Over the past few thousand years on Terra, we've seemed to see evidence of Europeoid racial superiority. Throw a bunch of them together in a human habitat, and they do things like develop a particular architecture. As far as modern humans go, it tends to be pleasing in terms of shape and line, and more importantly, effective; it tends to be a thing that doesn't need to be moved seasonally, nor bi-annually, but is so efficient it can stay in the same place for years, still working, with minor repair. This architecture also tends to keep out the cold and be weather-resistant. Human groups seem to have an ability to build which corresponds to their racial possession of some quality of genes which seem to have been primarily or initially provided by some group of Europeoids or near-Europeoids. For example, an Egyptian empire of around 5,000 B.C. builds a certain quality and size-level of things, then doesn't once its racial composition changes; a Roman Empire does the same, and so on. We might call our group Europeoid because these abilities were honed by a need for architecture which could survive, in the long term, in the global north, or maybe it only appears that way because other groups could not create architecture that permitted them to survive stably in a limited space zone afflicted by northern temperatures. A few other groups could lead semi-nomadic lives in colder regions, or potentially eschew all technology but survival in order to persist, but Europeoids could build livable things, then still invent other things, within the snow.
Let's call our Europeoids (our hypothetical group of inventing but imperiled hominids) "Wytes" just for purposes of discussion. We don't know the original where or/if why Wytes distinguished themselves as a distinct group, so Wytes will serve as a term. Imagining it was European winters, or the shifting preference of an invisible sky Jew who really liked Wytes the best, or some genetic superiority that developed somewhere else and just seems to be, through coincidence, related to the part of the globe we now call Europe, is beyond the reach of our current knowledge. Use Wytes to refer to someone who has enough of whatever the crucial genetic and/or spiritual factors exist(ed).
The pattern has held, whether as an indirect result of Slav rape, or conquests that were gradually sort of absorbed, to the reaches of Aryan territory, including Indo-Arya/India, onto China, onto Japan, and associated environs. Not just in architectural stability, but in social stability; we can find dynasties in ancient India, and recent China/Japan, that we can't find in, say, Africa or Mesoamerica. Architecture rather telegraphed the abilities or intentions of a group, for it seemed that the ability to survive as non-nomads was inextricably linked to other aspects of material environment management, such that the ability of a people to plan for rulership transitions around the temporal vicinity of someone's death was connected to that same group's ability to plan for food availability during weather crises, seasonal temperature adjustments, nearby flooding or droughting, et cetera. And that ability seemed linked to all other technology, so Europe was better at that than China was better at that than Africa. The ability to build, say, better houses was linked to the ability to build, say, guns and jet planes.
Modern myth holds that everyone was equal and Wytes got superior either by chance or by stealing things, which potentially melds with recent self-destructive Pentateuchal Wyte colonialism, but not with five thousand years ago or any of the time before this period. Per the rules of modern science, Wytes have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate that they're better at building not only buildings and tangible technology, but rubrics of rules within which individuals prefer to live. And, say, five thousand years has shown that, in the sense of recent history being an endless succession of Wytes establishing some settlement big or small, said settlement being massively more attractive to nearby groups, and the latter then permeating and deconstructing said Wyte settlement, e.g. Egypt, Rome, Spain, the U.S. and Europe. And despite little pockets of occasional resistance, the Wyte societies keep dying. Relics are left behind which might, in a less-traveled world, foster rebuilding; e.g. technological knowledge which might assist a successor society to rebuild some "nation" after a past nation has died, but now that Terrans can travel so fast, and a new genetically exclusive nation hasn't been built on some extraterrestrial object, the end of Wytes seems near, as was repeatedly foreseen and explicitly predicted more than a century ago.
So if we like technology--pacemakers, or guns, or houses that don't let in so much snow the people inside them die too much each winter--we're sorta sad, because Wytes will be gone. At the very least, they have recessive traits, and will be bred out and absorbed into successor races, possibly increasing successor I.Q. a little bit from what it would've been, but toppling, perhaps for all time, the heights to which the Wyte experiment, as it were, had aspired. Maybe Chinese architecture or Japanese social traditions were better than that found in many other places, but they couldn't produce the mental dynamism that gave us, say, cars or computers; forever stillborn, the next few thousand years of humanity might be a failed experiment, maybe never to have a chance again as technology allows ability to be tracked and eliminated in the interests of fairness-piracy.
Not to stop this process, nor even to leave a little gem of wisdom for some regenerative future--besides it not surviving, and being functionally illegible, it'd spoil the whole thing to give answers ahead of time when they wouldn't otherwise be found out on their own--but for ourselves, here at this part of the end, we might consider Wyte racial failings.
This has been tried by the janitors, a.k.a. The Enemy, inasmuch as Wytes have been accused of forms of autopathological altruism, whereby one of their traits is that they please themselves by giving away their things, but this is an attempt to deflect blame; to turn the genuine, full-blooded masochist into a hapless amateur who went too far and didn't know what she was getting into. Namely, by chronicling the death of Wytes as a hapless misadventure of trying to excessively help others, we overlook the benefit of this racial failing, such that some type of autopathological disorder doesn't suffice as an explanation.
Make a mental list of the virtues possessed by the Wytes, which can be endlessly verified across all presently known history. Wytes build things better, invent many more and much better things in this environment, develop family and civilizational structures which are more reliable, and so forth. As aforementioned, call those "virtues." Then take a moment and feel a sense of foreboding or badness at the prospect of the Wytes being bred into less capable groups, with the mostly-recessive genes for aforementioned positive traits either diminishing or disappearing altogether.
Now look at that list of virtues again. It's quite incomplete. What has been confused as autopathological altruism is a virtue-demerit, or a bad character trait; a thoroughly vast eschewing of good behavior and responsibility, coupled with genes promising its frequent future repetition. Something has to get rid of those genes, and since we don't believe in educational conditioning but the traditional inheritance of ingrained behavior, the only thing that can remove it is a messy, lengthy process of eliminating the afflicted, inferior individuals, and their gradual replacement by better ones.
These demerits, these flaws of character, are quite numerous and quite serious. Think back to your CCW classes: do you set your gun next to the place where the little black boys are playing war, then leave it alone and come back a few hours later? No! Fail! And genetically, civilizationally, this is what Wytes have done. Oh, was it because someone told you it would be fine? What kind of idiot are you, anyway? I don't care how many times he told you, it was still stupid. Did you let him have half your things, too, because he told you it was a good idea? Yeah, you're a fuckin' idiot; you're a hopeless case. Start over.
Consider the virtues the Wyte race is lacking:
Responsibility. Wytes are good at making things, but dangerously willing to give them away. And, perversely, to feel powerful by watching them be used by others. This is why what we're seeing is not any kind of pathological altruism, but a perfectly rational pleasure-seeking behavior by the Wytes: do something because it feels good. We still see this, say at the U.N., where Wytes get off on making other groups act "respectful toward women" or "respectful toward minorities," showing them exactly how to ape preferred behavior so that the pleasure of bribing someone else to imitate you can be gained. The above gun example is a literal one, in the sense of Wytes developing dangerous weapons, then sharing the manufacture of them, or the output of that manufacture, with people who did not, arguably could not have, developed them on their own. This is not a trivial thing; someone who developed a geological bomb and then loaned it to everyone and their cousin would be, in some way, responsible for the resulting earthquakes even if he did not press the button himself. Wytes were smart enough to invent guns, but not to guard the possession of their mental labor from those who should not have had it. When African dictators have "little wars" of ten thousand dudes versus ten thousand more, all armed with old stressed firearms, the results, perhaps even the happenings at all, of such revolutions, are partly, if not totally, due to the Wytes. There's a level of stupidity there, in the sense of the Africans spending their time that way--which they probably would've been doing anyway--but the mortality risk of a revolution with guns versus one with fists and spears is decidedly different. If wolves or chimpanzees could slay their enemies or demonstrate dominance with guns, they would, and their inability to fathom the mandatory eventual consequences of having their species flush with guns and gun-results is expected, and predictable, even to the point of hunting Wytes for the same reasons. Sure, it's funny to laugh at the idea of some chimpanzee destroying his enemy's family and in so doing having his spare shots kill potential future mates and food supplies, but then that part of the ecosystem becomes unavailable to not only the victorious chimp himself, but the inventor of the death machine.
The "me smarter, me make guns" thought has paralyzed Wytes. Celebration of various superiorities has utterly distracted Wytes from facing up to what they've done wrong, including both stupidities manipulated and inherent. The negative consequences of their actions have been turned into a debate over how we should get rid of chimps, and many other sub-species or species, rather than how incredibly stupid it was to have given them, say, guns, or attractive suggestions on how to remake their agriculture to Wyte standards, in the first place. The regeneration of continents and resources has been thoroughly changed, in the past couple thousand years, by this kind of insane meddling.
The same irresponsible use of technology extends far beyond guns and bombs. Africans couldn't develop sea-going vessels or motorcars, modernized voting systems, writing, or pseudo representative parliaments, but were gradually provided them by Wytes, resulting in vast social and economic changes which may have produced more net harm than the provisioning of weaponry. We enter very difficult territory here, because being able to conclude that the results of invention may be a responsibility of inventors is difficult not only for species-deniers, but for species-embracers. People who think everyone's the same don't want to contemplate the responsibility, because admitting Wytes mucked it up means admitting that they really were the ones who invented all the creature comforts they worship, and for the most part, people who think Wytes are super duper don't want to either; it "wasn't their fault" that things got away from them. Allowing this type of excuse is similar to allowing that a brilliant inventor is still brilliant if his lab explodes and all his work is ultimately ruined because he listened to his savvy assistant about how leaving his gas lines open was okay. Yes, maybe the savvy assistant was evil, and maybe the savvy assistant planned for things to end up this way, but it was still stupid for the inventor to house, retain, and take the advice of the savvy assistant. No matter how bad, how immoral, how selfish the savvy assistant was, the inventor's stupidity is still genuine. Amidst a thousand wrongs, another wrong is still a wrong.
And that is where autopathological altruism ultimately fails as an explanation. It presumes some variety of kindness, helpfulness, goodness, of the idiot who left the gun on a public park bench for anyone to find. Later on, when kids have shot kids, or chimps chimps, the inventor cries, "Ohh, I'm so sorry, someone said it would be fine!" or "We must eliminate peacocks from this world, they're simply too dangerous to be permitted!" We're seeing the results, here, not of charity--that is a cheap rationalization for the irresponsibility, the stupidity, of what has happened; of species or sub-species experimentally augmented in dangerous ways. Punishing the test subjects might feel cathartic, but it does nothing to redress the recurring wrongs of a people so stupid, so arrogant, they think they can remake the world in their image. "Everyone can be as responsible as me--just give them the guns and see!" Wrong on so many levels; not only can everyone not be as responsible as the giver, the giver is not actually responsible, as the giving demonstrates.
So we come to Wyte racial inferiority: the only ones dumb enough to give away the magic beans. Everyone else, despite their many shortcomings, knew to keep safe and secret, to the point of maximum violence, things which had been inherently generated. Land, women, stuff--all of that. Maybe they would've been equally vulnerable to the sustained attentions of one or more savvy assistants, but since only one person invented the gun, we don't know that anyone else would've been that foolish.
We spoke earlier about the "benefits" of this stupidity, and they are the benefits of all irresponsibility, in the sense of "not bearing the burdens of responsibility" being a short-term benefit. Now we can see how dangerous it has been to pass around so much technology, and it's easy to critique the practice, but at the time, people didn't want to even think about the responsibility; didn't want to imagine simple misuse. This hasn't been autopathological altruism, but simple sloth and laziness, wherein Wytes were so interested in making new things and having fun that they almost perpetually forgot to not leave yesterday's experiment sitting around. And now they want everything to be given back, but the resident soothsayers won't allow it, and all the sweet nothings are too sweet to give up.