Underclass

[Cargést]

This is the point everyone seems to forget when they scream "DON'T KILL THE UNDER 120S, WHO WILL CLEAN YOUR SHIT UP!?!?!?".

[Humanicide]

Not to mention all of the Jewish resistance groups which popped up around Europe, further seeking to undermine the Nazis. Completely stupid idea; getting rid of all the Jews. Never mind there might be smart people in there that the Germans could use in their society; nope!

You get rid of the underclass? You get rid of a TON of labor. Going to have to breed like mad to pick up the slack.

pardon my observation, but if you rid yourself of a huge portion of a population that likes to use up resources, wouldn't your demand of said resources drastically dwindle, and in return, the supply would only have to match the new demand, not the old?

Yes, but think of all of the dismantling of cities, useless buildings and such. Those things must be taken down sooner than later, as after 100 or so years with no maintenance your average skyscraper will crumble. That's a LOT of work. I'd prefer we use those materials or recycle them into something constructive. It'd be good to remove things like that so their collapse doesn't release potential toxins.

[crimsonking]

pardon my observation, but if you rid yourself of a huge portion of a population that likes to use up resources, wouldn't your demand of said resources drastically dwindle, and in return, the supply would only have to match the new demand, not the old?

Yes, but think of all of the dismantling of cities, useless buildings and such. Those things must be taken down sooner than later, as after 100 or so years with no maintenance your average skyscraper will crumble. That's a LOT of work. I'd prefer we use those materials or recycle them into something constructive. It'd be good to remove things like that so their collapse doesn't release potential toxins.

I still don't necessarily think we need a huge supply of people for this. The more work there is to be done, the more efficiently the "new society" will have to be. Busy hands cultivate a satisfied mind.

[Cargést]

I say let the cities fall.  In millenia, nature will recover what land was stolen from her.

[Conservationist]

This is the point everyone seems to forget when they scream "DON'T KILL THE UNDER 120S, WHO WILL CLEAN YOUR SHIT UP!?!?!?".

It's kind of a lame argument. Anyone higher than a sub-120 can do everything that sub-120 could.

My question is, "When do we evolve?"

We've just gone through a disastrous 500+ year period of dysgenics.

The world average IQ is in the high 80s at this point...

If humanity wants to go to the next step, it's going to come from populations that ditch the fools and move on to more realistic goals.

Of course, that's not gonna happen in a society full of fools who will demand equal representation...

pardon my observation, but if you rid yourself of a huge portion of a population that likes to use up resources, wouldn't your demand of said resources drastically dwindle, and in return, the supply would only have to match the new demand, not the old?

Yes, but think of all of the dismantling of cities, useless buildings and such. Those things must be taken down sooner than later, as after 100 or so years with no maintenance your average skyscraper will crumble. That's a LOT of work. I'd prefer we use those materials or recycle them into something constructive. It'd be good to remove things like that so their collapse doesn't release potential toxins.

I still don't necessarily think we need a huge supply of people for this. The more work there is to be done, the more efficiently the "new society" will have to be. Busy hands cultivate a satisfied mind.

Compared to what we did in WWII or even the dot-com boom, that's a relatively small amount of work.

The majority of buildings aren't skyscrapers, as well.

Most of what you will lose will be apartment buildings, trailer parks, strip malls, fast food joints, etc.

What else is forgotten here?

Reducing the human population is the only way to prevent ecocide.

Slow reduction no longer applies. The disaster is unfolding before us every day.

We could simply stop foreign aid, stop all welfare and help programs, and let people die off...

But with the sub-120s around, that's a formula for revolution. Thus, you need to remove them first.

They'll even admit this to you.

[analrapist]

If you created a society where there wasn't such a huge gap in intelligence, it would be a more equal society. People would have a lot more in common.

[Humanicide]

I say let the cities fall.  In millenia, nature will recover what land was stolen from her.

While in the mean time, it will expose those left on Earth to toxins if certain building materials aren't dealt with properly. Not a good idea to just let it happen.

Compared to what we did in WWII or even the dot-com boom, that's a relatively small amount of work.

The majority of buildings aren't skyscrapers, as well.

Most of what you will lose will be apartment buildings, trailer parks, strip malls, fast food joints, etc.

Difference is, in WWII and the dot-com boom, we had our current world population or close to it. Honestly? I'd say most of the strip malls and fast food places would remain; you'd be hard pressed to get Americans to give that up. Even the supposedly intelligent ones.

There are enough skyscrapers throughout the entire world to warrant a shit ton of work. (this is assuming the thread is speaking of mass loss of the underclass on a world scale)

[NHA]

Reducing the human population is the only way to prevent ecocide.

Ecocide seems like a great way to reduce the human population.

Actually it seems best just to make some biosphere city in a remote place and ship the 26million 140+ there. Would be good practice for colonizing mars later too.

The rest of the population can just duke it out in the apocalypse.

[Tralfamadorian]

Uzbekistan now has semi-madatory sterilizations for women after they give birth. I am opposed to this outright, but it seems foolish to me that they are not discriminating between high-quality and low-quality birthers. Will this become a trend in developing countries?

[Svmmoned]

Germany had the right idea, they were just over ambitious, and they got side-tracked by racism.  If they had been smarter, they would have taken the American route and created a nation for the Jews, thus moving them out of Germany and gaining an ally in the Middle-East.

What infuriates antisemites so much, including Hitler, was their cultural influence aka degeneracy, which proved hard to fight in developing at the time social, moral and ideological context .As you can see this influence is far from cease long after creation of Israel, not to mention their still very large physical presence outside of its borders. And Nazis, as many before them, got plans to relocate Jews, as someone already mentioned, and at some point supported Zionist parties to convince their people to leave, so it was disagreement among Jews, their reluctance or other difficulties which ultimately pervaded that. While their influence is inferior, artificial and harmful, no, they don't fit the picture of underclass suggested by OP.

And there are those theories, that it was their internal eugenicist practice. Probably most of victims in death camps were those poor, uneducated and dirty Jews from shtetles - ones which likes of Goethe and many others, before development of this modern European inferiority complex, held in highest disregard.

Not to mention all of the Jewish resistance groups which popped up around Europe, further seeking to undermine the Nazis. Completely stupid idea; getting rid of all the Jews. Never mind there might be smart people in there that the Germans could use in their society; nope!

That scale of Jewish resistance is your newest trend in media so don't take it too seriously. Note that their portrayal as a nation is quite dynamic, accordingly to changing times and needs. From passive slaughtered sheeps to wartime heroes. Biggest and most organized resistance during WWII was made by Poles, but unsurprisingly it isn't widespread knowledge - even first reports of Holocaust, about which West wouldn't even want to listen were made by them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilecki - ironically, guy was later "judicially murdered" by Jewish communist. They were caught lying in so many instances, from initial exaggerated numbers of victims of Holocaust (I remember cruel satirical depiction of it - hailing Nazis standing on top of pile of bodies reaching beyond high orbit, with small distant Earth below) to deceitful or made up personal wartime testimonies, that skepticism now seems rational.

[analrapist]

Is Jewish culture compatible with European culture? Most people would just curl up and die without Seinfeld and Jon Stewart.