You seem far more in right wing politics than science.
And BTW it was B.F. Skinner who said those things, and more https://www.verywell.com/most-influential-psychologists-2795264
The elite
- Thread starter birch
- Start date
And BTW it was B.F. Skinner who said those things, and more https://www.verywell.com/most-influential-psychologists-2795264
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Birch, this is a bizarre contention of yours. Do you really think that people only argue against the Nazi genocide on the grounds that "race" does not have a very solid genetic basis? This is nonsense! It has been and still regularly is condemned and commemorated as an atrocious c.20th example of pure evil in action, at the level of an entire state. This barely needs repeating, because it is not contentious - everyone accepts it.
The reason there is still argument against invoking "race" as a scientific concept is because there are still people around who secretly fancy putting pillowcases over their heads and carrying burning crosses around. (Some even appear to be part of the administration of the current POTUS - or SCROTUS.) Some of these people try to dignify their prejudices by arguments based on what they present as science - when it isn't. That's why there is noise about it. Nazism is dead, but this stuff is still alive.
I quoted you saying, "Look at the culture where the top inelligentsia is not even compensated as much as vapid people...." That seems to me to imply that the top intelligentsia "should" be paid more. Is that not what you meant?
I want to go on record as opposing the following proposal from the Opening Post to this Thread
First: The most serious problem with this concept is that politicians would be the ones to pass the laws which decide who gets eradicated.
Second: There are subtleties in genetics. One sickle cell gene provides immunity to a lethal version of malaria, while two result in sickle cell anemia. Mistakes could be made in deliberately tinkering with genetics instead of allowing evolution to function on its own.
Third: Eradicate or euthanize seems extreme compared to sterilization.
Fourth: Long term, the worthwhile effects of evolutionary eradication of genetic problems are probably slowed by technology & laws rather than totally prevented from improving the gene pool.
BTW: How many here are familiar with the Darwin Awards? They are intended as humor, but pertinent to this Thread.
Oddly enough, I think it makes more sense now that it did 100-300 years ago.
In the more advanced cultures, today’s technology & laws strongly tend to prevent evolutionary forces from weeding out those with inferior genetic potential.
First: The most serious problem with this concept is that politicians would be the ones to pass the laws which decide who gets eradicated.
To me, the ethics of politicians are not far above the level of petty thieves.
Their main motivation & abilities relate to winning elections.
Their main motivation & abilities relate to winning elections.
Second: There are subtleties in genetics. One sickle cell gene provides immunity to a lethal version of malaria, while two result in sickle cell anemia. Mistakes could be made in deliberately tinkering with genetics instead of allowing evolution to function on its own.
Third: Eradicate or euthanize seems extreme compared to sterilization.
Fourth: Long term, the worthwhile effects of evolutionary eradication of genetic problems are probably slowed by technology & laws rather than totally prevented from improving the gene pool.
BTW: How many here are familiar with the Darwin Awards? They are intended as humor, but pertinent to this Thread.
no, i just used race as an example of reasons one could use, not that it's legitimate. this scenario would not have anything to do with race (entitlement based on race) but genius level iq and above where you keep refining it until you only have genius level iq citizens only.
I dont' think so because there were still many of the same people as today all throughout history. You can see it in all the problems society had. I would surmise that 'most' genius level iq people are more interested in substance and knowledge rather than just power of some who strive to be elite as well as those who engender degeneracy. if you think about it, those who strive mostly just for power using any means, is derived and coming from a form of shallowness rather than a legitimate strength. it lends itself to cheating in various forms which is lowering standards rather than meeting them. of course, quality also depends upon the value of those standards as well as those should be scrutinized as well and who made them and why or if it may be prejudicial, biased or even not good etc.
No, because many can cheat their way to the top, use nepotism, who knows who, looks, lower standards, use corruptive tactics, stomp on others etc. but by totally weeding it based on iq, eventually there can be no more smoke or mirrors or chance situations.
the main problem with most of the general population is their main motivation/focus tends to be only consumption and they do not care so much about the responsibility or collateral damage of that. the pollution is not just a consumer's fault of course because because those same types of people are employed by corporations to make money and keep this circle of shit going. even top intelligentsia (real ones) not just corporate bigwigs whose bottomline is just money and having most of the honeypot, is not perfect but i would think that they would tend to be more conscientous about where, who and what is affected in what they do from getgo not just because it may eventually affect them. so both ethical and intelligent people comprising a society would make for a much better one.
Last edited:
But then again, it is possible that in the future science will be able to unlock those genius parts of the brain that remain recessive in the majority of people. that actually may be the only difference between a below average/average to a genius individual, at least iq wise possibly in most cases. personality and character may be a separate issue.
Can you actually think of a reason why very intelligent people would want to do anything like that?
All the very intelligent people I know of would just like to be allowed to do their research and educate the public to the possibilities of enlightened living.
If they went after anybody, it would be the power-elite that likes to keep the mass of citizenry ignorant, anxious, suspicious and hostile to intellectuals.
Eugenics was once a thing. It was even tried. Maybe it will resurface in the future. Would a perfect person make a perfect world?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You are right, there are several reasons why they wouldn't care to. First, they don't have to deal with the majority of people, work with them or be their neighbors etc. They can keep them at arm's length or further while keeping sweeping humanitarian ideals easier. It would be a bit different if they couldn't do that and all that trash and ugliness of humanity was something they had to experience.
As for the usual stupid but tired stereotypical pseudo-intellectual nonsense already spouted on this thread such as 'let nature take care of it' as if it is the highest form of quality control when that is furthest from the truth. the stupidity in general amazes me sometimes, even coming from so-called educated. that's right, that's all they are sometimes, just educated and not actual thinkers.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216065/Fiona-Pilkington-How-police-council-left-feral-families-terrorise-mother-disabled-daughter.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-hounded-mother-killed-disabled-daughter.html
For example, this is just a microcosm of how many people are. human trash exists everywhere in abundance. and if we were even to just let nature take it's course, it's even a false assumption that nature would make things better since nature rewards ignorance, sadism, cruelty and power by any means just as well. so it is not a fail-safe for a better society or higher standards or any of the bs blind credit given to "nature" taking it's course either. heh, i mean, you can just look at history. hell, you can look at society as it is now as well and the people who comprise it. also, not everyone in history before modern convenience/inventions/medicine was a plato, socrates, ghandi, newton, da vinci, einstein etc either. UH, hello?
"Nature" as much as anything else needs remediation, help, tweaking, modification and management to get ideal results. If nature was so good at it, we wouldn't be needing all this research, inventions, laws, products, medicine etc now would we? No, we'd still be living in caves at the base level of what nature knows best: low-browism. fuck nature!
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Speaking as you do of "human trash" is an ugly thing to do. It's a disgusting phrase. A cornerstone of civilised morality is to accord all human beings a certain degree of respect and to treat them equally in law. But then, if you get your opinions from the Daily Mail, it is not surprising that you come out with such uncharitable comments. The Daily Mail could be the printed version of George Orwell's "Two Minutes Hate".
My bold.
In that context, even without human ''tweaking'' Nature's getting great ''results'' for some forms of bacteria, no worries and they evolve too, maybe outer space too. Intelligence maybe an evolutionary dead end...wait and see.
That's from a human perspective not Nature's.
No, that's one of the ways Nature gets things done.
Last edited:
I'm not here to tiptoe around your peculiar particular sensibilities considering there is such thing as human trash. People like you tend to give just as much power to the worst people than those who are less problematic, just by default. It's just like when i met these airheaded extreme liberals who opposed the death penalty for the worst crimes. They are more concerned with their ideals than actual people and how they are affected, especially the victims. In essence, they empower evil people just as much. It reminds me of how they locked a rapist and a victim in the same cell. Those of fake and shallow morals actually in reality means 'let them duke it out', while they turn a blind eye and think they are on higher or okay moral ground because they did the easiest thing, not have to discern.
Your fake pretense that most everyone is good is not taking the higher road either just so you can feel better about the world you live in, it's just head in sand. I see you ignored the articles and glossed over the truth. It's not disgusting when it's the truth. I don't care about pretending the world and 99 percent of society are good which i think you are the one who stated that before which is absolute bullshit! if you mean 'good' strictly as people care about themselves and their own happiness, then yes but bullshit definition which is what that means.
Whether that article was from the dailymail does not mean it is not true. You think it's not obvious you are trying to discredit or ignore the horrible 'ugly' human fiasco (one of many/countless), so your ridiculously selfish (not moral) idea that there is no such thing as human trash is not bumped/dented in any way?
Fortunately, you exist away from these realities because there are many who don't give a damn to return your respect or humanity or didn't you realize that? This is what i mean by natural selection and what transpired in that situation. Yes, the woman and her disabled daughter were bullied/overpowered by at least by more aggressive people who did not care about "respect, equality or civilized morality." But though nature selected for them, you can see that it doesn't necessarily mean it selects or favors 'ideal' or better traits because it has nothing to do with that and it is just about survival. Think about it? surviving to breed again does not mean you are producing quality and nature does not give an iota if one is mean, cruel, ugly, liar, corrupt, selfish etc.
Last edited:
I've always found it strange the unceasing but false assumption of nature as some form of positive even as a righteous be-all and end-all judge when in reality they are just condoning every vile immorality. There are so many cases and examples of nature favoring evil, aggression, cruelty, selfishness etc because its predatorial at base. That's where we are, that's what this place 'runs' on. Nature "here" is "designed" and "runs" predatorially. Stop fuking pretending nature is some wonderful innocent good thing because it isn't. it's just as infuriating as religionists with their religion that god is all good etc. But to pretend that nature always selects for good/quality is an absolutely obnoxious lie to give ego-boosts to those who survive or who nature let win due to it's use of aggression and cruelty.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I hope you are not a Christian.
Alex
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You know nothing of me, my circumstances, or my experience of human life. I may well have seen as much of the world as you, having visited 45 different countries and having lived in four of them. My guess is most Daily Mail readers come from a fairly narrow cross section of society themselves.
Look, I am well aware that there are many people that do not share our civilised values, but do you really suppose the answer to that is to abandon those values ourselves and spiral down into savagery?
We're spiralling to savagery already.
Indeed, we have never left savagery far enough behind, for long enough to make any real difference in human behaviour.
For every decade of peace, prosperity and progress, we've had a century of war, oppression and bigotry; for every island of reason, an ocean of superstition.
And always, always contradiction. Peoples afraid of violence elect violent leaders, support violent policies.
The same governments that mandate execution outlaw assisted suicide; that allow police to shoot juvenile 'suspects' forbid doctors to perform therapeutic abortions.
Intellectuals have never had, and will never have, the power to change this.
Indeed, we have never left savagery far enough behind, for long enough to make any real difference in human behaviour.
For every decade of peace, prosperity and progress, we've had a century of war, oppression and bigotry; for every island of reason, an ocean of superstition.
And always, always contradiction. Peoples afraid of violence elect violent leaders, support violent policies.
The same governments that mandate execution outlaw assisted suicide; that allow police to shoot juvenile 'suspects' forbid doctors to perform therapeutic abortions.
Intellectuals have never had, and will never have, the power to change this.
It is well reported that violence and martial conflicts have been on a downward curve since the Industrial Revolution (I do not recollect the exact time frame)
Do you feel this trend merely represents a coincidental blip?
Or what would you put it down to otherwise?Easier communal access to resources? Less objective reason for conflict?
Have intellectuals just been "following the curve" only imagining that they can influence the course of events?