A little thought experiment for y'all.

[Cargést]

Everyone would think themselves too good for menial labor in such a society.

This sounds like an entirely viable and plausible theory, not based on guesswork in the slightest.  I mean, you must already have the data to support this assertion, right?

Right?

Of course not.  You pulled this one out of the arse of whoever came up with the "smart people need dumb people to do shitty jobs which are generally created by there being too many dumb people anyway" idea.  My IQ is well above 130 (lololol Mensa etc.), and yet I've spent a considerable amount of time over the past couple of years experiencing this "menial labor" of which you speak (everything from construction, through farming, general physical labour, transportation, even to such specific fields as gardening and woodland maintenance).  Maybe I'm just fucking great and I should kill everybody else for not being as menial as me, but I'm willing to bet that I'm hardly unique in my acceptance of necessity.

[Straker]

You and I are young, though.

I have also experienced manual labour, including but not limited to experience as a farmhand and as a cart pusher.

I like manual labour. It gives one time to daydream. BUT, if I had to push carts for the rest of my life... I would quite willingly sacrifice my life waging war against The Establishment, knowing myself to be capable of so much more than pushing carts.

Ask Yourself: Would you be content with a life of manual labor? And please do not try to feign selflessness.

Remind yourself of the Transcendentalist communes....

We had pleased ourselves with the delectable visions of the spiritualization of labor....Each stroke of the hoe was to uncover some aromatic root of wisdom....But...the clods of earth, which we constantly belabored and turned over and over, were never etherealized into thought. Our thoughts, on the contrary, were fast becoming cloddish. Our labor symbolized nothing and left us mentally sluggish in the dusk of the evening.

[Cargést]

Why on earth should one devote one's life to any one task?  I don't think you're thinking this through at all, really.  There is a large number of things which need to be done in even the most rudimentary of societies, and all people would have a hand in all necessities (more or less, according to skill, of course).

I'm not imagining that we'll banish/exterminate all of the undesirables and then continue to live in exactly the same way as before.  That would be absolutely fucking stupid, like chopping off a gangrenous leg and then expecting the mere removal of the problem to allow you to function normally again (protip: you can't walk with one leg).

[aquarius]

I like manual labour. It gives one time to daydream. BUT, if I had to push carts for the rest of my life... I would quite willingly sacrifice my life waging war against The Establishment, knowing myself to be capable of so much more than pushing carts.

It's probably cause you're intelligent enough to contribute to a more complex purpose. From what I've seen, the average worker doesn't desire much more than what they have. It's just that modern society with it's illusions of 'freedom/eqaulity' causes them to want more, and with their limited capacity they still get nothing, only now they're full of resentment.

[Straker]

Why on earth should one devote one's life to any one task?

So that shit can get done.

I can't imagine in our Crystal Palace Ubermensch society that one would have much of a choice as to their occupation.  Those who just barely made the cutoff would be stuck doing the menial labor, and would revolt, because like aquarius pointed out, intelligent people feel the need to contribute to a more complex purpose.

I don't think society's legs are gangrenous. Maybe just corpulant, celulose-y and pustulous. Amputation is overkill! This isn't the American Civil War! We've made so much progress since then. With some liposuction and antibiotics, that leg will be good as new.

Those Hindus didn't kill off the Vaishias or Sudras. Maybe because they realized THEY NEEDED LEGS!

[Cargést]

Why on earth should one devote one's life to any one task?

So that shit can get done.

I'll devote my life to shitting, then.  I mean, it'll certainly get shit done, and it's a necessary task.  Shame about being unable to do all of the other things which are necessary merely to keep myself alive.

Your perspective is backwards, being firmly rooted in what the situation of our society is at this moment.

[Straker]

I'll devote my life to shitting, then.  I mean, it'll certainly get shit done, and it's a necessary task.  Shame about being unable to do all of the other things which are necessary merely to keep myself alive

Cute turn of phrase. But a task/goal-oriented person's raison d'être should be the foci from which all of his or her actions spring forth. If one's actions do not yield results that further his or her purpose, then those actions are frivolous.

Your perspective is backwards, being firmly rooted in what the situation of our society is at this moment.

On the contrary, I'm looking into the (hypothetical) future and the situation I foresee is every bit as grim as contemporary society... if not moreso!

 If the human population was reduced by 90%, does it not occur to you how easily our species could be eradicated!? A single natural disaster could cut the already dwindling population in half! What happens if an airborn strain of the Ebola virus is introduced into the society, via natural means or by a malicious individual within said society? The chances of there being persons with inherent immunity would be much slimmer. There is strength in numbers, whether you like it or not!

[Levy_Spearmen]

firmly rooted in what the situation of our society is at this moment.

I can recount many times when my desires were reflected in how my current predicaments were unfolding. Keep a clear perspective of what you desire in a society you would want to participate in and know exactly what motivates you to act towards those ideals.

In a society of under a billion 120 IQers, competition will drive all individuals and the difference between 120 and 130 IQ points will not put the "lesser" man into a position below the man with 130 IQ. Many roles will be fought over and there would be a large margin in how one derives success in what they do. As for menial tasks, I'm with Cargest, there's no need for a caste of workers when all the simple shit in life is handled by people with a temperament of 'survival of the fittest.' Most tasks would be done individually, like subsistence farming, with communal help for other larger projects, like building houses. Straker, have you even considered women and the ever present gay population? That gives you a lot of workers right there. The most successful people will be leaders, with their IQ dictating how well they lead how many. The society of the future will likely have many 'guilds' that all function towards a central authority. If all goes to plan for this society to root itself, there won't be many problems.

[Cargést]

I'll devote my life to shitting, then.  I mean, it'll certainly get shit done, and it's a necessary task.  Shame about being unable to do all of the other things which are necessary merely to keep myself alive

Cute turn of phrase. But a task/goal-oriented person's raison d'être should be the foci from which all of his or her actions spring forth. If one's actions do not yield results that further his or her purpose, then those actions are frivolous.

Now you're agreeing with me, and are refuting your own position.  A "raison d'être" would have to be a much higher goal than "manual labour", and any civilisation in which individuals have their own individual work as their sole reason for existence is doomed to the complacency and self-serving individualism which plagues this current civilisation.  A "raison d'être" would be more along the lines of "support my people, our way of life, and our customs", which may result in one individual doing more manual labour than another, depending on his skills and interests.  It still does not necessitate a group of individuals which will simply be pidgeonholed into doing so-called "undesirable" (read: necessary) jobs.

Also, "cute turn of phrase" or not, what I said there was equally as inane as what it was a response to.

Your perspective is backwards, being firmly rooted in what the situation of our society is at this moment.

On the contrary, I'm looking into the (hypothetical) future and the situation I foresee is every bit as grim as contemporary society... if not moreso!

You're looking into the (hypothetical) future from a perspective which is firmly rooted in what the situation of our society is at this moment.

If the human population was reduced by 90%, does it not occur to you how easily our species could be eradicated!? A single natural disaster could cut the already dwindling population in half! What happens if an airborn strain of the Ebola virus is introduced into the society, via natural means or by a malicious individual within said society? The chances of there being persons with inherent immunity would be much slimmer. There is strength in numbers, whether you like it or not!

If we all die, then we all die.  As things are, we'll cause our own deaths, and the deaths of the majority of, if not all, living things, what with our polution, environmental destruction, and general planet-fucking.

[Conservationist]

A "raison d'être" would be more along the lines of "support my people, our way of life, and our customs", which may result in one individual doing more manual labour than another, depending on his skills and interests.

This is a better method than:

A. Competition: whoever wants to work the most wins, so we all have to work more than we should.
B. Equality: we all get the same regardless, so no one strives and everything becomes mediocre.

[JSPAG]

If the human population was reduced by 90%, does it not occur to you how easily our species could be eradicated!? A single natural disaster could cut the already dwindling population in half! What happens if an airborn strain of the Ebola virus is introduced into the society, via natural means or by a malicious individual within said society? The chances of there being persons with inherent immunity would be much slimmer. There is strength in numbers, whether you like it or not!

Were actually quite resilient, more so than modern medicine would have you believe. Realistically, if a single natural disaster did occur it wouldn't kill nearly as many as you would think. It's not as if the remaining 10% of our species would huddle together in one location. With the need for transportation across the globe a distant memory the hypothetical  airborne ebola virus would probably run it's course pretty quick with very few casualties. Also, with less population expanding into wilderness', rainforests', etc, we won't be stumbling upon natural reservoirs. I agree with your statement about strength in numbers however it just isn't applicable across all aspects of society.