Civilizations start with a few leaders who conceive the otherwise unknown notion of working together in organization, thus achieving efficiency and better lives. Over time people take this for granted; then breeding breaks down, then ideology breaks down and moves from a transcendental "we could make things better" to a materialistic "let's divide up what we have." This leads to purely economic, utilitarian systems of government/society. From this comes further dysgenics, followed by race-mixing et cetera. At this time, our society is bloated with parasites. The ability to see the need to make civilization where none exists starts ~120 IQ points, but more properly in the 130-170 IQ range. For this reason, all of our fighting over political systems is irrelevant: our true problem is a loss of higher intelligence. Our population averages are now about 103 IQ (IQ is not a perfect measurement, but close enough for demographic-statistical purposes). I propose a society of only those 120 and higher, and the extermination of all below 120 (they will inevitably revolt, wanting what more intelligent people have and lacking the brains to see they will be killing the goose that laid the golden egg, as has happened in our society). This society will stabilize over a generation and then have time to remove those lacking nobility of character, and to breed its ugly people into healthier-looking ones. Thoughts? http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6275
Great Concept. But I think its not neccesary to really weed out undesirables. I think you have some good points, and suggestions. But utlimately knowledge lies in where we can admit to our failures, and include others ideas. Thus I propose as follows. There is no need to weed out undesirables, over time, naturally the race will evolve on its on. Second, if the "leaders" are so smart, they will be smart enough to allow a free, democratic society that makes us of efficient technology. Third, we would learn that hi technology is not the ultimate answer. That we strayed to far from our roots and nature. These new societies would be Earth Driven, Self sustaining civilizations. I invite you to join our group where we can discuss and actualize our desires more easily. See thread; Positive Thinking Creative Minds Think Tank mavrix
I want to bring up a counterpoint. You say that IQ degenerates...one can argue about the implications of that, or even the truth of that statement, but for the time being I just want to introduce another point to this. Maybe degeneration is an evolutionary effect, what has extreme intelligence brought us? All those parasites you mentioned, wars, ambition for power and whatnot, sure, it also gave us health systems, laws, stable societies and a lot of other positive things, but evil also comes from or with intelligence. So, maybe we take a step down the ladder, seeing intelligence as unnatural and unwanted, making us degenerate into primitive animals again. Ending with us living like monkeys, in familiy-like societies based on some very basic rules. After all, animals like sharks, turtles or even insects without much of a brain, like flies, already exist without much intelligence, and they do exist like this for far longer than we do. They adapted to changing conditions, but they did not evolve the way we did. So maybe this will be more successful than all this fixation on intelligence, society, culture, art and whatnot. Apart from that, I really do not like concepts of some kind of forced evolution imposed by someone who presumes to know what the future should be like.
Mavrix: I am not sure natural selection of a sort we want is in place. But I do distrust the technocracy. Dreamwalker: It's possible devolution is an answer. I would prefer to aim high. There is so much we can do, and most of it is fun...
android, look at our current state. the smartest are the leaders of our world. it will also be in the future. Not everyone will be the smartest, point being, That is fine. eventually, the intelligence will have to evolve into the ordinary as well because over time if 25% or more of the population has the enviroment to increase IQ breeding with the rest of the population will evolve all into a high state of IQ my assumption
The average IQ of any age group is 100, by definition. Of course, this means that the actual intelligence level denoted by an IQ of 100 may change over time. As it happens, the average intelligence (as denoted by IQ 100) of people in developed societies is increasing, not decreasing. For example, if a 30-year-old person in 1980 was measured to have an IQ of 100, and a 30-year-person in 2000 was measured to have an IQ of 100 using the same test, then the second 30-year old must have done better on the test.
Of course, if society is bred selectively so that everyone is a genius - who will do the menial tasks...robots? What we need to do more desparately is find out what determines EVIL in the human character. Evil is perhaps THE biggest drain on the human economy, and yet, science likes to pretend that it doesn't exist, because it has no explanation for it.
Really? I thought leaders were the ones who merely made a point of trying to organise what was already being done anyway. Today, we refer to them as "middle-management" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Where's your evidence for this? Is it also not possible that people with higher IQ also see themselves as more intelligent and thus more deserving? And thus more prone to actively seek a selfish society / capitalism where they can benefit most of the "less fortunate" (as they would see the low-IQ people)? Interesting idea, though, in a mad-scientist-bent-on-world-domination kind of way. Just bear in mind that the infrastructure will still need to be kept in good repair - and clean. And are your high-IQ people really going to be satisfied cleaning the streets when they should be sitting in their most ivory of towers?
Exterminate is harsh. If something like this is done, it should be something like some guy buys a huge plot of land and starts a town where only smart people are allowed in. Of course, the IQ test would have to be of the sort that measures potential intellegence rather then "crystallized" intelegence. Anyways, I don't think that it would work. Who would fill the manual jobs? All the people would be smart, and therefore more inclined to academic persuits. Plus, intellegent people are just as apt to disagree about most of the same issues we all disagree with anyways. Sure, some things are overly supported by intellegent and less so by less intellegent, and vice versa, so mabye a few issues would get solved, but there is not too much of that, and new issues would arise. Satanism, for example, is almost unheard of. If you cut off the lower 90% though, all of a sudden, you find that almost ten times the percentage believe in it, and it would no longer be taboo, and might even possibly catch on. There would be tons of obscure philosophies that only intellegent people like that all of a sudden get cast in the limelight. All of a sudden, the town would be split into ten parties instead of two, and our most basic assumptions would be under attack. In other words, no one would agree, and therefore it would be chaos, in a worst case scenario. So, in conclusion, don't assume that intellegent = good.
