Under 120s gone: better or worse?

[Conservationist]

Why are people afraid to answer this question?

If all people under 120 IQ points died tomorrow, would life be better or worse?

Seems it should be simple, for nihilists or death metal fans.

[Humanicide]

If all people under 120 IQ points died tomorrow, would life be better or worse?

The answer to this question:

In the short term - worse. As Annihilation mentioned, waste plants, chemical plants, nuclear reactors, plus a whole fucking slew of things that need people to operate would shut down, and possibly blow up. It would be one hell of a trip for the surviving members of humanity; in fact I'd wager the population would decrease even more due to the mountainous piles of dead bodies that would likely harbor diseases in addition to previously mentioned factors.

In the long term - ultimately better, I'd say. A more intelligent humanity overall would lead to greater achievements, smarter people, and a generally better planet.

This does not mean we ignore the short term consequences - because while they may be "short" in a cosmic sense, in a human sense it wouldn't be short at all. A couple decades at least of increased pollution and radioactivity. We need to consider the human factor to some degree. To discard it entirely is ridiculous and short sighted.

[Conservationist]

In the long term - ultimately better, I'd say. A more intelligent humanity overall would lead to greater achievements, smarter people, and a generally better planet.

It's hard to argue against increasing human intelligence, or reduced population. The two seem to connect in that a group of fewer but smarter people makes for a better nation than many dumber ones. Finland or California?

Short-term consequences are a disadvantage. I'm sure that nuclear plants would be OK because their engineers are over-120s. Heaps of bodies can be managed, especially since they will be mostly localized in cities.

[lafindumonde]

We can't expect the more intelligent to out breed the less intelligent naturally. We also want to reduce population.

I propose a one generation solution:

In the name of global warming / green solutions / to save the whales, the federal government must issue breeding permits. These will only be issued to individuals with a clean criminal background, above average IQ, and no history of mental illness.

Anyone who doesn't have a breeding permit will be issued permanent birth control or offered $5,000 in exchange for volunteering to have a vasectomy or tubal ligation (long term, this solution will be extremely cheap vs a new generation on public assistance). The federal government will also issue free unlimited crack cocaine, heroin, etc. to any interested takers, but addicts will be first required to volunteer for sterilization to protect any theoretical children from harm.

Just need a few years of preparatory media propaganda and polls will likely show "a majority support breeding permits."

[analrapist]

Intelligence is rare, stupidity isn't. YES, life would be better if they were gone. I would rather just send them to Mexico or Canada.

[Phenoptosis]

Heaps of bodies can be managed, especially since they will be mostly localized in cities.

This is the thing that makes the Holocaust 2.0 at least somewhat viable. Cities are basically concentration camps for scum of all social strata.

[lafindumonde]

The bourgeois have lead the recent liberal/democratic revolutions and currently hold great wealth and influence the world, but if we continue along the path of dissolution, eventually even the bourgeois will be eliminated on the road to a total rule of the masses. The bourgeois are supporting this dissolution even though they are unaware of where it leads (i.e. "tools").

Conversationalist appears to be seeking to eliminate this possibility by materially removing the lower elements of humanity. This would prevent further dissolution and probably save humanity from self-destruction.

Most people appear to agree that less stupid people is good. However, the main arguments against Conversationalist's proposition appear to be:
1) Uncertainty - Are we missing something?
2) Improbability - Would such a thing even be possible?
3) Morality - Is killing wrong?
4) Fear - What if I am too stupid to meet this threshold?


In regards to uncertainty - I agree. Is there a spiritual element this overlooks?

In regards to improbability - I agree. Recent history shows societies focused on genocide implode. However, world leaders might be able to achieve a consensus on the issue out of mere self-preservation and pursue some similar plan. The world leaders would have to hold real power though, and not merely the power dependent on support from the masses.

In regards to morality & fear - the philosophical metalhead/nihilist answer would be "death is part of life" and not bad in itself. You could examine what is really "good" and "bad" in this context -
a) Present path: Temporarily increase the number of useless people, burn all resources, turn earth into a toxic waste site.
b) Alternative path: Reduce the number of useless people, use resources wisely, protect earth and improve humanity.

[scourge]

I think we can all agree that in general things would be better, but we would also agree that there are consequences known and unknown. However, the concept is completely unfeasible.

Many profound breakthroughs follow from informed risk taking. The alternative is more of the same. We already know the bleak status quo results.

[Uffe den tuffe]

The debate on the means to the ends (i.e. how to have less stupid people) seems unimportant.

The important question for me: "Do we prefer a society with less or more intelligent people?"

I think I'd prefer one with more intelligent people. They make better products at least.

I do, however, wonder if the IQ debate is something to focus on. What is the main problem of the West? Low IQ? Low cultural self-confidence seems more like it.

Then again, it seems like countries with retarded ideologies (e.g. Scandinavia) do pretty well after all, possibly because of its competent (intelligent) people.

[scourge]

The West's contemporary problem is consensual self-deception:

• universal equality
• blind tolerance
• promiscuous altruism
• cultural relativism
• secularized theology
• secular heretic persecution
• homogenized political philosophy

The effects of this collective mental defect might not be so bad with only 200 million people globally and each at least a standard deviation or two to the right of the Bell Curve peak.

[scourge]

Save our borderline tards so they can grow up into child torturers and ecocidists. In other words, I can't be blamed for anything because I safely stood on the sidelines all my life while our world died.

[scourge]

Tralfamadorian was considerate enough to enumerate the existing results of our overpopulated world packed with its sub 120s:

-Probably take the form of WWIII, destroying valuable ecosystems and cultures along with it.
-Destroy humanity's ethical undergirding
-Create a society of sociopaths
-Solve nothing.

What isn't clear is how depopulating the world of its sub 120s would result in the very same.

[Conservationist]

People are squeamish. Imagine that we found another earth and sent all the under-120s there. Which planet would be thriving in 200 years?

[lord.aspie]

This is cultural/civilization problem. Not a biological one.

The average IQ in ancient Greece was probably about 100-110ish. Yet we still revere the great works they produced. They had a civilization that was complimentary to genius. People had roles. This is exactly what our civilization needs.

[scourge]

Which came first:

• the revolt of the serfs, their resulting empowerment, and the resulting loss of high culture to mass egalitarian society
• the loss of culture/civilization to modernity