The elite

[origin]

In this case, i'm excluding just power based on money as there are many that can make money. The elite i'm referring to in this case is only top intelligentsia such as scientists, engineers, astronomers, physicists, computer scientists, doctors etc and those with very difficult degrees.

According to your definition I am one of the Elite. As an Elite, I would say the answer to your question in the OP as to why would I not support the killing of billions of people, is because I am not an evil monster. I believe that more than 99% of the population is basically good and just want to live a decent life.
As one of the Elite I think it is my duty to help the less fortunate - not kill them.
You're kinda scary....

 

[Jeeves]

In this case, i'm excluding just power based on money as there are many that can make money. The elite i'm referring to in this case is only top intelligentsia such as scientists, engineers, astronomers, physicists, computer scientists, doctors etc and those with very difficult degrees.

I don't know on what planet you live and in what era, but here and now, scientists and engineers are nowhere near the top of anything. Intelligentsia has been increasingly disrespected and ignored in the US for decades; anti-intellectual bias is spreading to the world as xenophobic and superstitious slogans crowd out reason and truth; as idiocracy triumphs.*

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, wealth and power concentrate in fewer and fewer hands. In 2010, the top 380 individuals owned as much as the bottom 4 billion people. Now, it's the 80 richest who own as much as the poorer half.

*See climate change denial; "debate" over evolution; Trump, D. J., CEO USA.

 

[billvon]

In this case, i'm excluding just power based on money as there are many that can make money. The elite i'm referring to in this case is only top intelligentsia such as scientists, engineers, astronomers, physicists, computer scientists, doctors etc and those with very difficult degrees.

OK, thanks for that definition. Per that definition I'm an elite! I made it!

But I don't feel any different, and I still don't want to exterminate anyone. I was just on a jury where the jury had to decide the fate of a criminal who was classified MDO (mentally deranged offender.) And while he's not going to win any awards for good neighbor of the year I didn't want to exterminate him either. Mostly I just hoped he was able to stay on his meds, stop drinking/using illegal drugs and learn how to control his mental illness; that would be the best outcome for him, his family and (probably) society as a whole.

 

[exchemist]

OK, thanks for that definition. Per that definition I'm an elite! I made it!

But I don't feel any different, and I still don't want to exterminate anyone. I was just on a jury where the jury had to decide the fate of a criminal who was classified MDO (mentally deranged offender.) And while he's not going to win any awards for good neighbor of the year I didn't want to exterminate him either. Mostly I just hoped he was able to stay on his meds, stop drinking/using illegal drugs and learn how to control his mental illness; that would be the best outcome for him, his family and (probably) society as a whole.

Oddly enough, part of having an "elite" education is being taught to try to see the other guy's point of view. One might hope that would make the elite marginally less likely than average to go in for mass extermination. Though Nazi Germany and Lord of the Flies (written after WW2 and exploring this very point) cast some doubt on how effective this training really is.....

 

[birch]

According to your definition I am one of the Elite. As an Elite, I would say the answer to your question in the OP as to why would I not support the killing of billions of people, is because I am not an evil monster. I believe that more than 99% of the population is basically good and just want to live a decent life.
As one of the Elite I think it is my duty to help the less fortunate - not kill them.
You're kinda scary....

Yes, that's sweet. Unfortunately, though, the truth is many of those you would like to help are not good people and that's just a truth. I was under no illusion that only the top 'intelligentisa' meant that they would all be good people or worthy etc besides their mental capacity either because the majority of problems are caused by human character faults but that in 'general' a culling of the less intelligent and a smaller population overall would be better for the environment/planet and would raise the quality of life too. These are all generalities of course and of course, in this hypothetical scenario, there would be good people who would be sacrificed just as there would be some bad people who would not just due to iq and/or education level.

Look at the truth. Look at how often the most intelligent are humble and sympathetic yet many would not return the favor as they are just about themselves and selfish, greed, vanity, hoarding, decadence etc. How they do not care about the truth etc. Look at the culture where the top inelligentsia is not even compensated as much as vapid people and even has the audacity to downgrade and ridicule you as 'nerds' to mean derogatorily when it is the top intelligentsia that benefits their lives and keeps them alive.

 

[sideshowbob]

Look at the culture where the top inelligentsia is not even compensated as much as vapid people....

I've never understood why some people measure their worth in dollars and cents. Maybe the "top intelligentsia" have other motivations than the almighty dollar.

 

[exchemist]

I've never understood why some people measure their worth in dollars and cents. Maybe the "top intelligentsia" have other motivations than the almighty dollar.

Me neither. Speaking as a possible member of this "elite" (physical science degree from ancient UK university), I was always brought up to believe one of the chief advantages of a good education was to enable one to get more out of life regardless of financial circumstances.

 

[DrKrettin]

Me neither. Speaking as a possible member of this "elite" (physical science degree from ancient UK university), I was always brought up to believe one of the chief advantages of a good education was to enable one to get more out of life regardless of financial circumstances.

It appears that I am of the same background, and it has certainly helped me to get a lot out of life without it costing anything in financial terms, which is just as well.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Would not the elite be those billionaires and multi multi millionairs who can use their wealth to greatly influence political and economic outcomes? I dont know how large that group may be or if there are groups within that section of great wealth holders.

Alex

 

[Jeeves]

Would not the elite be those billionaires and multi multi millionairs who can use their wealth to greatly influence political and economic outcomes? I dont know how large that group may be or if there are groups within that section of great wealth holders.

80 people - back in 2010, it was 388. Some of them must have eaten their siblings.
I've tried that gambit already - what with its being based on observable evidence 'n' all.
Birch sez no, any idjit can make $74, 000,000,000, but it takes a Ph.D to conspire.

 

[birch]

80 people - back in 2010, it was 388. Some of them must have eaten their siblings.
I've tried that gambit already - what with its being based on observable evidence 'n' all.
Birch sez no, any idjit can make $74, 000,000,000, but it takes a Ph.D to conspire.

Really? So any idjit can make the a-bomb? any movie star, football player, drug cartel, bimbo model ad infinitum has the brains and mental capacity for science and has those credentials? Don't make me laugh.

 

[birch]

I've never understood why some people measure their worth in dollars and cents. Maybe the "top intelligentsia" have other motivations than the almighty dollar.

When did i say that people should rate themselves based on dollars and cents? or that money is everything? evidently this thread's hypothetical scenario is the antithesis of that. hello?

 

[Jeeves]

Really? So any idjit can make the a-bomb? .

No, they don't have to make a bomb. They got people to do that for them. All they need is the power to choose an evil clown with his fat finger on the button that launches the bomb.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

but it takes a Ph.D to conspire.

I remember a very successful man saying "I think its great people get a degree so I can employ them".
Alex

 

[birch]

No, they don't have to make a bomb. They got people to do that for them. All they need is the power to choose an evil clown with his fat finger on the button that launches the bomb.

that's not the point.

 

[Jeeves]

that's not the point.

There's a point? And we're supposed to guess?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Really? So any idjit can make the a-bomb? any movie star, football player, drug cartel, bimbo model ad infinitum has the brains and mental capacity for science and has those credentials? Don't make me laugh.

Do you know whom said these?

Education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten.

A failure is not always a mistake, it may simply be the best one can do under the circumstances. The real mistake is to stop trying.

The way positive reinforcement is carried out is more important than the amount.

I did not direct my life. I didn't design it. I never made decisions. Things always came up and made them for me. That's what life is.

Society attacks early, when the individual is helpless.

A person who has been punished is not thereby simply less inclined to behave in a given way; at best, he learns how to avoid punishment.

The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do.

If you're old, don't try to change yourself, change your environment.

The consequences of an act affect the probability of its occurring again.

 

[birch]

i started this thread because i was curious about the type of responses but i wasn't really surprised though. it seems to be a general consensus, especially on a science forum, that there is no such thing as evil or good as in ethics, that's its just a perspective. but evidently that is not true when people actually take it seriously because the hypothesis was correct from a logical point of view which was not about moral or ethical fairness but a means to an end as well as efficiency which would or could entail sacrifice.

my view is that there is evil or good and it does or can depend on varying factors but it's not just a perspective but that there is the truth of good or evil conclusively within any scenario weighing all the differing factors but that it can be complicated to discern/know it. an analogy would be similar to unraveling a buried lie beneath layers of window dressing with the multiple dressings purposely placed to distract as the 'obvious' truth because it is the easiest to pinpoint. whether people make the right call is another matter and does not change the reality of that truth even though it may change outcomes.

this idea that cold 'logic' should be the only basis of judgement is faulty and marginal as it ignores any extraneous but pertinent/related details or issues. in other words, that is an illusion of logic in that case.

the truth is the logic of nature is a terrible role model to follow/believe in actually. it is stupid because it does not care whatsoever about you or your well-being. i notice that is how many tend to view it as some observable but unquestionable and especially 'dependable' foundation. go to any forest and start chewing on any foliage or berries without suspicion/wisdom/discernment and you will certainly die sooner than later because of poison. the discrepancy is there is a difference in working with nature and blind subservience to or dependency on it. there is no real net. in many ways, you have to overcome nature as much as have to work with it. it really is even 'despite' nature too.

what i notice is when people see some type of accomplishment whether it's material, mental or physical, they tend to give all the credit to 'nature' which i think is blind as well as shallow assumption.

for example, i was viewing some past breakdance contests as i used to do some of that before and all that creativity and athleticism isn't just nature doing that, it's life 'overcoming' nature. it's a very fine point but it's not just an opinion. for instance, it's not gravity allowing you to do these moves, it is also you manuevering with or around it etc. nature is just as much an obstacle as it is a background or a mountain to overcome but we tend to merge it all together including ourselves as one when just because it can be in unison does not mean it actually really is. it doesn't deserve credit for everything.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

i started this thread because i was curious about the type of responses but i wasn't really surprised though. it seems to be a general consensus, especially on a science forum, that there is no such thing as evil or good as in ethics, that's its just a perspective. but evidently that is not true when people actually take it seriously because the hypothesis was correct from a logical point of view which was not about moral or ethical fairness but a means to an end as well as efficiency which would or could entail sacrifice.

my view is that there is evil or good and it does or can depend on varying factors but it's not just a perspective but that there is the truth of good or evil conclusively within any scenario weighing all the differing factors but that it can be complicated to discern/know it. an analogy would be similar to unraveling a buried lie beneath layers of window dressing with the multiple dressings purposely placed to distract as the 'obvious' truth because it is the easiest to pinpoint. whether people make the right call is another matter and does not change the reality of that truth even though it may change outcomes.

this idea that cold 'logic' should be the only basis of judgement is faulty and marginal as it ignores any extraneous but pertinent/related details or issues. in other words, that is an illusion of logic in that case.

the truth is the logic of nature is a terrible role model to follow/believe in actually. it is stupid because it does not care whatsoever about you or your well-being. i notice that is how many tend to view it as some observable but unquestionable and base foundation and even here. go to any forest and start chewing on any foliage or berries without suspicion/wisdom/discernment and you will certainly die eventually because of poison. the discrepancy is there is a difference in working with nature and blind subservience to or dependency on it. there is no real net. in many ways, you have to overcome nature as much as have to work with it. it really is even 'despite' nature too.

You started this thread with a Nazi philosophy.

 

[birch]

You started this thread with a Nazi philosophy.

You know what is stupid or disingenous? You will see how even social or moral issues will be dealt with the assumption of this god-level status of 'logic' when it's bs.

The disagreement with what the nazi's did or their propaganda will be usually met with the explanation from the naysayers as 'there is no scientific evidence for race, it is a construct etc'. this is just one example. as if scientific evidence or logic is good enough to alleviate that and any situation whatsoever.

the big pink elephant that is ignored is what if there was evidence for race? then would that be justified in such a moronic computeristic mind?? then would they be stumped and give in on the grounds of not running the red-light of logic or scientific evidence?? like it's okay if there was? lmfao.

how about it's just fuking unethical and cruel? do people really have to qualify themselves and their existence and rights?