Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Eugenics

Re: Eugenics
March 18, 2010, 06:07:43 PM
There are two different species in humanity.

Those under 120 cannot see what is necessary for the future. They are the old bad human: the half-monkey, emotionally reactive, fundamentally selfish.

The ones over 120 have a chance to be what's more. They are the starting point of the human species we should want to be. Isolating them -- about 5% of the world's population -- and developing them toward moral heights is our only future.

In another 20 years, when we have better power sources, robots that understand simple language and can learn tasks, and a streamlined economy (right now, our economy is burning off the excessive growth of the 1980s and 1990s) these truths will become more evident.

Are we able to save ourselves or not? Being afraid of what others might think is not an option. Being in denial of the science -- which is that the ability for higher function begins around 120 -- is not an option either.

Men or mice, adults or teenagers, futurists or fearful reactionaries. It's binary. Your choice.

Re: Eugenics
March 18, 2010, 10:35:21 PM
How much residual Erectus dna resides in a given man? Were his ancestors part of the group that speciated only 150,000 years ago? How much is instead Cro Magnon or speciated Sapiens from 2 million years back? Don't bring this up in public or in polite company.

Re: Eugenics
March 19, 2010, 03:08:05 AM
How much residual Erectus dna resides in a given man? Were his ancestors part of the group that speciated only 150,000 years ago? How much is instead Cro Magnon or speciated Sapiens from 2 million years back? Don't bring this up in public or in polite company.

Except that our social relationships reached a level of complexity that surpassed the method of clubbing someone in the head to have the chunk of rotten meat. Perhaps our brains were affected by that need of socialization. Our current position is not so simple and demands specific social mechanisms (i.e. not masturbatory politics).

Following your line of thought, I hope that in some centuries, we will have very little residual Üntermensch dna in a given man, through the most feasible methods of eugenics.

Re: Eugenics
March 19, 2010, 03:22:50 AM
Our interactions were considerably more complex than that. Like I've said, take away all civilization with its machines, easy food, settled places, and behavioural management systems creeping up on us everywhere and we revert to 10000 years ago: pretty much as we are now, minus all the illusory external trappings some call abstractions which are layers of removal from reality.

Re: Destroying the Weak [split]
March 25, 2010, 04:06:24 AM
I know what I'd do. In real life as well as on the keyboard. And if you've ever committed an act of necessary violence, you know it's actually not difficult. The main problem would be the boredom of the repetitive act of killing, so I'd use one of those industrial cattle-herders and an animal rendering machine to do the killing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ_Lt0Op2ms

Call me 'oversocialised' but I wonder if this place will ever begin to gain any more real social currency with explicit statements of this intensity. If structure, reality, intelligence, clear perception, etc, are they key, as they are professed to be by the philosophy of nihilism, then I don't see how taking the approach of being (comparitively) so overtly explicit to the point of alienating the people you want to win over (the small percentage of 'smart' people in society) can seem anything but absurd. Leaving aside bare logic for a moment and possible arguments against the claims of mass murder being 'necessarily' in a purely deductive sense to the goals of nihilism, part of human nature/structure is emotion, and if one is seeking to take care in their philosophy to grasp the underlying structure of things, I would argue that one should realise pretty quickly that such statements as those quoted above are going to alienate the required people... On the level of social intelligence I think the balance benig displayed here between realism (the reality of human beings) and idealism (idealism in the political sense of 'I have an ideal, i want to work towards it') is leaning too far towards personal idealism.

PS. I have been relatively heavily involved with this movement in the past, former editor of the aussie tribe, so i'm not just a random morally 'outraged' individual. Nor am I not involved any longer because I lost interest/ideological sympathy for the main jist of the ideas grouped so eligantly together by Prozac. I simply keep in contact with the ideas, and want to voice a cercern.

Re: Eugenics
March 25, 2010, 04:14:53 AM
I agree with all the ideas, but simply think mass murder is cruel. Where do I fit in.

Re: Destroying the Weak [split]
March 25, 2010, 05:09:40 AM

Call me 'oversocialised' but I wonder if this place will ever begin to gain any more real social currency with explicit statements of this intensity. If structure, reality, intelligence, clear perception, etc, are they key, as they are professed to be by the philosophy of nihilism, then I don't see how taking the approach of being (comparitively) so overtly explicit to the point of alienating the people you want to win over (the small percentage of 'smart' people in society) can seem anything but absurd.


Explicity is unimportant. If there's something that the left knows too well is discourse analysis, then we have politically correct language.

The pain of survivors of the "great cleansing",  after all the tears for dead relatives, friends, and after the big efforts of stabilizing culture after the war, would be forgot in perhaps 100 years, while their descendants enjoy all the benefits and reach the stars. It seems beautiful and ultimately... merciful. But if it fails it would be much much worse than the holocaust.

One child policy and extra license is much less likely to fail, while its failing would be much less terrible.  I'm waiting a comparative analysis vs mass tard death, by those who support the latter.

Re: Destroying the Weak [split]
March 25, 2010, 05:12:37 AM

Call me 'oversocialised' but I wonder if this place will ever begin to gain any more real social currency with explicit statements of this intensity. If structure, reality, intelligence, clear perception, etc, are they key, as they are professed to be by the philosophy of nihilism, then I don't see how taking the approach of being (comparitively) so overtly explicit to the point of alienating the people you want to win over (the small percentage of 'smart' people in society) can seem anything but absurd.


Explicity is unimportant. If there's something that the left knows too well is discourse analysis, then we have politically correct language.

The pain of survivors of the "great cleansing",  after all the tears for dead relatives, friends, and after the big efforts of stabilizing culture after the war, would be forgot in perhaps 100 years, while their descendants enjoy all the benefits and reach the stars. It seems beautiful and ultimately... merciful. But if it fails it would be much much worse than the holocaust.

One child policy and extra license is much less likely to fail, and I'm awaiting a comparative analysis vs mass tard death, by those who support the latter.

I don't know If I get what you're trying to say about the left, but if it's what I think, you're damned right... In my country, apology to nazism is a crime. Communism, on the other hand, even has it's political parties. The deaths of the people in the goverments of communism, is waaay bigger than nazism... but from influence of those bastards, it's extremely OK to defend communsim... go figure

Re: Eugenics
March 25, 2010, 06:02:30 AM
Hey, my IQ is around 140, but I think that videogames are more important than schoolwork, does this mean that I should be euthanized?

ANUS please help! :(

Re: Eugenics
March 25, 2010, 06:17:56 AM
Hey, my IQ is around 140, but I think that videogames are more important than schoolwork, does this mean that I should be euthanized?

ANUS please help! :(

That's a very passive-aggressive way to derail conversation. How about you provide a relevant and informative argument instead?

Re: Destroying the Weak [split]
March 25, 2010, 06:24:30 AM
The chinese goverment succesfully forced the people of the country to limit the number of kids. If they can do it, anybody could.
lol except China didn't "successfully" do it. Rich people will have their kids and then pay a fine because that's the only punishment for giving birth to more than one kid (they treat it as a fee), and people in the remote rural areas will give birth to as many kids as they please because government oversight in these areas is low. Some people have this weird notion that China is the model government for our over-liberalized world -- cool story, it's not.

If you want to go the forced sterilization route, make sure you have a totalitarian government capable of controlling every aspect of its people's lives or else it ain't happening. That said, this kind of society is a great way to suppress the rise of exceptional individuals -- people transcend by overcoming obstacles surrounding them, not by having the PRC kill off every neighboring imbecile. In many cases it is the imbecile which spurs the great person to action.

Agreed, but how do you propose that we tackle the problem of overpopulation?

Re: Eugenics
March 25, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
Regarding overpopulation; I dont think it is necessary to just line up a few million people and shoot them. Cut all foreign aid and let the third world kill each other off with their corruption, famine and natural disasters; stop all government-funded healthcare and let the sick die; and halt all immigration from the third world, and overpopulation would begin to take care of itself.

Eugenics should firstly be applied on a voluntary basis: encourage the production of more children among the healthy and the gifted couples. Discourage the reproduction of habitual criminals, the mentally challenged and the sick, those with hereditary diseases, even offer them financial incentives for sterilization. Start sperm/egg banks of selected donors of high IQ for the benefit of the infertile couples and for those who want to bring about improvement of the genetic stock of their future generations.

On the morality: as a nihlist I cannot honestly say that killing low IQs is evil. I only believe in healthy/unhealthy, smart/stupid and advantageous/disadvantageous. Humans are a social animal and we are genetically programmed to advance our species: killing the weak and propelling the strong. If mass death of low IQs leads to more intelliegent, healthy and strong people, and better organized society, and has more positive consequences than negative: then have at it!

But I'm not sure that mass extermination is such a wonderful idea: think of the costs and bureaucracy, Hitler struggled to kill off 6 million Jews. Even the smartest ANUSite would find it next to impossible to exterminate billions of people...

Re: Eugenics
March 25, 2010, 06:56:50 PM
Hey, my IQ is around 140, but I think that videogames are more important than schoolwork, does this mean that I should be euthanized?

ANUS please help! :(

That's a very passive-aggressive way to derail conversation. How about you provide a relevant and informative argument instead?

As immature as his comment may be, he's got a point. The whole "kill everyone under 120, keep everyone over 120" is not binary, as convenient as that would be if it was.

Re: Eugenics
March 25, 2010, 07:18:41 PM
I'm relatively sure that a large number of absolute reprobates fall into the ">120" category.  Possibility =/= certainty.

Re: Eugenics
March 26, 2010, 12:59:09 AM
Tripartite:

  • Body
  • Intelligence
  • Character

Each supports the other. Character makes someone respond when they only merely fully understand that their behaviour is unhealthy; this aids the body. A healthy body helps the brain get the nutrients and oxygen it needs for consistent, optimum performance. More intelligence helps us better understand how existence works, which informs our wisdom/character for what needs responding to (and what destructive things to blow off like anthropocentric humanism) in life.