I don't think we need a brute labor caste either. But as long as our society retains a level of complexity even approximating what we presently exist in, we will need specialized, non-intellectual skills: construction, carpentry, farming, electrician, plumbing, all manner of focused artisanal craft-worker, butcher and so on and so forth. There is nothing demeaning about these activities, nor are they extranneous. They are, however, time consuming. It makes sense that those of lesser cognitive capability and inclination should fill these roles, in order to free those who are DRIVEN to higher things (governance, adventure, warfare, discovery, great artistic achievement, etc.) up.
I'm not talking about a mass of shit smeared mop-pushers and housemaids. These kind of roles abound when the population is enormously out of control and there is a parasite "elite". It is make-work.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about the possibility of a more streamlined, more elegant society... and also, a less bulky, massive society. Does this mean that we need to shout loudly about the cullings to come?
Born for Banning -
Don't call my idea moral. It isn't. It's structural. That you suggest it is moral (read: "bad") leads me to believe that you occupy a world of binary arguments, divided into you and other proponents of ANUSian idea, versus moronic Champions of Drooling Idiot Humanitarianism.
Not the case.
Also, on a very simple cosmetic level, the Corrupt argument you are citing is irrefutable. It may, however, be irrelevant as a result of leaving out other important questions, such as, "Is there some other course of action that would improve life drastically more than the original proposal because it strikes more directly to the heart of the issue?"
I suppose what it comes down to is the question of whether or not you think it is most fundamentally human stupidity which has resulted in this situation. And we're defining stupidity, in this context, as a lack of abstract congnitive ability, as opposed to, say, "insanity" or "malevolence".
Look... If you are forced to admit that there are "some you would save" it points to an inherent flaw in the idea that those with below 120 IQ are inherently useless, which makes the whole "kill the sub-120s" argument... not so smart.
I want to make it clear that I also believe that we need to reign in, conquer, destroy or similarly neutralize the vast, thrashing force of raw Dumb.
I just don't think that this is a very good way to do it. The whole "Kill Stupid People" argument has an inherent tendency to attract the angsty, hurt and spiteful... as well as those whose sole scrap of self worth is based upon their own sense of being above that 120 mark. You HAVE to be aware of this effect. Can't you see it already? Haven't you met these pathetic types?
My overall meta-plan would work very generally like this: (Please take note of where your 'kill the Dumbs' idea might fit in, without us needing to scream it out as our #1 policy):
1. Create a new aristocracy.
2. Gather as much social power as possible.
3. Create a heirarchically organized caste-socialism (National Socialism)
4. Having reorganized society, begin a long, steady program of eugenics, weeding out as much biological Dumb and Perverse as possible.
5. New Gold Age.