In this particular case I would consider genocide a last resort at best, and more likely to undermine the ends we are trying to achieve in the first place. This site in particular thinks that people who are 'morons' should be killed some way or another. Besides any practical problems about getting someone to run a winning election on the genocide platform, there is the practical problem about how to distinguish morons from the 'worthy' minority. First of all there are other virtues besides intelligence. Second, most people referred to as morons simply have different values, instead of lacking in intelligence. No man is an island and I would seriously doubt anyone could support negative eugenics to the degree of actually killing people, considering they have friends and family members who might be included in the genocide, if not to the first degree of relation, at least to the second and third. Most people would be outraged at this even if they didn't know a single person at any degree of relation.
Genocide is definitely a last resort, but we've come too far with reckless breeding of useless individuals.
By "useless individuals", I'm sure most of us would agree that those are the lazy, sloth-like (procrastinators), hedonistic, shallow, immoral, and who never act on their thoughts. These are values the ancients rejected in people and often saw as sinful, and with good reason. There are virtues besides intelligence, like patience, foresight, moderation (knowing your limits) and many others that are common across all cultures. These and intelligence don't seem to be mutually-exclusive. Go out to any urban area, and you will have instant evidence of this.
We embrace the other values because it's what the morons are capable of, and as long as everyone "puts in their time" at work, it's "ok" to live like this, because we're all short-sighted hedonists, only concerned about getting that paycheck so we can get a bigger house in the suburbs away from the encroaching ghetto-cancer in the older part of town, only to do the same thing again 10 years from now. Yes, we don't tolerate these "different" values because they're the exact opposite of what humanity needs.
As far as technology goes, it comes with it's draw backs, but it's hard for me at least to imagine living without it. I would imagine the same would be true for all of us considering we are talking on an internet message board and trade mp3s etc.. You can't even play an electric guitar without mere electricity. Finally, I am going to have to side with the new Christian environmentalism movement. (As an aside this is hilarious because environmentalism wasn't an issue in biblical times so the argument that there are the same, timeless moral issues is bunk. Watching Christians fabricate biblical evidence for environmentalism is hilarious.) Anyway, according to them the purpose of saving the environment is primarily to serve man. I'm not sure what the purpose of saving the environment as an end in itself accomplishes if we won't be around to utilize or at least enjoy it. Sure as Nietzsche says "We enjoy being out in nature because it has no opinion of us." but people are more important than trees.
Again, understand that ANUS isn't promoting an absolute abandonment of technology. It promotes nihilism, which is sort of a moral/value opportunism, choosing which will work best.
Will technology really benefit us, or will it weaken us further?
Aren't there better ways to produce electricity than burning fossil fuels, like solar power, but aren't viable because there are too many people
Should every human being even have access to this electricity?
What are they doing with it?
Oh, we can't ask that, because it's their personal freedom
It doesn't matter if that electricity can be better put toward mapping the human genome and being able to correct mutations and other errors of that nature, because the guy next door wants to use 10,000 watts to power his new Fuck-o-Tron 9000. At least he conserves water by turning off his sprinklers when it rains, so it's ok. He's an environmentalist. And he puts in his time at the local McDonald's.
We're a failed species because the majority fails to transcend immediate physical gratification, among other things, and that is a disgusting quality to find in a human being. This is why there are advocates of mass genocide.
Not only that, but there are simply too many useless and uninteresting people. Why is it that after mankind has achieved so many grand things with such a small population, that we have so many millions of people now and no really notable achievements to compare to those of the past?
...What meaning is there in these masses, what use do they have? What essential new contribution is brought forth to the world by hundreds of human societies similar to one other, or by the hundreds of identical communities existing within these societies? What sense is there in the fact that every small Finnish town has the same choice of workshops and stores, a similar men's choir and a similar municipal theatre, all clogging up the earth's surface with their foundations and asphalt slabs? Would it be any loss to the biosphere - or to humanity itself - if the area of Äänekoski no longer existed, and instead in its place was an unregulated and diverse mosaic of natural landscape, containing thousands of species and tilting slopes of gnarled, primitive trees mirrored in the shimmering surface of Kuhmojärvi lake?http://www.angelfire.com/zine/thefallofbecause/articles/humanflood.html
He raises some good points, just be a little more open-minded and take a look at them.
It would be difficult to sort people out for a mass-genocide. So maybe we should just hope for some gigantic global catastrophe, like poisoning the air, earth and water...
or bet on 99942 Apophis coming a little too close to our planet
-- may the best man survive.