A little thought experiment for y'all.

[Dylar]

But how does your question illustrate this in any meaningful way?  It's just strikes me as an invitation to feel bad for people at the bottom of the social totem pole because, OMG, what if that were you?!!  The value of a "traditional" society has never been a guarantee that we would reap the benefits of sitting atop the social status heap, but that "traditional" societies are organized for productive living in a more sane, rational manner.  Now, you're free to dispute that point, but know you're not disputing it by asking people to imagine how shitty it would be if they were serfs.

[Iconocloaca]

But how does your question illustrate this in any meaningful way?  It's just strikes me as an invitation to feel bad for people at the bottom of the social totem pole because, OMG, what if that were you?!!  The value of a "traditional" society has never been a guarantee that we would reap the benefits of sitting atop the social status heap, but that "traditional" societies are organized for productive living in a more sane, rational manner.  Now, you're free to dispute that point, but know you're not disputing it by asking people to imagine how shitty it would be if they were serfs.

I don't give a shit about people who are naturally losers, and I think I already said that.

Jewish Christ, the point (among others) is that there NEVER has been a society that's truly ever functioned on the basis of merit and worth.  I mean, I'm taking it for granted that the people here are all above average in intellect and ability (even though they like to entertain pretentious bullshit) so the idea is that if one was placed in the "scrape feces off the streets" "caste" for completely asinine reasons not related to, um, "genetic quality" they'd be less heartfelt of "the good old days."

"Tradional societies" never really had the "sane, rational manner" you describe.  Think of society today -- it's truly not that much different than the societies of the past except for some cosmetic transience.  The whole tradition shit is nonsense, people looking towards the past and seeing something that wasn't there.

As fucked as modern society is, the capitalist-egalitarian mindset of social darwinism is hilariously the most functional of all, theoretically speaking only -- no longer is some fatass inbred King sitting on a throne ruling people he's never met, or is some priest in the center of the village praising God while pimping whores afterhours. Though, all that's been replaced with by more of the same -- some faux-aristocracy of balding losers wearing business suits, or Oprahs or TV evangelists, so really, whaddya expect.

I could go on but, as you can see, I'm already losing focus.

[Dylar]

Then you're arguing against a straw man.  I haven't seen anyone here suggest that there has ever been an example of a perfectly functioning society, or one in which all considerations but merit were swept aside.  So there's no such thing as Utopia.  We know.  Everyone knows.  To suggest, as you seem to be, that this means we should just give up and accept the status quo is classic illustration of the fallacy of false choice, though I suppose it might score you some internet points.

[Iconocloaca]

Then you're arguing against a straw man.  I haven't seen anyone here suggest that there has ever been an example of a perfectly functioning society, or one in which all considerations but merit were swept aside.  So there's no such thing as Utopia.  We know.  Everyone knows.  To suggest, as you seem to be, that this means we should just give up and accept the status quo is classic illustration of the fallacy of false choice, though I suppose it might score you some internet points.

The point is that these societies weren't good, amazing, healthy, fundamentally different than the "now," or worth fixating upon.

[Dylar]

Plenty of traditional societies were far more healthy than the current culture is.  Quite a few weren't.  Certainly the monarchies of early modern Europe were fucking disasters, but then, they were the product of spent aristocratic societies holding on to the last vestiges of power by grasping at new technologies.  It is unfortunate that these cultures represent the last experience that the West had with monarchy and aristocratic government, as it obscures the essential nature of these forms of organization during healthy stages of development.

[Iconocloaca]

Plenty of traditional societies were far more healthy than the current culture is.  Quite a few weren't.  Certainly the monarchies of early modern Europe were fucking disasters, but then, they were the product of spent aristocratic societies holding on to the last vestiges of power by grasping at new technologies.  It is unfortunate that these cultures represent the last experience that the West had with monarchy and aristocratic government, as it obscures the essential nature of these forms of organization during healthy stages of development.

Which ones were healthy?

[Dylar]

Sparta, the early and middle Roman Republics, Scandinavia prior to the rise of national monarchies, the Holy Roman Empire for much of its pre-Habsburg period, the first 150+ years of the Tokugawa Shogunate, the Heian period as well, Han China, the heyday of Achamenid Persia, virtually the entire history of the Hittite kingdoms, just to name a few.

[lord.aspie]

Father's side: Farmers, Blacksmiths, Labour, Skilled Craftsmen.

Mother's side: MIlitary, Priests, Architects, Stewards.

[Conservationist]

Plenty of traditional societies were far more healthy than the current culture is.  Quite a few weren't.  Certainly the monarchies of early modern Europe were fucking disasters, but then, they were the product of spent aristocratic societies holding on to the last vestiges of power by grasping at new technologies.  It is unfortunate that these cultures represent the last experience that the West had with monarchy and aristocratic government, as it obscures the essential nature of these forms of organization during healthy stages of development.

I think people forget that fixed civilization and a socialization-based society are relatively new things for humanity, and our current adaptation is miserable. Are traditional societies better, from a social joy/stability outlook? I'd say so. Then again, people without hope who live for video games, junk food, promiscuous sex, alcohol and drugs, etc. are going to disagree.

The main theme of humanity is that at least 90% of the people 90% of the time are and have always been engaged in unproductive, stupid, destructive or pointless behavior. A few rise above. That's what we live for.

As a good biologist, I like to note that eliminating that 90% of chaff would create a society of true equality through approximately equal ability, and it would be aristocratic by its very nature.

[Iconocloaca]

The main theme of humanity is that at least 90% of the people 90% of the time are and have always been engaged in unproductive, stupid, destructive or pointless behavior. A few rise above. That's what we live for.

How can you have a "healthy" society when most people are worthless, and those of value usually don't call the shots?

[Dylar]

That's sort of the point of traditional societies.  The genetically superior rule, while the proles are left to shovel shit in the fields so their betters can achieve greatness.  There's nothing wrong with the model, you just have to keep the proles from worming their way into the aristocracy.

[Nimbostratus]

That's sort of the point of traditional societies.  The genetically superior rule, while the proles are left to shovel shit in the fields so their betters can achieve greatness.  There's nothing wrong with the model, you just have to keep the proles from worming their way into the aristocracy.

What about tyranny? I believe that tyranny is inherent to the traditional conception of cycles. The split here is "can we do something to decrease tyranny in the becoming of History?" A radical traditionalist would say no, a modern would say absolutely yes.

Where are we? To my mind, the sort of eugenic transhumanism promoted here is certainly more modern (hypermodern) than traditional.

[Straker]

As a good biologist, I like to note that eliminating that 90% of chaff would create a society of true equality through approximately equal ability, and it would be aristocratic by its very nature.

Key word here is "approximately". Even if such a society were to come into existence, human nature would still rear his or her ugly mug.

The Dunning-Krueger effect still applies to those with >120 IQ. In fact, the effect is probably more pronounced in such individuals.

Everyone would think themselves too good for menial labor in such a society. So who would do the menial labor? Machines/Robots? Then who would perform the menial task of maintaining these Machines/Robots? Could such a society produce Machines/Robots capable of maintaining themselves? Then how long before they became sentient and enslaved humanity??

Or let's say robots never come into the picture. The "least Alpha" members of this Alpha society might be able to content themselves with manual labor by pursuing art and spirituality in their free time. However, individuals whose will to power could not possibly be constrained by a peasant's lifestyle would inevitably be born into this society. These malcontents could coagulate into a distinct faction from the rest of society and incite civil war. With only ~ 350,000,000 - 700,000,000 human beings on the planet, extinction of the human race would be a distinct possibility.

[Blaphbee]

Everyone always seems to give that argument - that people greater than 120IQ points would turn up their haughty noses at "menial labour" - yet my question to those who put forth the argument is, if a society happens to be composed of no one less than that categorization, than how the fuck does everyone feed themselves? Does no one of that intellectual caliber realize that SOMEONE has to get the job done, regardless of intellectual aptitude an/or fitness/superiority for the task? As well, do they not realize that there might be better ways of farming that have heretofore not been explored, that they might uncover?

I for one refuse to believe that the 120+ intellectual "elite" would flat-out refuse to get their hands dirty in furtherance of a better solution to what already is.

[Straker]

How could one possibly believe that just because someone has an IQ of +120 that their Emotional Intelligence is correspondingly high?! Individuals with high IQs are more prone to selfishness than most. Why else would they promote hierarchies as being the ideal societal structure? Because they know they would be at the top! A society of individuals who all have an innate desire to be "at the top" would inevitably fail.

Without a work ethic rooted in blood and sweat, an Alpha society would simply be a mini 21st century America. But with a work ethic rooted in blood and sweat, dissidence would most certainly arise!

Edit