Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Under 120s gone: logistics

Phoenix

Under 120s gone: logistics
April 23, 2012, 04:01:47 AM
Killing everyone with an IQ under 120 would create an extreme shortage of cheap labor, so to agree with this course of action in addition to being a nihilist or a death metal fan you would also have to want a much simpler, less technologically-driven existence. Personally I'm all for a much simpler existence, but I believe it's technology that will eventually be able to provide such an existence for humanity at large. If I were in a selfish mood, then, I might be in favor of killing 'em, but I'd also need assurances that we won't just repeat the cycle of building up technology only to repopulate and be faced with the same question all over again. There are many variables to consider.

Enslavement and exploitation on the other hand would simplify the equation drastically.

Tardocaust objections
April 23, 2012, 04:44:22 AM
If all people under 120 IQ points died tomorrow, would life be better or worse?

The infrastructure of our society would likely collapse (at least in part), perhaps fatally. Consider: disposal of industrial goods, nuclear reactors. There are no "easy" solutions to problems of this scope.

Tardocaust objections
April 23, 2012, 02:31:20 PM
Quote from: me
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.

Tardocaust objections
April 23, 2012, 02:59:56 PM
People get fanatical when they're afraid.

Why are they so afraid of this question?

If all people under 120 IQ points died tomorrow, would life be better or worse?

Seems it should be simple, for nihilists or death metal fans.

Conservationist,

I have seen you post this question a few times before, and I have not tossed my hat in the ring as of yet. The reason for this is that I feel this question is pointless. Along similar lines we could ask, "If all human resources would be spent towards research into space travel/making fuel from seawater/etc., would life be better or worse?"

I think we can all agree that in general things would be better, but we would also agree that there are consequences known and unknown. However, the concept is completely unfeasible. Why draw lines in the sand like this? The people who have the power and resources to change society obviously don't need to as they already have what they need, and the masses of people who we would require to make a change are the very people you are denouncing. The idea is self-defeating.

To give your argument the best possible advantage, we would have to be ruled by very intelligent people with a depth of sight far beyond what is currently available in our oligarchy. Assuming wise elders do come to power, why not kill all between 100 and 140 IQ? It is always the middle class that foments.

In any case, thanks for the thought Conservationist. I do enjoy my time here. Please feel free to critique the above.

Tardocaust objections
April 23, 2012, 03:30:15 PM
Short-term consequences are a disadvantage. I'm sure that nuclear plants would be OK because their engineers are over-120s. Heaps of bodies can be managed, especially since they will be mostly localized in cities.

The problem isn't the capabilities of the engineers, it's the lack of manpower. Not everyone in a nuclear power plant is an engineer. There'd be too many plants for the remaining people to manage.
No.

Having reviewed the thread, baby Jesus is most definitely weeping at this point.

Tardocaust objections
April 23, 2012, 08:48:50 PM
You goddamn wiener boys sound like a bunch of scared fucking rabbits. Nuclear plants would shut down if dumb people got killed? What? Alright now I know you guys are just looking for excuses not to take an extreme position, but extreme times call for extreme measures. You guys should be bloodthirsty as a pack of hungry wolves given all the indignities that our cultures have suffered at the hands of the peasant masses.

It disgusts me how the few intelligent people I meet in life usually have no backbone, no desire to impose their will on the earth.

Tardocaust objections
April 23, 2012, 10:29:16 PM
The act of killing 90% of humanity would:

-Be a logistical impossibility
-Probably take the form of WWIII, destroying valuable ecosystems and cultures along with it.
-Destroy humanity's ethical undergirding
-Create a society of sociopaths
-Solve nothing.

Tardocaust objections
April 23, 2012, 10:50:31 PM
The act of killing 90% of humanity would:

-Be a logistical impossibility
-Probably take the form of WWIII, destroying valuable ecosystems and cultures along with it.
-Destroy humanity's ethical undergirding
-Create a society of sociopaths
-Solve nothing.

Haha, bullshit.  I have a strange feeling you don't belong here.

Tardocaust objections
April 23, 2012, 11:00:36 PM
The act of killing 90% of humanity would:

-Be a logistical impossibility
-Probably take the form of WWIII, destroying valuable ecosystems and cultures along with it.
-Destroy humanity's ethical undergirding
-Create a society of sociopaths
-Solve nothing.

Haha, bullshit.  I have a strange feeling you don't belong here.
Why don't you start a debate instead of responding with a juvenile "UR NOT ONE OF US" retort?

Tardocaust objections
April 23, 2012, 11:11:03 PM
Save our borderline tards so they can grow up into child torturers and ecocidists. In other words, I can't be blamed for anything because I safely stood on the sidelines all my life while our world died.

Yeah, because the only conceivable response to the problem is to try to kill it off all at once. If you're not on board with that, you've obviously abandoned the world to it's fate and decided to eat ice-cream all day instead. Those are the only two possibilities.


Re: Under 120s gone: logistics
April 24, 2012, 12:21:54 AM
Okay, we're still waiting for this constellation of unspoken possibilities.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Under 120s gone: logistics
April 24, 2012, 12:49:26 AM
I know, woodchipper mulch for global reforestation would draw flies all over the fat, offal and bone shards. You're concerned about mess. You're appalled by the undying reek all summer. I can sympathize. How about less messy then?

The mental defectives could find themselves nailed to the pavement by a foot of #6 rebar. There the subhumans could disappear from internal bleeding or exposure. The stink would be a bit lessened, the flies a little less prolific and there would be less gory surface area for human beings to step around.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Under 120s gone: logistics
April 24, 2012, 02:09:18 AM
A few dozen acres converted to piranha ponds could take care of this problem fairly quickly.

The earth's carrying capacity is about a billion, if we also want to have wildlife. We should pick the billion smartest, and then get rid of the dishonest, criminal, perverse, etc.

At the same time we do this, we should find people who are doing good things, and encourage them to do more of them and breed more.

That's the only way out of the hole that humanity's in. If we don't change our path, doom awaits.

Most people are too cowardly to change and fear change, so they're going to complain any time someone offers a solution.

Re: Under 120s gone: logistics
April 24, 2012, 02:22:48 AM
That offends my moral sensibilities. The resulting algae blooming would starve the ponds of oxygen necessary for the piranha to thrive. Unlike the subhuman chum, the fish are 100% incapable of intentional wrongs.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Under 120s gone: logistics
April 24, 2012, 02:33:29 AM
The plans:

I know, woodchipper mulch for global reforestation would draw flies all over the fat, offal and bone shards. You're concerned about mess. You're appalled by the undying reek all summer. I can sympathize. How about less messy then?

The mental defectives could find themselves nailed to the pavement by a foot of #6 rebar. There the subhumans could disappear from internal bleeding or exposure. The stink would be a bit lessened, the flies a little less prolific and there would be less gory surface area for human beings to step around.

A few dozen acres converted to piranha ponds could take care of this problem fairly quickly.

The challenge:

Quote

Most people are too cowardly to change and fear change, so they're going to complain any time someone offers a solution.

This speaks for itself. Your "solutions" would be better with some ninjas on it, and werewolves.

You are being "cruel" and, hopefully... sarcastic, because that's all you have.