Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Culling the under-120s

Culling the under-120s
April 11, 2012, 08:26:43 PM
For people who claim to be "nihilists," some people on this forum have a lot of hang-ups.

Would life be better or worse if all people under 120 IQ points died tomorrow?

This could be rephrased:

Do you want a smarter humanity, or a dumber one?

Yet no end of innovation was applied to form justifications for not taking this step... it was like going to a megachurch.

Some even pretended their objections were practical. They were just afraid to answer the question.

Why such fear, nihilists?

The first thing a nihilist denies is himself.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 11, 2012, 08:32:05 PM
Not jumping on the bandwagon. Would the world be a better place? In relative terms. If we're talking about the whole of the planet; yes. But the Earth would be healthier still if humans just died off in general. Do we take that next radical step? Endorsing that view is the most backwards of antihumanistic viewpoints.

If you're gonna kill off the under 120s, I hope you're prepared, because if you touch my family you're dead (or I will die trying to defend them). Most of us probably have family members and friends who are under 120. That is why we balk, and that is why many cannot endorse this simple cut and dry solution.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 11, 2012, 08:56:44 PM
I would support the idea if someone could come up with a realistic idea to make it happen.  If it's not literal I don't know why people are getting so worked up about it.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 11, 2012, 09:06:12 PM
Not jumping on the bandwagon.

99% of the world opposes this. What bandwagon?

Would the world be a better place? In relative terms. If we're talking about the whole of the planet; yes. But the Earth would be healthier still if humans just died off in general.

Humans are part of the earth too. It's just a question of having them living according to the right standard. Besides, the question also includes human life -- you mysteriously forgot this -- which would be improved.

If you're gonna kill off the under 120s, I hope you're prepared, because if you touch my family you're dead (or I will die trying to defend them). Most of us probably have family members and friends who are under 120.

You would sacrifice the whole for a few?

For the sake of argument: our current path is doom.

You didn't answer the question.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 11, 2012, 09:07:09 PM
I would support the idea if someone could come up with a realistic idea to make it happen.  If it's not literal I don't know why people are getting so worked up about it.

Run for President as an Obama-style candidate, seize power with a military coup, initiate secret program to test the population and remove all people who fail. Then crush other countries with new brainpower, and as you roll into each one, cull and re-constitute.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 11, 2012, 09:59:30 PM
You would sacrifice the whole for a few?

For the sake of argument: our current path is doom.

You didn't answer the question.

I would sacrifice the whole for the few that mattered to me. Self preservation, sort of.

To answer - Yes, it would be better. That wouldn't matter to me though, 'cause I'd be dead.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 12, 2012, 02:43:52 AM
I'd rather have a dumber humanity populated by my kind thank you.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 12, 2012, 02:59:01 AM
For people who claim to be "nihilists," some people on this forum have a lot of hang-ups.

Would life be better or worse if all people under 120 IQ points died tomorrow?

This could be rephrased:

Do you want a smarter humanity, or a dumber one?


Thanks for rephrasing. Instead of what some people think is a sharp, nihilist question, it's actually defective. I can't understand how people with certain knowledge on philosophy and logic would commit that mistake.

YES. I want a smarter humanity. Everyone does, even leftists who are optimistic about the Flynn effect and the role of nurture in IQ.

I would support the idea if someone could come up with a realistic idea to make it happen.  If it's not literal I don't know why people are getting so worked up about it.

Run for President as an Obama-style candidate, seize power with a military coup, initiate secret program to test the population and remove all people who fail. Then crush other countries with new brainpower, and as you roll into each one, cull and re-constitute.

In all seriousness, sounds cool for a movie. But that's all.

This <120 IQ Holocaust is ridicule, pathetic. But hey, it's a safe clubhouse for the nihilist... you may find support here.

Enjoy the ghetto, bro...

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 12, 2012, 03:36:15 AM
Perhaps you should poor all of your over 120 brain power into genetic engineering to achieve your goals.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 12, 2012, 04:53:55 AM
Most of us probably have family members and friends who are under 120.


Haha, none of my family members is under 120, and if any of my friends are, that's a loss I'll endure for the improvement of my race.

Although, it doesn't matter too much to kill the men under 120.  I believe intelligence is largely passed down through the mother.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 12, 2012, 05:19:24 AM
Haha, none of my family members is under 120, and if any of my friends are, that's a loss I'll endure for the improvement of my race.

I was wondering about this as well.

There are some under-120s I'm fond of. But they are generally bunglers. I have no family members under 120, and if they did, I'd want them dead so that the family would be stronger.

Imagine this metaphor:

You have 21 children. Each will find a partner of the same IQ and produce children.

5 of them are under-120.

Your family can either be known for its intelligence, or be "average."

Which do you choose?

Perhaps you should poor all of your over 120 brain power into genetic engineering to achieve your goals.

Experimental technologies are always better than proven ones.

Perhaps you should poor

This is either a terrible pun or your English teacher is very disappointed in you right now.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 12, 2012, 06:48:36 AM
Hahaha, no that was not intentional. It was 3am here and I had gotten woken up by my puppy and her whining

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 12, 2012, 07:07:17 AM
Need a pocket IQ test, then map the surrounding town, entice out the higher IQ to bands of 200 individuals, they need to then provide services and resources for each other (in group altruism -- all being intelligent that isn't a bad thing) and from that carve out a territorial stronghold from which to expand from.

I think, if having an IQ that doesn't measure up, and you have the wits about you, recognising the truth of inequality; become a biological martyr (don't breed) for a greater uberorganism -- maybe even surrogate breed where all the offspring is compatible with >120IQ standard, they raise them as their own and so have a purpose.

That meaning, if one person has an IQ over 120 and they feel the need for others around them with lower IQ for a useful reason, they should be made responsible for them and to make sure that the breeding of unsuccessful people is limited or supplanted with a high IQ 'cuckoo's egg' instead, ultimately becoming much more effective than just having intelligent people breed between each other alone.

Also, finding a woman with an IQ over 120 is going to be bloody difficult. Women that are usable should have superior eggs implanted and fertilised by intelligent parentage, adding to the overall demographics of the >120IQ generation.

Getting the next generations to be of superior quality is most important, one day an asteorid will hit, or a supervolcano will blow, or the ocean will annoxiate killing everything on the surface. Unless we cull the stupid and make the preparation for any number of potentially rapid ecological changes -- we're going to become extinct. The goal is that each generation should be superior to the previous and can aid and advance long term civilisation goals. Anyone that can lend a helping hand toward this goal without becoming a burden on civilisation at large, should be allowed under the conditions that they are assisting the evolution of the group.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 12, 2012, 07:11:01 AM
Do you want a smarter humanity, or a dumber one?

It's not so much about my wants, but effectiveness.

Re: Culling the under-120s
April 12, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
"Your family can either be known for its intelligence, or be "average."
Which do you choose?"
This is like my mother talking about clothes.


Still not sure why less people would cause less problems.

And why this desperate need to evolve? The actual smartest usually are as socially handicapped as the average drudkh album really.