Benevolent fascism

[speed]

While I agree with everything you listed, its still ridiculously simplistic and implementation will be impossible.

Infoterror, you're our modern, jingoistic and simplistic Plato, hehe (im thinking of your crude similarity to the Republic). I love it.

 

[infoterror]

My problem is that you would see someones worth based only on a test, rather then the person themselves. People you deem stupid can excel at things physically giving them a physical intelligence that others may never achieve. There are plenty other reasons to keep lower IQ people, its just the scum, and trash that needs to go.

No, you don't understand. I am not judging them.

I am making a practical decision which is that a smarter society is needed. I do not care about moral standing, as morality is a farce. I do not care about physical labor. Physical intelligence is a bullshit category. I agree the scum and trash needs to go... but you might ask, what makes them scum and trash? Very few of them are over 120.

People below 120 have a nasty habit of rebelling against smarter people, and working in meaningless corporate jobs. Instead of thinking morally, we need to make an executive decision and simply cut out the people who won't fit in a future society, the cleanse the ethically ambiguous from the rest.

After all, we only need a few million humans

 

[infoterror]

Infoterror, you're our modern, jingoistic and simplistic Plato, hehe (im thinking of your crude similarity to the Republic). I love it.

Someone saw through my disguise. Well... in the quest for solutions, all pretense must fall. Including that I'm anything but a Plato ripoff with Unabomber tendencies (except I have a fondness for the postal service).

 

[Blowtus]

A smarter society is needed for what?

 

[infoterror]

A smarter society is needed for what?

1. Fewer negative consequences.
2. More fun.
3. Better learning.
4. Better TV.

The question itself is ickily utilitarian. "But we're having fun being covered in our own feces... why would we want SOAP?!?"

 

[Seditious]

Most of us would oppose it for one or another reason and your friend would hopefully be killed as a criminal/coup leader by his own administration.

 

[Seditious]

A smarter society is needed for what?

stupid people are such a bother (Whether bad drivers or addicts or emotional wrecks, in a variety of ways it would be great for society if people were smarter at state/taxpayer expense).

sure white collar crime may be more costly than all the property crimes combined, and having smarter people might mean many less burglars but a few more fraudsters, but hell, we'll have the illusion of improvement at least.

 

[hibernal_dream]

stupid people are such a bother (Whether bad drivers or addicts or emotional wrecks, in a variety of ways it would be great for society if people were smarter at state/taxpayer expense).

It wouldn't be all that great for all the stupid people, would it?

 

[The_Walrus]

I find it horrible to talk about killing 9 out of 10 people. I see you are all very willing to fight to the last drop of other peoples' blood. 'Yes, let's kill my father, he only scored 119 but oh, we can leave my mother alive because she scored 121.'That's total anti-life insanity. How can you treat people like technological products? People like you wipe out our rainforest for profit. People like you determine the worth of a person by a number as if that is all they ever could be. sick technological fatalism, the lot of it.

why not give peace and love a chance? loving life and art and nature. not death.

 

[speed]

Someone saw through my disguise. Well... in the quest for solutions, all pretense must fall. Including that I'm anything but a Plato ripoff with Unabomber tendencies (except I have a fondness for the postal service).

Few seem to get your very apparent symbolism, and instead take your ideas at face value or literally. I really dont know why. Even most of the intelligent posters on this site seem to make this error.

 

[derbeder]

It would help if you pointed out the symbolism in the original post on this thread.

 

[speed]

It would help if you pointed out the symbolism in the original post on this thread.

Well, I guess Ive been posting here with the Burroughs worshipping sensationalist for years (in the GMD forum long before). I bet he chuckles every time people take him entirely seriously. Hence, instead of arguing the specific points (and he is primarily making such statements to get people to think, and re-think their own previously accepted positions), people always become angered and impassioned, and argue for beliefs and through their emotions etc, thus providing him with a huge undefended flank for him to attack like Hannibal at Cannae, hehe.

 

[Έρεβος]

Most of us would oppose it for one or another reason and your friend would hopefully be killed as a criminal/coup leader by his own administration.

Of course each of use would oppose it for one reason or another, just as we oppose our current fascism... err democracy, for one reason or another. I don't see any reason the leader of a fascist government would be killed anymore than that of a democracy, as long as it isn't a dictatorship. Fascism is, fundamentally, the same thing as democracy, and works just as well - as well as any centralized government. (They don't.) Well, except for dictatorships, which can work much better or much worse, for short periods of time...

A fascist oligarchy, or the like, can last just as long as democracy, but digresses into the same problems, brought by corruption, which cause the original honest and workable values to be forsaken.

Truly, preaching any government form as the messiah is rather foolish. Governments rise and fall, this is how it always has been, and how it always will be. There is no fix, no solution, just constant shifts. Other than that, the government is best which governs least.

 

[infoterror]

That's total anti-life insanity. How can you treat people like technological products? People like you wipe out our rainforest for profit.

No, people like YOU wipe out our rainforests by encouraging hordes of morons to breed. Rainforests won't exist on a planet of even six billion, yet you're afraid to cut back on the real problem -- humans, specifically, dumb ones. What are you afraid of?

 

[Έρεβος]

I find it horrible to talk about killing 9 out of 10 people. I see you are all very willing to fight to the last drop of other peoples' blood. 'Yes, let's kill my father, he only scored 119 but oh, we can leave my mother alive because she scored 121.'That's total anti-life insanity. How can you treat people like technological products? People like you wipe out our rainforest for profit. People like you determine the worth of a person by a number as if that is all they ever could be. sick technological fatalism, the lot of it.

why not give peace and love a chance? loving life and art and nature. not death.

You sound like a corny advertisement.

Anyway, the real problem with killing like that is not that it is "oh so wrong," but rather that there is no objective way to judge how intelligent an individual is. IQ is standardized and therefore not in the least accurate. The only real way to tell who is fit to survive is by testing that fitness, with what in reality they shall be tested by. So really, the only way for the top 10% of humanity to be given the planet is a situation where the present situation will cause 90% of humanity to die out, as they were not fit to survive. You can't institute a selectional mass killing that does any good but kill, and you can't realistically accomplish such a feat in the first place.

Another thing is that only functionally are the unintelligent able to be seen as of no value, or negative value. They do this and that that is negative, vote and such. Realistically, unintelligent people have existed in every age of humanity, and not because of bad systems of eugenics, but rather because humanity needs idiots... possibly. Nature says idiots are valuable, or maybe it doesn't, either way we can't make the decision. The best way for any mass improvement of humanity to be wrought is not through instituted changes, but rather something that either brings humanity back to nature, or at least back to an environment that allows nature evolution to take place, natural survival conflict. Instituted changes can only make guesses, which may seem educated, and to an immediate extent they are, though they are truly fundamentally shots into the dark - blind.

 

[Blowtus]

Evolution is ridiculously slow - we have the capacity to transcend it to a degree, and are in the midst of doing so. Of course we fuck up along the way, but that is the case with everything. The fuckups get discarded, or discard themeselves in time.

 

[Έρεβος]

Evolution is ridiculously slow - we have the capacity to transcend it to a degree, and are in the midst of doing so. Of course we fuck up along the way, but that is the case with everything. The fuckups get discarded, or discard themeselves in time.

We've the capacity to transcend it? How so? We certainly have the power to hide & ignore it, but by no means transcend it. No matter what we do we are in the grasps of evolution, and we can't formulate a way of self-evolving that isn't utterly biased and flawed. No matter how much we hide behind technology evolution will continue, and as we are now it is continuing on a negative route, to a weaker and stupider humanity. If you want to call a future generation of utter imbeciles "transcending evolution," go right ahead, doesn't make it any better.

And how is evolution ridiculously slow? It would take just one generation to vastly improve the human species. Nature is capable of healing our utter screw-up quite fast. Optimization takes no time at all, and we are by no means even close to optimized now - actually the opposite. Only gaining new traits, strengths, etc. takes any real amount of time, and humanity by no means is capable of synthesizing the process in which we evolve on that scale. No matter what we try with gene therapy, etc., we'll only come out with biased cases of limited strength not by a long shot truly adapted to humanity's environment. That is if you meant such by "transcend."

 

[RedinTheSky]

Let me ask you this:

Is it possible for someone with an IQ of 105 to be smarter than someone with an IQ of 125?

Not so, as we can see from the examples of history.

So while you criticize "a test," you forget that it is more accurate than the SAT, GED, GRE, et al for predicting intelligence.

This is sad. So the only 'universally accepted' way for measuring intelligence is more accurate in measuring its own standards than other tests... therefore it is accurate. No. Unless you can get inside someone's head, think what they think, and feel what they feel, you can't really tell how much 'smarter' a 150 is from a 100. A person with an IQ of 150 would certainly suggest that one spend their time educating a society, and helping it become this ' more intelligent ' target, rather than try to categorize it with tests.

 

[Seditious]

It wouldn't be all that great for all the stupid people, would it?

farming aint great for the cows either.

 

[The_Walrus]

you're afraid to cut back on the real problem -- humans, specifically, dumb ones. What are you afraid of?

What you don't see is that your way of thinking is just an extension of the same modern way. everything is a commodity to you. IQ? only industry would use that to understand people. people are much deeper. you need poetry and love to understand people. you know the price of everything and the value of nothing. have fun turning the world into a factory. treat nature with some respect.