Lower-IQ societies

[Nimbostratus]

I don't understand why people is answering this.

What do you prefer, a sandwich of dirt, or a sandwich of mucus, piss and shit.

Mmmh, dirt sandwich is delicious.

 

[analrapist]

I love being surrounded by idiots.

[Cargést]

I love being surrounded by idiots.

Must make you feel at home, eh?  ; )

Haha, joking aside, I can't understand the scruples of some of the people here.  We each have a small range which identifies our usual level of computational ability.  Most of these ranges are above 120, and I would sincerely love to have the opportunity to work with (almost!) all of the members here, purely because you people are at my level, while the majority of humans are not.  The morons of the world are stifling, no matter what good qualities they might have; no honour or kindness can bridge the gap between minds.

Let's put this very simply: we are better than most, because we are more aware (thanks, intelligence!).  If you cut out the bottom half of a group, the average rises: humanity will necessarily be better if we remove the under 120s.  This is just a fact, not something you can have an "opinion" about.  To all of the people who said "no" to this question, you were answering the wrong question.

[Eleison]

I agree that society would be better if these people simply didn't exist, I'm more concerned about the practical reality of killing 5 billion people.  I understand that it's not a literal plan of action but then I just don't really see the point of even talking about it.

[analrapist]

It's going to happen one way or another. If we don't kill them, nature will. It would be better not to get to that stage though.

[Everdarkgreen]

My misgivings have more to do with both realizing the prole genocide and then seeing all the remaining >120's work as a cohesive unit. To be frankly honest, while it does pose challenges, it would be a far greater world. There is a correlation with intelligence and virtue, especially if culture is the restraint for selfishness/narcissism. I am going to give a resounding YES. Whatever issues come with a society of >120's are issues we want to have the opportunity to deal with.

[Eleison]

The simple fact is that there are better and more plausible ways to achieve the same result.  Things we could start to lay the foundations for now.  The woodchipper plan is a pleasant fantasy designed to annoy any leftists that stumble across the site.

[Everdarkgreen]

The simple fact is that there are better and more plausible ways to achieve the same result.  Things we could start to lay the foundations for now.  The woodchipper plan is a pleasant fantasy designed to annoy any leftists that stumble across the site.

Fact: Zero population growth will happen and population will decrease.

How do you decrease the population?
-Abstention
-Contraception/Abortion
-Small Families
-Stopping Immigration
-Disease
-War
-Murder/Violence
-Famine
-Accidents
-Pollution

Take your pick.

[Eleison]

First, start with incentives for people on welfare to be sterilised.  This idea has already been suggested in serious politics, although the leftists are still screaming too loud for anyone to hear.  Eventually make this mandatory for all people on welfare longterm.  Introduce castration/sterilisation for those entering the prison system.  Phase in child permits.  One child policy for the working and middle classes.  Successful people in important fields should be encouraged to have as many children as possible with various incentives.  This may be unlikely, but it is possible, which is a start.  China has managed to introduce a one child policy which will stand them in good stead in 100 years, once people start to see the benefits all we need is to tweak it to favor the best.

Also, specialized breeding programs to create super humans should be set up asap.  Obviously this would have to be done out of the public eye.  If successful these people could gradually be placed in positions of authority and if the aforementioned child permits were in place, eventually phase out standard humans.

[Cargést]

It is correct to say that this issue doesn't bear much thinking about, which is why I'm so astounded by the number of contrary replies.  The decision should be instant: if given the chance, eradicate the weak.  Eleison's proposals are realistic approaches to the same outcome, which is a desirable one.

The purpose of this post, I should hope, was to make sure we were all on the same page as regards (gradually?) engineering an increase in the average intelligence of humans, rather than hoping that such a thing might happen automatically (clearly, in this unnatural world, it won't).

[crimsonking]

First, start with incentives for people on welfare to be sterilised.  This idea has already been suggested in serious politics, although the leftists are still screaming too loud for anyone to hear.  Eventually make this mandatory for all people on welfare longterm.  Introduce castration/sterilisation for those entering the prison system.  Phase in child permits.  One child policy for the working and middle classes.  Successful people in important fields should be encouraged to have as many children as possible with various incentives.  This may be unlikely, but it is possible, which is a start.  China has managed to introduce a one child policy which will stand them in good stead in 100 years, once people start to see the benefits all we need is to tweak it to favor the best.

Also, specialized breeding programs to create super humans should be set up asap.  Obviously this would have to be done out of the public eye.  If successful these people could gradually be placed in positions of authority and if the aforementioned child permits were in place, eventually phase out standard humans.

I had some sort of idea based around this when I saw Stevens post "just sterilize her and ship her back into the wild" in regards to the Casey Anthony trials.

Offer incentives for lower caste / breeds to be sterilized. A lifetime of free club entry and bar tabs! Party all you want! Indulge and 'enjoy' life to its fullest extent IN YOUR HUMBLE OPINION ROFLMAO (TM).

Figure if you sterilize them for the golden ticket to indulgence, all the self destructive behavior will catch up to them eventually. Soon, you have eliminated at least the bottom 10% of the barrel. Most will say not enough, but others (myself included) will say "It's a start."

[scourge]

First, start with incentives for people on welfare to be sterilised.  This idea has already been suggested in serious politics, although the leftists are still screaming too loud for anyone to hear.

The anthropotheologizer left are the collective turd jammed sidewise, uniquely like political hipsters, in the bowel. Thanks to them, the body's waste removal ability is delayed. Now the body we share sickens awfully.

[analrapist]

If all of us were just too stupid to fight, we would have world peace at last. What a lovely vision...!

[Veritas]

Let's put this very simply: we are better than most, because we are more aware (thanks, intelligence!).  If you cut out the bottom half of a group, the average rises: humanity will necessarily be better if we remove the under 120s.  This is just a fact, not something you can have an "opinion" about.  To all of the people who said "no" to this question, you were answering the wrong question.

Well, I think the average IQ would probably rise.*

Whether humanity will be "better"? You'd need to walk through that one a bit slower.

Probably some balance is key, and given evolution, maybe we're basically at it.

Things do appear to be quite unstable though.

*actually this isn't technically possible, given how average IQ is defined, but whatever fuck u all

[scourge]

Not just decline but accelerating decline:

The reason for the Flynn effect was revealed by Retherford and Sewell (1988) who made a distinction between phenotypic intelligence and genotypic intelligence. Phenotypic intelligence is intelligence that can be measured and was the factor that was rising. Genotypic intelligence is the inherited intelligence and was the factor heading for decline. The decline in Genotypic intelligence was estimated to be .57 IQ points a generation.

Lynn and Harvey (2008) calculated the decline in world’s genotypic IQ by obtaining world’s IQ for two successive generations, 1950 and 2000. The IQ of the world in 1950 came out to be 92.75 and 90.31 for 2000. It can be reasonably assumed that heritable intelligence across the world is between heritability level of developed and developing countries, which comes out to be .35. This figure results in genotypic IQ for the whole world coming out to 2.44*.35=.86 IQ points. The decline in genotypic IQ for the whole world is .43 IQ points a generation.

Lynn and Harvey (2008) went one step further and calculated world’s IQ for year 2050 by using U.S Census Bureau’s estimates for world’s population in year 2050. If the estimates given by US. Census Bureau for world’s population are correct, then the world’s IQ in 2050 will be 86.67. The decline in genotypic IQ from 2000 – 2050 comes out to 1.27 IQ points. This projected decline in genotypic IQ is higher than previous generations because the fertility rates for high IQ individuals are forecasted to be lower in 2000 – 2050 by US Census Bureau.

http://www.examiner.com/cognitive-science-in-national/how-the-world-s-iq-is-decline

Three hundred years from now is Idiocracy the movie, but in real life. Remember, don't cram them face first into the woodchipper right now before permahell on Earth. That wouldn't be "nice".