually and why would it matter? If you want to go that far and somehow care, why not just castrate the men who you deem not useful sexually and let them continue being workers?

With a culled male population, females would vastly outnumber them, and there would be male breeding slaves that would be forced to sleep with the females.

----

Good or bad is kinda weird to measure like that, can it be really bad if it's something you decided to do?

People can make bad decisions for themselves, but others can make even worse decisions for them. They are still people making decisions for one, and they have a lot less stakes in it (since it's not themselves they are making decisions for). At least if someone decides something bad for themselves, it was something they wanted.

Liberalism has not worked out well compared to what? It has worked out far better than anything we've had in the past, quality of life wise. Liberal countries tend to have better quality of life and average wealth compared to non-liberal ones. Not to mention it is closely associated with recent scientific progress in history.
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#10
What would "societal survival of the fittest" be if not Social Darwinsm?
"Societal survival of the fittest" is a theory i have been working on regarding competition between states.

https://vintologi.com/threads/societal-survival-of-the-fittest.979/

This will likely end with a single government controlling all the planet which will then end said competition.

It is not claimed in vintologi that the best state (in terms of what would create the best world-government for humanity) is going to win that competition. You can however take action to make it more likely that a good government is going to be the final winner in said competition.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#11
The idea that the strong should be above the weak and should be subject to them (strong and weak definitions can vary). How the "fittest"/"strongest" would/should survive the best in a society.
Darwinian evolution select for reproduction. Being stronger/smarter can help with that but that's not always the case.

It does for example seem like high intelligence is naturally selected against in more modern societies so we need eugenics just to maintain the current intelligence level.

https://pismin.com/10.1016/j.intell.2007.03.004

I am not aware of any attempt at eugenics that has been good so far and it will likely be pretty hard to do it successfully given past failures when it comes to dog breeding for example.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#12
It's true that Europe not going full throttle into war might have helped Russia, but it's also true that it possibly avoided a lot further complications, which might have made things worse.
That's a dumb cope.

All you get is the war dragging out.

WWIII is unavoidable. We should prepare for it and build better shelters and missile defense systems instead of trying to avoid the unavoidable.

It's like accepting bad settlements every time you get sued because you don't want to go to trial, then other people will take advantage of that and sue you even more.

You need to demonstrate that you are not afraid of going all out to deter others.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#13
With a culled male population, females would vastly outnumber them, and there would be male breeding slaves that would be forced to sleep with the females.
Would you really need to force males into that?

A lot of males would do that willingly.

But as i said earlier it's very common that females want to have a male for themselves rather than sharing him.

And males are still contributing more in taxes than females on average.

males-vs-females-tax.png


https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/P759-Gender-distribution-of-3a-tax-cuts-web.pdf
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#14
Liberalism has not worked out well compared to what? It has worked out far better than anything we've had in the past, quality of life wise. Liberal countries tend to have better quality of life and average wealth compared to non-liberal ones. Not to mention it is closely associated with recent scientific progress in history.
While liberalism has been fairly successful at providing people with resources that has not really translated into people living great lives.

Instead we end up with atomized individuals who do not have much sense of a community or a greater purpose.

People go to work, earn money, buy groceries, go home, watch porn, play some pointless videogame, pay bills, go to sleep.

There have been multiple times where i found a female who was interested in me but she still didn't want any children resulting in me not pursuing any relationship with her.

I have spent a lot of effort trying to avoid the typical bleak reality males face but even if i succeed it's probably not something most males would be able to replicate. The system itself is bad and has to change.

I would also argue that it doesn't really work out for females either but i don't have direct experience with that.
 

Nmaa

New member
Messages
6
#15
I still am not sure how "Societal Survival of the Fittest" relates to females being used as breeding slaves.

Also it's hard to say what will happen, governments of different types can collapse and rise, due to people clashing with each other in various forms essentially, and being territorial animals. We don't see a trend of it happening in a way that leads to more unification, the balance isn't so neat and stable to end up with just one country. It keeps shifting back and forth with many countries, and then them collapsing and so forth.

If it happens, I'd say it's less about incompetent nations being take over by competent ones, and more so due to people themselves being connected and uniting, or at least that playing a major role in it, even if some wars and stuff happen.

If anything we have seen far more dictatorships fall than democratic governments as it is now, but that's also partly because modern democracy is relatively new. You say flaws, but it's not as if other forms of governments were without flaws, if anything, I'd say democracy has one of the least flaws.

---------------------

Social Darwnism isn't really about biological evolution, the name might be a bit confusing, yes. But it's usually a term used for applying "must subject the weak to the strong" to society, with strong meaning different things depending on who you ask. Sort of like your castes system.

Also while some research shows a decrease in IQ (which btw isn't the only measure of intelligence), there is also researching indicating this doesn't have to do with biological changes and more with the environment:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042097
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4914190
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35321-6_9 (just get the book from Anna's Archive I guess)

-----------------------

So your solution to having less war is trying to have more war because you think it will eventually happen anyway?

I mean, nothing you said here contradicts what I said per se. Europe being more aggressive could have resulted in a worse situation, and you seem to agree (but be okay with it).

-----------------

You might need to force them if you want to keep sleeping with a bunch of women (males don't want to be sexually abused either), but if there is less coercion involved, then that's even better.

What do you base your statement off of that women want to have a single male to themselves? If anything the practice of women accepting men that slept with different women has happened quite often in history, it's actually a lot more common than the other way.

And considering casual hook ups that happen, both men and women also are seen to be okay with sleeping with a bunch of different partners and switching up.

-----------------
Again, compared to what? I am not saying our current liberal societies are an utopia, they do have their problems, but they are better than non-liberal ones and stuff we have had in the past.

The very fact that you casually brush aside the ability to buy groceries and having a home is indication of just how much your standards have risen, so much so that you just casually take them for granted anyway.

And what you describe as being a repetitive day to day life has more or less always been the case, whether it be people working on farms, never going outside their village in medieval times or now.
And yes, they did have even less of a sense of greater purpose (and do so right now in less liberal countries), and were busy trying to have the stuff you take for granted. It's exactly largely due to this that technology did not (rapidly) advance for so long, most people didn't have anything to spare for doing other stuff. It was only with the right situation and the promotion of liberal values which also gave people freedom to exchange ideas that people got a sense of another purpose.

As for the "having a sense of community", that also has less to do with liberal values, and more on the culture of the specific country you are talking about. Some cultures are less "social" for a lack of a better term, than others.

Also, you are weirdly obsessed with having kids, so it's worth mentioning that a lot of males don't want kids nowadays either, so not having kids does not necessarily make them feel miserable. And... well, your particular views might not be exactly helping you in finding someone to make kids with.
But a lot of males who want kids with their partners have kids anyways. It's mostly males who don't want (or don't care) about kids, that don't have kids with their partners.
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#16
Also it's hard to say what will happen, governments of different types can collapse and rise, due to people clashing with each other in various forms essentially, and being territorial animals. We don't see a trend of it happening in a way that leads to more unification, the balance isn't so neat and stable to end up with just one country. It keeps shifting back and forth with many countries, and then them collapsing and so forth.
One of the reasons why Rome stopped expanding is that as they grew it took longer and longer to communicate within the empire. They had the military might to expand further but they choose not to and eventually they divided the empire in two which eventually lead to both the western and eastern roman empire to fall apart (with the byzantine empire lasting around 1000 years longer).

But today we have fast communication allowing a worldwide empire to be created.

One remaining barrier is ethnic differences but there are example of multi-ethnic societies being stable such as singapore.

And authoritarian governments can resort to very brutal measures against population-groups giving them problems.

If anything we have seen far more dictatorships fall than democratic governments as it is now, but that's also partly because modern democracy is relatively new. You say flaws, but it's not as if other forms of governments were without flaws, if anything, I'd say democracy has one of the least flaws.
No it's trending towards more authoritarianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding

The more authoritarian a system is the greater the variance will be in terms of outcomes.

The competition between states should favor authoritarianism long-term due to authoritarian governance having the highest potential. The best run governments will end up being all authoritarian.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#17
I still am not sure how "Societal Survival of the Fittest" relates to females being used as breeding slaves.
Forced breeding is the most effective way of raising the birth-rate among the people most suited for breeding.

Wars favor countries with larger population sizes. If you force females to have more children you get more males to use for wars later (either directly as soldiers or by supporting the war effort in other ways).
Also while some research shows a decrease in IQ (which btw isn't the only measure of intelligence), there is also researching indicating this doesn't have to do with biological changes and more with the environment:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042097
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4914190
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35321-6_9 (just get the book from Anna's Archive I guess)
I will check out the links provided but even if the reversal was mostly environmental dysgenic breeding will eventually become a big problem.

https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2017-020.pdf

https://sci-hub.usualwant.com/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.06.003
 

Nmaa

New member
Messages
6
#19
I am not super familiar with the history of Rome, but the collapse of the empire had a lot of reasons. Yes, it getting too big as you said is also one.

And I agree communication can make a worldwide government easier.

What I am saying, it's hard to predict what will happen in the future, a worldwide government might be made or might not. We don't really have clear data to suggest that it will happen.

Also I disagree with your ideas on what is favored to happen.

Authoritarian governments are also subject to revolution, coups and a myriad of other issues, including heavy corruption and bad quality of life (which again can lead to revolution), not to mention internal power struggles and in-fighting. While they can use more brutal measures against population, they also have other stuff which makes them more prone to collapsing.

You know the link you posted has an opposite article too, it can go both ways, no government is completely immune to collapse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratization

--

And authoritarian governments don't have good potential, if anything, democratic governments have shown to lead to much better progress. Authoritarian governments tend to again, have a myriad of issues which I mentioned. I mean, the examples are there. Most authoritarian governments suck.

--

I see, so you are saying that, in a war of countries, those with more population would be more favored to win, which with how you think countries interact would mean, the country that does this would come up on top. Now regardless of my disagreement over your ideas about how countries and societies interact with each other, population is only one factor in war.

For one countries which use forced breeding also would have lower quality of life and be themselves prone to collapsing. Dystopian government which force breeds population to go to war sounds like something that is very prone to collapse.

For another population does not necessarily translate to military might, we have seen examples of this. India has a huge population, but is military wise inferior to US. Japan despite having way less population than China, invaded it and managed to fight relatively well.
Things like level of technology, corruption, industrialization, organization, and overall how much a country even cares about its military, and other factors all come in.

A lot of which a corrupt authoritarian regime that you describe would lack (again, I brought up the example of Russia, most everyone thought it was gonna take over Ukraine really fast, but with how much of a mess it was internally, it couldn't).

--

The first link you post seems to find a positive correlation between intelligence and fertility, which goes against what you say? I mean reading the abstract at least says that.

Point is, there are a lot of factors to fertility, we don't have as much clear evidence that it has to do with intelligence and that we would see decline in intelligence. Different people argue different stuff over it.

--

Hmm, the society you describe sounds like a dystopia with terrible quality of life. So I am not sure what you mean by having better quality, considering the many examples you yourself list in that post in which people are subject to terrible treatments, and how over time, you can reincarnate as them over and over. The more I read, the worse it seems.

You seem to think if overall more people are happy at the expense of others, it's good, no matter how terrible those other people's experiences become. However, even with your reincarnation idea, you would spend a decent amount of time being in hell as those people. And many of the things you describe only marginally improve the other end's enjoyment if at all, so it's not even like a big gain at the expense of someone else.

What should instead matter is trying to maximize quality of life for everyone, with as little sacrifice as possible. So that you can pretty much always have a decent time when you reincarnate. Not be often subject to hell, with little gains when you aren't subject to hell.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#20
Authoritarian governments are also subject to revolution, coups and a myriad of other issues, including heavy corruption and bad quality of life (which again can lead to revolution), not to mention internal power struggles and in-fighting. While they can use more brutal measures against population, they also have other stuff which makes them more prone to collapsing.
We are not seeing instability like that in authoritarian states with decently competent governance.

And authoritarian governments don't have good potential
It does work pretty well in singapore and vietnam so we have already seen some of that potential.

Democratic countries are limited by their own population in terms of quality of governance. Authoritarian systems can go beyond such mediocre governance.

China has potential and it is fairly stable but they have a history of bad decisions (such as the horrendous one-child policy).
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#21
I see, so you are saying that, in a war of countries, those with more population would be more favored to win, which with how you think countries interact would mean, the country that does this would come up on top. Now regardless of my disagreement over your ideas about how countries and societies interact with each other, population is only one factor in war.

For one countries which use forced breeding also would have lower quality of life and be themselves prone to collapsing. Dystopian government which force breeds population to go to war sounds like something that is very prone to collapse.
Nazi germany was an actual dystopian government and they kept their population motivated to fight even though they were clearly losing the war (after 1943) and they also committed the holocaust (unclear to what extent typical citizens knew about that).

Both Ukraine and Russia does poorly in the war currently but Ukraine would be screwed if it wasn't for constant support from the west (mostly from NATO countries).

Putin did make a mistake of pushing his citizens to ignore politics instead of being enthusiastically on the side of his imperialism. Putin has also been shown to be pretty incompetent when it comes to managing his country.

What you are overlooking is that authoritarian governments are able to use propaganda/education to get the masses on their side (at least to the extent that there is not going to be any revolution).
 

Nmaa

New member
Messages
6
#22
Decently competent government is the key here. Most authoritarian governments do not have that. They can exist, but it's a rarer thing. The fundamental issue is how it is very resistant to change as I said, and encourages power struggles, and bad governments can stay and be very hard to get rid of. Even countries like Singapore (if you could call it successful), are not full authoritarian, they try to maintain a resemblance of democracy, and take advantage of some of its advantages.

Germany's military success itself is largely unrelated to it being a dystopia. And while the propaganda and advertising that later established the dystopia managed to give rise to Nazi Germany, it ultimately also caused its early downfall and collapse.

Russia is another example of what I mentioned, authoritarian governments tend to be much more susceptible to corruption and incompetence. The difference between Russia and Ukraine is that, Russia should have had a strong military and every advantage, yet it is a classic example of how much corruption can ruin a country's military. It should have won the war early on, but couldn't.

Propaganda only goes so far and can try to paint a good sentiment mainly when the government already has supporters and is doing well. When people's quality of life and satisfaction falls, propaganda becomes unable to keep patching it up, information will flow and people themselves will experience the state of the country too.

So, there is nothing inherent really that would give authoritarian governments an inherent super edge to take over the world (well, there are other issues with this whole idea itself I mentioned before too). Not saying it can't happen, it just isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be, and that authoritarian governments tend to perform worse in general.
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,936
#23
Germany's military success itself is largely unrelated to it being a dystopia. And while the propaganda and advertising that later established the dystopia managed to give rise to Nazi Germany, it ultimately also caused its early downfall and collapse.
I think you missed my point.

Nazi Germany managed to keep their soldiers very motivated despite them losing badly.

Their propaganda is still in affect today with people believing that their war machine was more effective than it really were.


Decently competent government is the key here. Most authoritarian governments do not have that. They can exist, but it's a rarer thing. The fundamental issue is how it is very resistant to change as I said, and encourages power struggles, and bad governments can stay and be very hard to get rid of. Even countries like Singapore (if you could call it successful), are not full authoritarian, they try to maintain a resemblance of democracy, and take advantage of some of its advantages.
We have not seen anywhere close to the potential of pure elite rule yet when it comes to governance of countries.

We have however seen plenty of successful corporations with very undemocratic governance structures. Nvidia is an example of a corporation that has had good governance making them successful.

The reason why it works within capitalism is thanks to competition. The competition selects for competence to a significant extent.

When you are not competent as a business owner:

 
Messages
13
#24
my rgument against vintologi is that we can clone humans and do artificial wombs, so why would it not be better than using women to reproduce... once you get rid of women next step is you pay nerd developers to build some sex robots and we will have no more reasons to censor stuff on the internet. Reproduction would be secured and life will be fine, probably all wars will end too
 
Top