Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Dysgenocide

Dysgenocide
April 08, 2012, 08:24:09 AM
Pushing back against some of the more brainwashed here.

Why do you think eliminating the useless and destructive is bad?

We catch some guy on his third felony, but only after he wipes out the normal and healthy family of three. Justice?

Idiots waste your time every day, whether waiting for them in line, when driving, as they bungle it in stores, or the endless clueless at work. Justice?

Officials, bureaucrats and politicians invent "make work" jobs for themselves and the fundamentally incompetent. You pay. Justice?

This is slavery by the smart to the stupid, and we're brainwashed into protecting them.

For what? So Jesus loves us?

Re: Dysgenocide
April 08, 2012, 04:05:46 PM
Exterminating violent sociopaths and individuals who have an obvious corrupting effect on society is a clear and obvious necessity, understood by a large percent of the population. We grasp that these people must be dealt with, and that through their own actions they have put themselves into a position where their life or their freedom is forfeit. We may or may not relish the prospect of doing the dirty work of getting rid of them, but one way or another, the burden of shedding their blood is one that we can bear as a culture.
When you start talking about wiping out everyone who doesn't meet your IQ requirements, you're talking about something both quantitatively and qualitatively different. Let's break it down.
Your argument is basically as follows: Wide-spread intelligence is a prerequisite for having a sophisticated, well-ordered society in control of its own destiny and capable of appreciating and interfacing with the elegant cosmos it inhabits. If we were to exterminate everyone with a lesser capacity for cognitive abstraction, we would increase our likelihood of actually attaining this kind of social order.
This argument superficially makes sense, but only if you play autistic (forgive the humorous barb) and forget most of what you know about the human race. The problem - which is a practical impediment to your vision, as well as an ethical/spiritual problem - is that humanity doesn't live solely for efficiency and power. Your vision of the ideal future is essentially one of a technically/biologically/institutionally efficient and powerful social order. You are basically enthroning temporal control and power as the supreme human virtue, to the exclusion of everything else. But the rest of us aren't sold. I will do my best to articulate the reasons for this, at least, as they appear to me.
Most people - including people with IQs above 120 - are able to empathize with suffering because we are able to recognize 'being' in others. Maturity means understanding that suffering is an inevitable part of existence which we are unable (and should not) to completely do away with, but at the same time, we recognize that it is often hostile to 'being'. When we admire or love a thing, it is because we appreciate its 'being' and admire its secondary traits. When I look at my dog, a creature I love, I see a small, 'stupid' coalescence of 'being' unconsciously navigating the phenomenal world. I admire this little creature both for her particular characteristics and the way these particular characteristics manifest this thing which I am calling 'being'. I wish this creature well and do what I can to preserve her wellbeing. Her lack of cognitive abstraction is not a cause for disgust, nor is she a threat to the social order through her simplicity.
Humans feel this way about each other. They both feel an intuitive kinship (shared participation in 'being', and of a special sort because of its uniquely human self-consciousness) and a more abstract fondness for each other which is the ability to admire the other in the abstract. The idea that intelligent humans would en masse stamp this thing which they intuitively experience as so precious, precious enought that it might virtually be regarded as the goal of 'existence' (cosmos exists to support being), in pursuit of some kind of hyper-efficient social order is ludicrous. This is particularly the case when you're advocating the extermination of people for something which does not constitute a real threat to the social order. Human simplicity is less of an impediment to your vision than human corruption is. Healthy peasants > degenerate intellectuals. Most people go through life encountering simple, unintellectual people who are nevertheless competent, possessed of moral character and enthusiastic about contributing to society in a positive way. This is not some kind of hypothetical creature who represents an exception to the rule (unless you've spend three quarters of your life on the internet).
Imagining that somehow you were able to actually institute your policy of wiping out the sub-120s, what you would actually end up with would be a deeply traumatized society with no sense of its own spiritual direction. No amount of cultural sophistication, efficiency and power would be able to make up for the sacrifice of this element of human life which, like it or not, has been a definitive, recurring feature of human culture for as long as we can remember. It will never happen, and even if it did, it would cause a massive backlash would basically take the form of a reassertion of early Christian principles. And rightly so.
Of course, none of this means that we must sit back and accept stupidity, ugliness, ignorance, overpopulation, social corruption, etc, etc, as dominant features of the social order. The virtues of power, sophistication and efficiency are not mutually exclusive with "Christian" virtues. This is the lesson that we should draw from medieval European Christianity.
You're going to have to abandon the babble about mass execution at some point. It is futile because it is so contrary to the way things actually work. Its sole effect is to give you a feeling of temporary relief (venting your frustration) while making you look foolish, bitter and impotent in the eyes of others.

Re: Dysgenocide
April 08, 2012, 05:29:18 PM
What causes a person to become useless and destructive? Do we not live in a society that encourages individuals to give themselves purpose? What if we had one that gave purpose to all it's citizens? Would that not solve a bulk of the problem?

Re: Dysgenocide
April 08, 2012, 08:51:17 PM
Yes  but...you're liberals.

Do not get caught up in liberalism.

Liberalism clouds all your vision.

For you have been caught up in liberalism.


Re: Dysgenocide
April 08, 2012, 08:57:56 PM
What causes a person to become useless and destructive?

(1) Biological problems
(2) Abuse and toxic parenting
(3) Inherent deficit of moral character
(4) Hopelessness for both world and self
(5) Micropenis + anime

Does that answer your question?


Re: Dysgenocide
April 08, 2012, 10:33:04 PM
Exterminating violent sociopaths and individuals who have an obvious corrupting effect on society is a clear and obvious necessity, understood by a large percent of the population. We grasp that these people must be dealt with, and that through their own actions they have put themselves into a position where their life or their freedom is forfeit. We may or may not relish the prospect of doing the dirty work of getting rid of them, but one way or another, the burden of shedding their blood is one that we can bear as a culture.
When you start talking about wiping out everyone who doesn't meet your IQ requirements, you're talking about something both quantitatively and qualitatively different. Let's break it down.
Your argument is basically as follows: Wide-spread intelligence is a prerequisite for having a sophisticated, well-ordered society in control of its own destiny and capable of appreciating and interfacing with the elegant cosmos it inhabits. If we were to exterminate everyone with a lesser capacity for cognitive abstraction, we would increase our likelihood of actually attaining this kind of social order.

This argument superficially makes sense, but only if you play autistic (forgive the humorous barb) and forget most of what you know about the human race. The problem - which is a practical impediment to your vision, as well as an ethical/spiritual problem - is that humanity doesn't live solely for efficiency and power. Your vision of the ideal future is essentially one of a technically/biologically/institutionally efficient and powerful social order. You are basically enthroning temporal control and power as the supreme human virtue, to the exclusion of everything else. But the rest of us aren't sold. I will do my best to articulate the reasons for this, at least, as they appear to me.

Most people - including people with IQs above 120 - are able to empathize with suffering because we are able to recognize 'being' in others. Maturity means understanding that suffering is an inevitable part of existence which we are unable (and should not) to completely do away with, but at the same time, we recognize that it is often hostile to 'being'. When we admire or love a thing, it is because we appreciate its 'being' and admire its secondary traits. When I look at my dog, a creature I love, I see a small, 'stupid' coalescence of 'being' unconsciously navigating the phenomenal world. I admire this little creature both for her particular characteristics and the way these particular characteristics manifest this thing which I am calling 'being'. I wish this creature well and do what I can to preserve her wellbeing. Her lack of cognitive abstraction is not a cause for disgust, nor is she a threat to the social order through her simplicity.

Humans feel this way about each other. They both feel an intuitive kinship (shared participation in 'being', and of a special sort because of its uniquely human self-consciousness) and a more abstract fondness for each other which is the ability to admire the other in the abstract. The idea that intelligent humans would en masse stamp this thing which they intuitively experience as so precious, precious enought that it might virtually be regarded as the goal of 'existence' (cosmos exists to support being), in pursuit of some kind of hyper-efficient social order is ludicrous. This is particularly the case when you're advocating the extermination of people for something which does not constitute a real threat to the social order. Human simplicity is less of an impediment to your vision than human corruption is. Healthy peasants > degenerate intellectuals. Most people go through life encountering simple, unintellectual people who are nevertheless competent, possessed of moral character and enthusiastic about contributing to society in a positive way. This is not some kind of hypothetical creature who represents an exception to the rule (unless you've spend three quarters of your life on the internet).

Imagining that somehow you were able to actually institute your policy of wiping out the sub-120s, what you would actually end up with would be a deeply traumatized society with no sense of its own spiritual direction. No amount of cultural sophistication, efficiency and power would be able to make up for the sacrifice of this element of human life which, like it or not, has been a definitive, recurring feature of human culture for as long as we can remember. It will never happen, and even if it did, it would cause a massive backlash would basically take the form of a reassertion of early Christian principles. And rightly so.

Of course, none of this means that we must sit back and accept stupidity, ugliness, ignorance, overpopulation, social corruption, etc, etc, as dominant features of the social order. The virtues of power, sophistication and efficiency are not mutually exclusive with "Christian" virtues. This is the lesson that we should draw from medieval European Christianity.
You're going to have to abandon the babble about mass execution at some point. It is futile because it is so contrary to the way things actually work. Its sole effect is to give you a feeling of temporary relief (venting your frustration) while making you look foolish, bitter and impotent in the eyes of others.


spaced out for your reading pleasure.

Re: Dysgenocide
April 08, 2012, 10:42:22 PM
Thanks. I cut and pasted it from WordPad and somehow 'tarded up the format. Looks like it's off to the gas-chambers for me.

Re: Dysgenocide
April 08, 2012, 10:46:30 PM
I'll mark your passing with a shotgun blast towards the heavens.

Re: Dysgenocide
April 10, 2012, 06:14:41 AM
What causes a person to become useless and destructive?

(1) Biological problems
(2) Abuse and toxic parenting
(3) Inherent deficit of moral character
(4) Hopelessness for both world and self
(5) Micropenis + anime

Does that answer your question?



I was thinking about the otherwise healthy. If they cause problems, put a bullet in their skull. It's all the same to me. I don't have a problem eliminating the destructive. I have a problem eliminating anyone deemed useless based on some arbitrary test.

Re: Dysgenocide
April 10, 2012, 11:31:31 AM
It seems my country certainly has an issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate


In order to solve this problem many layers of habit and culture need to be peeled back, everybody is in agreement here. The question should rather be, how malleable is human nature? I think both sides have great arguments, and in these times of economic crisis I feel pretty salty about my taxes going to for criminal upkeep, although not enough to go full blown Anders.

Re: Dysgenocide
April 10, 2012, 08:00:14 PM
The do-nothings would prefer we do nothing and allow our slide downward to continue.

Do you stand against that, or do nothing?

Inaction = consent.