IQ

[scourge]

Since we would end up with mostly males, all men under 1.8m must go.

[NEVR4GETLOL]

Since we would end up with mostly males, all men under 1.8m must go.

Or seeing as you are probably 6"5' and measure a few inches across, we should instead have various competitive tests for athleticism, will, toughness and strength, and kill those who lose.

[scourge]

Good call. Tiny or stubby males qualifying with over 140 IQ should then pass a fitness test.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm

[NEVR4GETLOL]

Hell lets raise the required IQ to over 200 and triple the demands of that fitness test.

[scourge]

Better, if you're over 1.8, over 120 and exceed the Army APFT requirements, you get first pick of the women.  

[pagan980938127]

Better, if you're over 1.8, over 120 and exceed the Army APFT requirements, you get first pick of the women.  

Wouldn't someone in this group already have first pick of the women?  At least if they had a reasonable level of self-confidence and assertiveness.  We are already programmed to mate or not, according to our qualities.  Also, you make women sound like prizes, or cattle to be rounded up and distributed to the chosen few. That is an old way of thinking, but does anyone among us still believe women to be incapable of independent thought?

As to the matter at hand, I say nature works better than human designs.  Let's remove the barriers that sustain inferior members of society, and let nature prevail.  For example, why do we spend so much resources to prolong terminally ill people?  To repair the damages caused by poor lifestyle choices?  To educate those who are unwilling or unable to learn?  Why do you want to exterminate 95% of the world's population?  It seems the answer is fear.  We only need to understand that people will die, people will fail, and even that humanity itself will one day go extinct.  The question becomes: will we evolve into something better first?  And if that's our goal, I'm not convinced that any human plan will realize it.

That might not be as quick and "easy" as mass extermination, but then again it might, and perhaps work far better.  The exceptions won't need to be sorted out by human rules, they will simply survive and pass their positive qualities onward.  Imagine a world, when suddenly, you have no fuel for your vehicle.  You must physically work to travel, becoming stronger or failing miserably in the attempt.  The supermarkets are no longer stocked, and you must either find someone nearby who produces food, or hunt/farm for yourself - or starve.  The government collapses and there are no public services or taxes, only what the community can and will provide for itself.  Scenarios like these are natural solutions to the problems we now face - if we can bare the thought of famine, disease, war, and death, for the good of humanity.  Eventually it should reach an equilibrium point and we can continue where we left off but with an inherently healthier perspective.

Mostly I take issue with human arrogance implying that we understand all of the world.  In truth, we know very little.  We've made very complex systems which are superficially fair, peaceful, and successful, and we pile on more layers of solutions.  We complain about them here, yet still proposing even more complex solutions.  Perhaps we are reluctant to leave behind the delights of the modern world despite it's flaws.  Nihilism may be a gateway to profoundly simple solutions, do we have the courage and resolve to walk all the way through...

[NEVR4GETLOL]

Wouldn't someone in this group already have first pick of the women?  At least if they had a reasonable level of self-confidence and assertiveness.  We are already programmed to mate or not, according to our qualities.  Also, you make women sound like prizes, or cattle to be rounded up and distributed to the chosen few. That is an old way of thinking, but does anyone among us still believe women to be incapable of independent thought?

As to the matter at hand, I say nature works better than human designs.  Let's remove the barriers that sustain inferior members of society, and let nature prevail.  For example, why do we spend so much resources to prolong terminally ill people?  To repair the damages caused by poor lifestyle choices?  To educate those who are unwilling or unable to learn?  Why do you want to exterminate 95% of the world's population?  It seems the answer is fear.  We only need to understand that people will die, people will fail, and even that humanity itself will one day go extinct.  The question becomes: will we evolve into something better first?  And if that's our goal, I'm not convinced that any human plan will realize it.

That might not be as quick and "easy" as mass extermination, but then again it might, and perhaps work far better.  The exceptions won't need to be sorted out by human rules, they will simply survive and pass their positive qualities onward.  Imagine a world, when suddenly, you have no fuel for your vehicle.  You must physically work to travel, becoming stronger or failing miserably in the attempt.  The supermarkets are no longer stocked, and you must either find someone nearby who produces food, or hunt/farm for yourself - or starve.  The government collapses and there are no public services or taxes, only what the community can and will provide for itself.  Scenarios like these are natural solutions to the problems we now face - if we can bare the thought of famine, disease, war, and death, for the good of humanity.  Eventually it should reach an equilibrium point and we can continue where we left off but with an inherently healthier perspective.

Mostly I take issue with human arrogance implying that we understand all of the world.  In truth, we know very little.  We've made very complex systems which are superficially fair, peaceful, and successful, and we pile on more layers of solutions.  We complain about them here, yet still proposing even more complex solutions.  Perhaps we are reluctant to leave behind the delights of the modern world despite it's flaws.  Nihilism may be a gateway to profoundly simple solutions, do we have the courage and resolve to walk all the way through...

Or better yet, kill the idiots in time for the world crash so fewer intelligent people need to sacrifice food for them.

[born for banning]

The idiots are already dead men walking, they just don't know it.

What's important is that smart people breed. Find an intelligent man/lady, look at their good traits, recognize that all people have limitations, and work up your will to love them.

Start a family, live apart from the masses, tell every smart person what truth they can handle.

Never do anything to prolong the lives of punjis.

Do everything you can to encourage the smart, noble, beautiful, good...

Don't own a TV. Don't go to movies. Read books. Play outside. Make close friends, have adventures.

When the time comes, you'll need to start up new communities as the rest slowly lapse into third-world irrelevance... I'm not talking about race per se here, but how they downgrade themselves in caste. Maybe it is race, but maybe that's a separate issue entirely.

Never tell idiots what you actually think.

Don't break laws stupidly and destroy yourself. Avoid alcohol and most drugs. Don't buy stuff to feel happy. None of that crap works.

Avoid stupid nationalist organizations and bad music, hipsters and corporates, whores and liars. They are the majority. You can find those anywhere, or get yourself a dog and train her to suck cock for hamburger meat. Most people behave that way.

Do not directly confront the enemy. The enemy is a process, not a group or person...

Take yourself seriously, but recognize that you're nothing to the universe but a tool, and all that matter is that better designs (designs of music, designs of civilization, blueprints for brains and bodies) succeed over designs that aren't as good.

Don't be an egocase and start your own stupid failing band, your own stupid failing blog, your own stupid failing zine. Join with others and make a real difference.

Log off and go do something, get off the couch, stop caring about what you desire, and do what's right.

The rest is empty talk by pointless doomed people. Fuck you.

[antithetikal]

Testing what? higher IQ would necessarily means something? Maybe your ability to remember what you studied not long ago? How many people pass those test with high scores but are unable to reason?
Intelligence is much more than having an extensive vocabulary and having memorized tons of books.
Intelligence means creativity, and the most creative you are, the most per formant you are. Creativity isn't only about making songs, or art. Creativity is shown in many aspects of the every day's life. It is the very foundation of survival.
So now tell me ubermensch, how many of you could survive the worse climatic conditions? or hunger?
Will your high IQ be of any help? Will books be of any help as well? What are muscles good for if you cannot survive a cold minus 40 Celsius?
Then to me seems there's not much difference between some of you and the emo guy you probably just saw walking in the street.

[born for banning]

Then to me seems there's not much difference between some of you and the emo guy you probably just saw walking in the street.

You're yelling at people on a forum, and trying to generalize them all. That's defensive and pointless.

High IQ means intelligence potential, or the raw computing power necessary to think. If their character is bad or pointless, high IQ means little.

I'd rather live among the high IQ types however as among them, there is more consensus of what is good, and the people of low morals stand out, especially over time.

[antithetikal]

Yelling? generalizing? Defensive?

If people feel attacked by those statements then they are in the wrong place, no?

Merely asking a simple question. Before judging a society you must be able to judge yourself.
If we critic society, we must critic ourselves first.

[born for banning]

If we critic society, we must critic ourselves first.

I would phrase that this way instead: if we are gonna criticize society, we have to know what we would prefer instead or we get more of the same.

[scourge]

I would phrase that this way instead: if we are gonna criticize society, we have to know what we would prefer instead or we get more of the same.

You can extend that by saying those who are involved in imagining, prototyping and building the future will own it. Everyone else is just railing against the side effects of past designs, which is usually not as beneficial as creating the future.

[born for banning]

You can extend that by saying those who are involved in imagining, prototyping and building the future will own it. Everyone else is just railing against the side effects of past designs, which is usually not as beneficial as creating the future.

This is true. All but a few will whine, because passive behavior is easier than active behavior, and feels better. Commanding from the couch(tm) makes them feel like kings.

Which leads us back to the IQ question: If all people under 120 IQ points died today, would life be better or worse?

The answer is that only a few people here seriously considered the question.

The rest of you didn't want to face it, and you invented lots of lies about how it's necessary to have people cleaning toilets or how immoral it was.

The real reason?

You like having people under you. It makes you feel as if your own status is that much more important. You like having someone to make fun of because they're proof that you're smarter, sexier, hipper, etc.

The unexamined life is not worth living...

[Late]

Well to continue on this offtopic of offtopics is that maybe my "example" was overtly simlpified but in the end iq does not equal social responsibility or the necessary will to power to be in a position to change society.

I've found it a weird dichotomy on these boards that on one hand society as it is has been deemed beyond redemption but on the other you have to succeed to even have a fleeting chance to bring any of your ideals available to the public at large.

Look at this place, you can't swing a dead cat around without hitting a fierce independent thinker ostracized by modern pc society plagued by emotion-based decision-making?