Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Universal tolerance

Re: Universal tolerance
September 19, 2009, 06:28:07 AM
I think we need to start with ourselves, then begin from there. Below 120? Self-terminate for the greater good, whether consciously or through your unconscious behavior. But take a few other sub-120s down with you too.

Higher than 120? Get money and power for the sake of having some influence in the world.

Don't have money and power yet? Spread these ideas, quickly and efficiently as possible. Use shock to mentally jolt others into understanding what must be done, if necessary.

Much love <3

Would crime be an effective way for the >120 to increase money and power, as long as it is perpetrated against sub-120s?

Re: Universal tolerance
September 19, 2009, 06:30:23 AM
Would crime be an effective way for the >120 to increase money and power, as long as it is perpetrated against sub-120s?

It depends on the certainty of your end goal and potential consequences of your actions. A lot of what I can think of as crime to gain money or power seems fairly harmful and counterproductive. Are you willing to gamble away more than you bargained for if there is a better means?

Re: Universal tolerance
September 19, 2009, 06:38:09 AM
Would crime be an effective way for the >120 to increase money and power, as long as it is perpetrated against sub-120s?

It depends on the certainty of your end goal and potential consequences of your actions. A lot of what I can think of as crime to gain money or power seems fairly harmful and counterproductive. Are you willing to gamble away more than you bargained for if there is a better means?

What about theft - stealing a ferrari or plasma TV from a rich slob, selling it and then distributing funds to organizations such as ANUS or environmental groups. From what I've read in this thread, surely most would agree this would be justifiable as a form of disobedience against unjust laws allowing such people to excel in the socio-economic realm.

Re: Universal tolerance
September 19, 2009, 06:44:30 AM
What about theft - stealing a ferrari or plasma TV from a rich slob, selling it and then distributing funds to organizations such as ANUS or environmental groups. From what I've read in this thread, surely most would agree this would be justifiable as a form of disobedience against unjust laws allowing such people to excel in the socio-economic realm.

I recall a story about a man who did this, and basically repaid his dues to society with the money he earned through this. I can't scrounge it up at the moment though. If one were willing to risk it, and they felt it was truly just (not in a stupid Robin Hood sort of way), then they should.

I would consider stealing a ferrari, cadillac, or plasma TV from a person on welfare in the ghetto though, since they're just as likely to be rich slobs, and less likely to use it for anything other than a means toward appearing materially wealthy.

Re: Universal tolerance
September 19, 2009, 12:35:59 PM
There's two important components to this argument:

Spiritual

Only when you are ready to kill have you accepted life.

Life is conflict.
To deny this is hubris, to think you know more than the gods/nature.

You will die. You will fight. This prevents stagnation. A decision is always made.

This is a divine order. The higher oppress the lower. The lower hate the higher as a result. So sometimes, the higher have to trim the herd.

Practical

Seven billion people -- soon nine, then twelve.

So birth rates fall -- soon 8.5, then 11. Same difference.

That leaves very little space and no untouched space.

You want the kind of epic nature John Muir wandered through? You're going to need lots of space, unbroken by roads and fences (for the most part), which remains wild.

Most people want to kill the wild. Too many people will exclude the wild.

People need spaces to live, and ten times that space for infrastructure: schools, hospitals, roads, parking lots, farmland, jails, shopping, floodplain and firebreak, clubs and libraries, bars and restaurants.

This means you need to plan for a smaller number of humans. Well, if we're going to curtail the species, we need to start by removing the least valuable and keeping the best, instead of deluding ourselves that "fairness" requires we kill everyone equally and self-defeat like all good moralists do.

~~~

I'm sure you've seen or heard of Old Yeller, the Disney film. No?

It's about a boy and a dog. A dog that eventually, has to fight off something with rabies, gets rabies, and then needs to be shot. Welcome to reality.

Even more, welcome to a necessary reality. Without conflict, stagnation; without conflict, passivity. With conflict and sacrifice, dynamic change and meaning.

You killed something to eat today.

If you're a vegetarian, what happened to the animals that lived in those fields? They can't live there anymore and there's no other space.

If you're not, you most likely ate something that once lived or food that used the byproducts of a living creature. You killed by proxy.

If you ate nothing, you breathed in many microbes and small insects -- and they did not live.

When you defecate, you condemn a billion E. Coli units to death by sewage treatment plant.

You are a killer, and you cannot escape it.

~~~

Grim realities are balanced by great positives. A hunter can cull the weaker from a population, meaning that the remaining ones get stronger and more powerful. A dictator can kill off the tards, criminals and idiots, and possibly spare us from future conflict by subjugating powerful enemies now.

Are we to accept these things? Yes, if we love life.

If we cannot accept these? We have gone into denial by deferring decision.

The choice is as plain as this. A = not A. Do I live today or die? All decisions start with a binary branch, because you are a binary actor.

Where do you begin?

Re: Universal tolerance
September 19, 2009, 02:17:04 PM
BUT I have prediabetes = TO THE OVENS

To avoid us correctly claiming that you've constructed a strawman, where here did someone advocate killing people for this?

I saw:

* Under 120 IQ points
* Pedophile or Criminal
* Passive Aggressive

Under those criteria, you're more likely to get killed for your postings here than your pre-diabetic condition. Try breeding it out. If your wife doesn't have it, your kids have the 1/2 inheritance gamble, and if they in turn breed with people with strong backs and less propensity toward migraines, this will all be cleared up within a few generations.

But someone who is under 120... probably not.

Re: Universal tolerance
September 19, 2009, 03:13:37 PM
It's a common mistake to turn this into a "nobody's perfect" exhortation. "He that is without sin among you..."

The point is neither to catalogue people's faults, nor the successes of faulty people. It is to rediscover the spirit of evolution, and ways of artificial selection when purely natural selection (upon which they are modelled) does not apply.

Re: Universal tolerance
September 19, 2009, 03:23:27 PM
BUT I have prediabetes = TO THE OVENS

To avoid us correctly claiming that you've constructed a strawman, where here did someone advocate killing people for [these things].

Various ANUS articles across the last few years advocate death or stopped treatment for the medically unwell.

Re: Universal tolerance
September 19, 2009, 03:33:09 PM
It's a common mistake to turn this into a "nobody's perfect" exhortation. "He that is without sin among you..."

The point is neither to catalogue people's faults, nor the successes of faulty people. It is to rediscover the spirit of evolution, and ways of artificial selection when purely natural selection (upon which they are modelled) does not apply.

I think that a person is not defined by single acts or traits and that a more holistic approach to understanding them would consider the general thrust and path of their life within the context of their friends, family and local community. It would consider their character, their achievements and the challenges and struggles they face. Life is a continuing path; not isolated incidents. Hence I am against the imposition of crude industrial standards of "genetic health" and believe that "worth" should be determined carefully and with compassion within a more local and human context. Within this context, execution or eugenics become impossible.

For this reason I favour smaller communities and local governments.

Re: Universal tolerance
September 19, 2009, 04:25:42 PM
It is to rediscover the spirit of evolution, and ways of artificial selection when purely natural selection (upon which they are modelled) does not apply.

Yes, which one does by removing the egregious (criminals, retards, pedophiles, idiots) and just as importantly, by making sure the good get rewarded and feel a sense of belonging to a community.

I have decided to purge my cds eugenically. Who will join me in this vinyl solution?

Please send me all your CDs.

I think a lot of the reason that vinyl "sounds better" than CD has to deal with stochastic vibration picked up by the needle. It feels better more than it sounds better.

Re: Universal tolerance
September 19, 2009, 07:13:43 PM
A person is not defined by single acts or traits ALONE and that a more holistic approach to understanding them would consider the general thrust and path of their life within the context of their friends, family and local community. It would consider their character, their achievements and the challenges and struggles they face.

Fixed that for ya. Yes, I know, having a healthy body is pointless if you do nothing with it.

Quote
Life is a continuing path; not isolated incidents.

The problem with congenital health defects and predispositions toward those is that they will show up in your children and their offspring, etc. and because life is a continuing path; not just isolated incidents, this should be duly considered.

Personally I may begin to face hip problems and/or diabetes 30 or 40 years from now, if I don't die a reckless young death. o noes
But I'm in shape, my vision is around 20/15, and whatever.

Hence I am against the imposition of crude industrial standards of "genetic health" and believe that "worth" should be determined carefully and with compassion within a more local and human context.

Agreeable.

I think the reason why we consider the eugenicist path is because a physically-capable brain and body will be a means toward a better civilization, not because "HURR WERE BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE" and we want to see everyone else die.

Of course there's plenty of us on here that have health defects, and whatever the fuck. That's not the point, and having those doesn't make eugenics any less useful to us. We're only one isolated incident with a health defect, and we need to consider the future.

If you are capable and competent, you should live.

Re: Universal tolerance
September 20, 2009, 02:40:12 AM
History has taught us that it is virtually impossible to establish a stable, effective political order in societies where each man believes himself the equal of a king.  How then do we propose to do so among people who know themselves to be such?

NHA

Re: Universal tolerance
September 20, 2009, 06:00:07 AM
You don't need to exterminate 91% of the population to balance population growth.

In the US:
* Birth rate: 14.18 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)
* Death rate: 8.27 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)

Some points to consider:
* Genetic engineering is more precise than selective breeding.
* Natural selection is slow and prone to dead ends - even if its artificially induced.
* Crime will exist as long as there are antisocial people, high IQ doesn't prevent this.
* People of 100 IQ aren't automatically dysfunctional, they just wont produce anything of timeless value.
* All the major accomplishments of civilization resulted from the ideas of a handful of men.

Genetics and eugenics can produce unforeseen side effects. Its safer to operate on a smaller test group than the entire population - you always want the option to rollback changes.

Balance the population growth, prevent industry from poisoning everyone, and optionally engineer a few supermen to speed things up.

Its not really that complicated or extreme.

Also:
Quote
from:
“The Black Pimp Speaks”
Boyd Rice interviewed via telephone, 2003

RR:  Are you familiar with the Finnish philosopher, Pentti Linkola?  He’s pro-war, pro-disease, pro-famine – any means of reducing the population.  He puts environmentalism above every other social issue basically, and advocates establishing an eco-fascist regime.  I’m curious as to what your impressions of that are.

BOYD:  My impressions of that?…(long pause)… I just fucking hate this hippie-ass stuff, where even people who promote harsh ideas want to be viewed as a “good-guy,” like Charlie Manson claiming that he’s an environmentalist, or whatever.  I think that the world can take care of itself.  I think that if man does enough damage to the environment to screw it up, it will strike back, and a lot of people will be dead, and there will be your check and balance.  I think that if you want to cut down on population, just stop giving free money to people who have babies out of wedlock.  As soon as a poor person has a child, they get all these services, and if they knew that for every child they had, they were going to have to earn more money to feed those kids, they’d get their tubes tied straightaway.

RR:  But in a larger sense, you have the entirety of, say, South America and Central America which have massive population problems, due in no small part to the Catholic church disallowing birth control, or whatever it may be.  So it seems to me that controlling population is going to be a very serious issue in the future.  In fact I’ve heard that India is going to soon surpass China, as being the most populated country in the world.  So, I guess the reason I asked you about Linkola is that he argues that war and disease are great things, and that we should cut off aid to third world countries and just let everyone starve to death.  His argument, as I understand it, is that there’s too many people and we should nip this problem in the bud, before the planet does balance itself out.

BOYD:  George Bush was just criticized because he passed some bill to spend twenty five billion dollars on AIDS in Africa , and people said: “Oh that’s not enough!  Twenty five billion isn’t enough!”  I don’t think he should’ve spent a single cent.  I think AIDS is probably the best thing that’s happened to Africa .  I mean, just imagine; this is a place with so much population that the land can’t support it, and they can’t feed themselves, and they’re starving to death – to me it seems that something like AIDS would be a godsend.



Re: Universal tolerance
September 20, 2009, 02:24:39 PM
My 2 cents:  the truly inimical are the criminal, the perverse, the decadent, passive-aggressive, bitter, resentful, depressed, impatient, lazy, and boring.  If you could identify these people, you could forego the IQ standard altogether.  As I see it, character/spirit/disposition-toward-reality-and-nature (whatever you want to call it) is more important than simple IQ.  It just seems rather base to me.  Think of all the beautiful women and great mothers (whose only intelligence is child rearing) we would lose to an IQ standard.

Re: Universal tolerance
September 21, 2009, 06:17:52 AM
I had hoped to make my point with greater brevity but here goes, this thread is absolutely, 100% useless.  I suspect the OP realizes this and simply wants to provoke discussion, but that isn't the point.  The point is that even if the OP is right, then the responsibility to act on this principle rests with him, convincing people on a forum that people with sub120IQ must die is not an achievement. 

What will remain of humanity after such a task is carried out?  A super-race of highly intelligent humans, or a group of disturbed sociopaths who, despite their ability to rationalize their decision, cannot overcome their guilt?  The OPs vision of this event is one-dimensional, it is focused directly on a quantitative end, and completely ignores the possible consequences of the means.  It is incredibly naive to think that the problems facing humanity have such a simple solution, or that it would even be possible to achieve what is suggested by the original post.