Serious T.H. Huxley's "Ethics Opposes Biological Struggle for Existence", and it's implications on our future

[Deleted member 8353]

To respond to several "it's natural selection", and "incels are just nature's way of course correction" style arguments I've seen echoed in places like IT, or just directed towards low SMV men in general, and to act as an addition to the thread https://incels.is/threads/end-game-...nd-the-death-of-humanity.100940/#post-1992463 by @Robo Sapien , I'd like to share some ideas that I originally believed were obvious. Although I'm beginning to think our detractors actually buy their own bullshit. In the excerpt from his essay that I'll provide below, Huxley argues that evolution is blind, both toward ethical concerns, and regarding what is best for the advancement and preservation of society.

Western civilization has been in an unprecedented pitfall of social regression for at least the past 60 years, if not the past century. We've been quickly reverting back to a state where the "cosmic process", as Huxley refers to it, holds more sway over the direction of our society than it has in centuries. Female hypergamy and their nature to only value the most physically attractive men, coupled with acquiring all the rights of men(with little societal responsibility and practically zero personal accountability), has resulted in a state where little motivation exists for average or below average men to contribute to society, and has fundamentally broken the social contract. Following from this, female sexual selection has doomed future generations to be selected for physical attributes, rather than intellectual or ethical contributions which allow for human civilization to evolve, and which would facilitate our advancement to a better way of life.

If we're to ever advance toward a future world which has any hope of even being worth living in, our civilization needs to ensure we have both cultural and economic systems in place to nullify female hypergamy and sexual selection, or to at least keep it in check. Yet despite this, for decades we've been doing the exact opposite, destroying the mechanisms by which our progenitors upheld society, and look where it's got us. We've been witnessing the rapid devolution of human society, not it's advancement. By not taking action, our civilization has resigned the future to a vulgar and morally bankrupt existence, as can be concluded from the work below.

[Ethics Is Not a Result of Biological Adaptation]

There is another fallacy which appears to me to pervade the so called ‘ethics of evolution’. It is the notion that because, on the whole, animals and plants have advanced in perfection of organization by means of the struggle for existence and the consequent ‘survival of the fittest’; therefore men in society, men as ethical beings, must look to the same process to help them towards perfection. I suspect that this fallacy has arisen out of the unfortunate ambiguity of the phrase survival of the fittest.’ ‘Fittest’ has a connotation of ‘best’; and about ‘best’ there hangs a moral flavour. In cosmic nature, however, what is ‘fittest’ depends upon the conditions. Long since, I ventured to point out that if our hemisphere were to cool again, the survival of the fittest might bring about, in the vegetable kingdom, a population of more and more stunted and humbler and humbler organisms, until the ‘fittest’ that survived might be nothing but lichens, diatoms, and such microscopic organisms as those which give red snow its colour; while, if it became hotter, the pleasant valleys of the Thames and Isis might be uninhabitable by any animated beings save those that flourish in a tropical jungle. They, as the fittest, the best adapted to the changed conditions, would survive.

Men in society are undoubtedly subject to the cosmic process. As among other animals, multiplication goes on without cessation, and involves severe competition for the means of support. The struggle for existence tends to eliminate those less fitted to adapt themselves to the circumstances of their existence. The strongest, the most self-assertive, tend to tread down the weaker. But the influence of the cosmic process on the evolution of society is the greater the more rudimentary its civilization. Social progress means a checking of the cosmic process at every step and the substitution for it of another, which may be called the ethical process; the end of which is not the survival of those who may happen to be the fittest, in respect of the whole of the conditions which obtain, but of those who are ethically the best.

As I have already urged,the practice of that which is ethically best, what we call goodness or virtue, involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows; its influence is directed, not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive. It repudiates the gladiatorial theory of existence. It demands that each man who enters into the enjoyment of the advantages of a polity shall be mindful of his debt to those who have laboriously constructed it; and shall take heed that no act of his weakens the fabric in which he has been permitted to live. Laws and moral precepts are directed to the end of curbing the cosmic process and reminding the individual of his duty to the community, to the protection and influence of which he owes, if not existence itself, at least the life of something better than a brutal savage.

It is from neglect of these plain considerations that the fanatical individualism of our time attempts to apply the analogy of cosmic nature to society. Once more we have a misapplication of the stoical injunction to follow nature; the duties of the individual to the State are forgotten, and his tendencies to self assertion are dignified by the name of rights. It is seriously debated whether the members of a community are justified in using their combined strength to constrain one of their number to contribute his share to the maintenance of it; or even to prevent him from doing his best to destroy it. The struggle for existence,which has done such admirable work in cosmic nature, must, it appears, be equally beneficent in the ethical sphere. Yet if that which I have insisted upon is true; if the cosmic process has no sort of relation to moral ends; if the imitation of it by man is inconsistent with the first principles of ethics; what becomes of this surprising theory?

 

[Deleted member 1252]

Genius IQ

Thanks for sharing OP

Posts like this are never seen on cucktears or any other anti-Incel medium.

 

[Deleted member 8353]

Genius IQ

Thanks for sharing OP

Posts like this are never seen on cucktears or any other anti-Incel medium.

Of course, they have to cherry pick posts, totally out of context, and use them as ammunition against us. Yet I've never seen them provide any evidence against the blackpill, or really evidence against anything at all that we've claimed.

 

[Angry_runt]

I'm beyond caring what happens to normie society. I'm 36 and from here on it's all downhill for me personally and I hope for human civilization as well.

 

[Sparrow's Song]

Jesus Disciple Level IQ

That post was like a church sermon.

 

[Deleted member 16156]

huxley is a favorite, too bad him and many high iq men are rolling in their graves at todays society....

 

[Salustio]

Soy is the new soma.

 

[Robo Sapien]

Huxley was able to recognize the danger of female hypergamy during the 1920s. Unrestrained female nature was beginning to rip society apart even back then. The only reason why western civilization isn't a heap of smoldering ash is because of a nearly 20 year economic depression that didn't fully end until the 1960s. Hence, second wave feminism. It's funny how all of this stuff is so interconnected. How each intricate piece ties together to form a much larger web.

As for our detractors, I think they completely understand what's going on. It is my belief however, that so many of them advocate against a healthy patriarchal society because many of them are weak and effeminate. As a result of this weakness, they know they would lose under such a system. To them, ruling in hell is better than serving in heaven.

 

[gylo]

Men and women will always behave as savagely and barbarously hedonistic as their environment permits. Through most of our distant past, those 1% of civilizations that did not fall or whither away developed systems of social class, order, and custom that, through elaborate rituals and customs of shame, courting, and justice, urged our nature's to one which keeps our hedonism covert and most importantly, logistically sustainable.

Since the industrial revolution, advancements have selectively whithered away those restrictions, as there no longer was an immediately damning risk implied in following them. Birth control allowed for permiscuity. Advanced medical care mystified death, made it rare and less understood as a part of life. The internet and spread of information has rendered more and more people effectively agnostic, who reject religion on logical principles, rather than understand it was never made to make sense, religion was a binder for the moral cues of society. It kept us shameful of our indiscretions, our hedonism, our pride.