Culling the under-120s

[God Almighty]

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.

Because as a whole, we're being tied down and limited by the fears of the incompetent and worthless. That means no exploration of the galaxy (400 billion planets vs. 1 Earth) and no significant breakthroughs in the use of science for fear of offending the weak, it means subsidising the poor, the degenerate, the sick so that they can lead this 'normal life' where 'no one is left behind' and then they go and overbreed beyond their worth in number, sinking the lot of us.

As for sociability, that isn't difficult to engineer into socially retarded 120 IQ'ers offspring, same with potential ugliness and heritable diseases. If our science can engineer goats to produce spider silk from its tits (example of genetic engineering of specific traits), we can certainly make highly intelligent humans with functioning frontal lobes, gorgeous looks and a certainty that they will die a ripe old age, accomplished and satisfied with the direction of civilisation itself.

[Dylar]

In the abstract, of course the world would be a better place without sub-120s.  If the Rapture called home all the morons, I'd be fucking ecstatic.

The problem is that the state infrastructure you'd have to build to implement and maintain the cull would almost certainly hellish for anyone to live under, not to mention grossly inefficient.

[David_Brent]

Because as a whole, we're being tied down and limited by the fears of the incompetent and worthless. That means no exploration of the galaxy (400 billion planets vs. 1 Earth) and no significant breakthroughs in the use of science for fear of offending the weak, it means subsidising the poor, the degenerate, the sick so that they can lead this 'normal life' where 'no one is left behind' and then they go and overbreed beyond their worth in number, sinking the lot of us.

This makes me feel there's more something fundamentally wrong with our society, other than just their presence. Killing might be a big thing on an ethic level for some, but besides that it's actually too easy.

I sense the debate is far from finished - if ever.
For instance: the obstacle that only 120 + people seemed to approve this policy.
If we raise the IQ level beyond the intelligence of everyone here it might appear to be more credible.

[crow]

Intelligence, schmintelligence...
It's not intelligence - per se - that really counts, as any kind of a parameter.
That's no more than an accident of birth.
You could almost count it as a disability, rather than an asset.
What counts far more is what the intelligent human does with its intelligence.
Devise a test for that, and you'd be getting somewhere.

I have a feeling that a capacity for 'goodwill' would be a decisive factor.
You don't see very much of that. Along with an ability to encourage and lend moral support.
These are things that help make up a useful human. As opposed to a merely intelligent one.
 

[fallot]

The only test of that is in the doing, the end result.

[David_Brent]

Actually I was waiting for a smartass to tell us there isn't such a thing as a 119 IQ leveled useful human.

Man this forum almost felt disappointing for a moment.

[crow]

It often feels disappointing, to me.

[Conservationist]

We now have a legitimate place to complain about the forum:

• Complaints
  

[Eleison]

Here is an attempt to summarise the main points being made...

The initial question is, would life in general be better if all humans under 120IQ vanished overnight.

Nearly everyone here will agree that the answer to this is yes, the cause of disagreement is how we should respond to this 'revelation'.  The most obvious response is, kill 'em all.  The objections to this are as follows...

a) The plan will be almost impossible to implement, gaining and maintaining the amount of power required to carry such a plan through is unrealistic.
b) That the supporters of this plan have underestimated the psychological impact of such an event.  I want to expand on this, although what I say here will likely be considered pseudo-esoteric nonsense.  I have no objection to mass killing in the form of war, which is natural to man, however, enslaving man to a mechanical process of execution in the ways that are being suggested will most probably trigger some sort of psychological instability.  In my opinion, the machine already possesses too much power, it is too far beyond the control of its maker, to industrialize the slaughter of billions may have vast and unforeseen consequences, though I cannot really predict what they will be.  It seems silly to think that one could return to a more natural way of living through such unnatural means.
c) There are more realistic ways of achieving the same result.  I have already made suggestions in this direction.

Having considered these points I believe the suggestion that we should promote the holocaust of those under 120IQ to be an absurd.  This type of emotionally driven symbolism should be abandoned and replaced with real ideas, plans etc.

[analrapist]

Stalin could have achieved this. It's not that far out of the realm of possibility. Once peak oil hits, the environmental castatrophes hit, governments collapse and we really need to get our shit together people are going to be gung-ho about dropping the extra weight.

[Eleison]

I believe we are considering attempting to resolve these issues before the collapse of civilization, I accept that they will be resolved one way or another if nothing is done.

[Humanicide]

Stalin could have achieved this.

No, he couldn't have. He was a paranoid untermensch that only got into power because of political manipulation. Unfit to be a leader of men, much less intelligent men.

[tardocaust]

While several Ashkenazi Jewish mtDNA Hgs appear to derive from the Near East, there is also evidence for a low level of introgression from host European non-Jewish populations. HVS-1 sequence analysis revealed increased frequencies of Ashkenazi Jewish haplotypes that are rare or absent in other populations, and a reduced number of singletons in the Ashkenazi Jewish sample. These diversity patterns provide evidence for a prolonged period of low effective size in the history of the Ashkenazi population. The data best fit a model of an early bottleneck (approx100 generations ago), perhaps corresponding to initial migrations of ancestral Ashkenazim in the Near East or to Europe. A genetic bottleneck followed by the recent phenomenon of rapid population growth are likely to have produced the conditions that led to the high frequency of many genetic disease alleles in the Ashkenazi population

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v12/n5/full/5201156a.html?WT.mc_id=RD_NPG

[scourge]

Genetic influences common to both phenotypes explained 100% of the low IQ–antisocial behavior relation in boys.

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/genetic-influences-on-the-overlap-between-low-iq-and-antisocial-behavior-in-young-children/

a drop of 1 standard deviation in IQ was associated with a 27% increase in cancer deaths among men and a 40% increase in cancer deaths among women

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/intelligence-predicts-health-and-longevity-but-why/

[Perennial_Man]

Our prisoner population can largely fuck off the planet. Murderers, thieves, rapists, money launderers as the sort. Rehabilitation is an illusion of humanism.