Future Society

[infoterror]

Civilizations start with a few leaders who conceive the otherwise unknown notion of working together in organization, thus achieving efficiency and better lives.

Over time people take this for granted; then breeding breaks down, then ideology breaks down and moves from a transcendental "we could make things better" to a materialistic "let's divide up what we have." This leads to purely economic, utilitarian systems of government/society. From this comes further dysgenics, followed by race-mixing et cetera.

At this time, our society is bloated with parasites.

The ability to see the need to make civilization where none exists starts ~120 IQ points, but more properly in the 130-170 IQ range.

For this reason, all of our fighting over political systems is irrelevant: our true problem is a loss of higher intelligence. Our population averages are now about 103 IQ (IQ is not a perfect measurement, but close enough for demographic-statistical purposes).

I propose a society of only those 120 and higher, and the extermination of all below 120 (they will inevitably revolt, wanting what more intelligent people have and lacking the brains to see they will be killing the goose that laid the golden egg, as has happened in our society).

This society will stabilize over a generation and then have time to remove those lacking nobility of character, and to breed its ugly people into healthier-looking ones.

Thoughts?

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6275

 

[Hamock]

Why not take away their voting rights instead?

 

[speed]

Oh infoterror, your humor is too much at times.


I find it funny you are using IQ as your test-guidepoint. I guess we want a standardized population ( I will not be killed however in this utopia of yours), because I mean, the SAT and Proficiency tests have been such resounding successes in the last 30 years (10 for proficiency), that our populace and students are so wonderfully educated, and knowledgable citizens.

Your solutions are many times worse than the problem.

 

[Justin S.]

Sounds great.

On the choo-choo you go Infoterror...

 

[Mormagil]

sure, it would be nice, but it's completely impractical, even if intelligence did turn out to be mostly hereditary

 

[Neith]

You know, a society of only intelligent people is not necessarily a good thing. The more intelligent people are the ones who create the destructive things in the world. For example, scientists often have a high IQ, but some of the things they do are truly terrible. The more 'enlightened' and 'intelligent' people have become, the more the world has become worse and has become what we live in today.

 

[speed]

You know, a society of only intelligent people is not necessarily a good thing. The more intelligent people are the ones who create the destructive things in the world. For example, scientists often have a high IQ, but some of the things they do are truly terrible. The more 'enlightened' and 'intelligent' people have become, the more the world has become worse and has become what we live in today.

I think the problem you mean is those with high I.Q.s (but more applicable is those that test well on standardized tests) are not necessarily smarter (although I will admit, of all the standardized tests, the IQ test seems to be the best barometer of intelligence--if one has to choose). Creative types many times have problems with standardized testing. Really, they do. I know in art especially, top student artists sometimes dont even have 1,000 on their SAT's (the old no writing version). Plus standardized testing does not take into consideration ones understanding of the world, people, nature, spirit, etc.

 

[infoterror]

The more 'enlightened' and 'intelligent' people have become, the more the world has become worse and has become what we live in today.

I don't agree. For one thing, people now seem to be DUMBER than in the past. Second, most of those who are "enlightened" are not all that smart. Also, there is functional intelligence without high IQ; many people in the 120s can do almost any task but lack the creativity, nobility of character, etc. of some of the higher IQ ones.

Finally, some people are just broken and need to be shot in the face. I'm thinking pedophiles here.

 

[infoterror]

the SAT and Proficiency tests have been such resounding successes in the last 30 years

SAT has nothing to do with intelligence measurement.

SMartest guy I knew scored a 1320

 

[speed]

SAT has nothing to do with intelligence measurement.

SMartest guy I knew scored a 1320

Hence my sarcasm towards the two. ALthough the smartest guy I know--my best friend who took the test sitting to the right of me--scored a 1560. His sister scored a 1600. No shit.

 

[chomps]

Hilarious. An IQ of 100 suggests average intelligence. That's what it is designed to do. It's the middle ground in a set culture (supposedly). If you kill off all those with IQ less than 120, you still have to adjust the IQ tests so that you get a normal distribution curve with the highest, and middle number being 100. So no, your idea is stupid.

 

[Øjeblikket]

Second, most of those who are "enlightened" are not all that smart.

My practice of the supression of critique for your mundane, prolix writing is at times renounced for simple, irresistible shots.

Your counters are often impossible, and, juvenile.


I'm not sure if things (peoples vicissitudes with being plural) are worse with our current manifestation of knowledge since it seems difficult to quantify an inherent characteristic through current establishments, but maybe I'm being wordy. It's true that humans have developed more sophisticated means of hunting heads, but I'm not sure that means they're worse than before. We'd have to compare manipulation itself to see if new means of acheiving those ends has adapted/evolved a new torture, so to say. Can that be studied?

 

[speed]

My practice of the supression of critique for your mundane, prolix writing is at times renounced for simple, irresistible shots.

Your counters are often impossible, and, juvenile.


I'm not sure if things (peoples vicissitudes with being plural) are worse with our current manifestation of knowledge since it seems difficult to quantify an inherent characteristic through current establishments, but maybe I'm being wordy. It's true that humans have developed more sophisticated means of hunting heads, but I'm not sure that means they're worse than before. We'd have to compare manipulation itself to see if new means of acheiving those ends has adapted/evolved a new torture, so to say. Can that be studied?

As in my orginal reply to this topic, I think Infoterror is half-joking.

 

[Øjeblikket]

As in my orginal reply to this topic, I think Infoterror is half-joking.

I acknowledged this concern, privately, and arrived at the conclusion that such jesting would be mostly-lame though. Consider, perhaps, that Landover nailed the genre so, like, five years ago.

the second half of my previous post shouldn't necessarily be seen as something directed towards infarterror anyway.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Hillarious thread, but this is suppose to be philosophical isn't it?

I suppose this may show the dangers of a Philosopher king then?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Some of the lower intelligence people have a lot better health, instincts and physical qualities than those who are cleverest. Breeding for health is just as important as breeding for intelligence (perhaps more so). As you get a healthier population you can increasingly set standards of behaviour and those who don't meet those standards could be removed from society - they could be sent abroad rather than killed.

 

[Crimson Velvet]

If anyone should be killed off, it should be those with bad values. Intelligence is irrelevant next to morale and "nobility of character".

 

[Norsemaiden]

If anyone should be killed off, it should be those with bad values. Intelligence is irrelevant next to morale and "nobility of character".

That is true, the only problem is that unintelligent people with morale and nobility of character are often bamboozled by an intelligent scheming enemy who comes into society and changes the values, reversing them and making the unintelligent but noble person feel outdated and somehow wrong, immoral even. The most intelligent people could hopefully see through the enemy's trickery and not allow them the same foothold to exploit and ultimately destroy their people. This is why those who are lucky enough to have good brains should try to preserve that trait in the next generation.

 

[Dee Snarl]

Wow, are you guys really sitting here discussing which "undesirable" segment of society should be euthanized??

Fuck off.

 

[Crimson Velvet]

That is true, the only problem is that unintelligent people with morale and nobility of character are often bamboozled by an intelligent scheming enemy who comes into society and changes the values, reversing them and making the unintelligent but noble person feel outdated and somehow wrong, immoral even. The most intelligent people could hopefully see through the enemy's trickery and not allow them the same foothold to exploit and ultimately destroy their people. This is why those who are lucky enough to have good brains should try to preserve that trait in the next generation.

But if everyone is of noble character, this really isn't an issue anymore, is it?