what if we just started killing off people with an iq below 100? would it benefit the human race in the long run?
> pic unrelated
I got 140 on an online iq test
Started? When would you stop? It better be quick or else you're going to end up killing the entire population.
>>7679512
Ok, I know the pic is unrelated, but now I'm curious. What is wrong with this scenario from a theoretical standpoint?
>>7679560
because of how energy travels you fucking retard
>>7679560
The point of the picture is to show how retarded plebs on /sci/ are.
The picture that the OP of that thread is claiming that plebs respond easily to bait threads and shitposts. He then posts a bait/shitpost and gets responses. Thus showing that plebs are so extremely retarded, they get baited even when they know it is bait.
I imagine the point of this thread and that picture is to see how many people will take the bait when it comes to IQ
>>7679512
I read that article and conservapedia in general, and I am well and truly triggered.
Lmfao @
>The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons in a closed system can exist in the same quantum state and if one electron changes all others must compensate. As the universe is a closed system when one electron changes state so must all others, even if they are thousands of light years apart.[30]
>The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.
>Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, no direct observation of gravity waves has occurred.[17] Sound like global warming? Then, in classic liberal claptrap, the liberal media claimed that gravitational waves were discovered when in fact no such direct observation was made.
"Classic liberal claptrap"... seems like a reputable source. Never mind conflating relativity with the Democratic party:
>The theory of relativity is disproved by numerous counterexamples, but is promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to pull people away from the Bible.
Jesus fucking christ can we eradicate these people now?
>>7679560
Solid matter doesn't move uniformly. As you displace the atoms on one side, the molecular and physical bonds rigidity to try and conform to its equilibrium shape. This rippling adjustment effect will continue throughout the solid object (traveling at no faster than the speed of light) until either the object reaches its expected equilibrium state or the bonds become too stressed and the solid object fractures.
>>7679560
The other end of the stick would literally turn into a black hole
Beleib me I've tried
>>7679512
Killing based only on IQ would be detrimental. There are still low IQ people doing good jobs that benefit society.
What we need to do is that when colleges get admission requests that list "gender studies. race studies, philosophy, sociology, etc." as any of the choices they forward the document to some secret agency that can then track down the person and silently kill them.
>>7679659
Top kek
>>7679659
> philosophy
The rest I agree with
>>7679795
Undergrad philosophy is a joke.
>>7679607
it's funny because you're the only one so far who detected it...
>kill everyone with sub100 iq
>half population dead
>renormalize iq distribution
>kill everyone with sub100 iq
>half population dead
>renormalize iq distribution
>kill everyone with sub100 iq
>half population dead
>renormalize iq distribution
>ad infinitum...
>...
>Last guy on Earth emerges from the rubble
>it's Zeno
>>7679616
right, but it would travel at the speed of sound of the material
>>7679659
>Philosophy
I'd invest a lot of time developing solid heuristics to detect and predict the ultimate behavior of people with a clustering of the underlying traits that generate broken thoughts like yours. You would be silently gathered and put into labor camps
I'm sure there'd be some use found for you eventually. Social experiments and medical research is probably all you could get out of it, but it's better than nothing.
>>7679512
well, one might argue that capitalism promotes shittest diet possible based on carbs and food additives lacking proper nutrutional value and phytochemicals, which causes extreme surge of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimers and most importantly cancer, so killing people with iq below 100 is already happening it's just kinda slow.
>>7679860
well then there you have it
you'd have to kill 13 out of 14 people
>>7679607
Let's see how far this can be taken.
1 Cap the thread
2 Start a new thread, pic 1 related, similar topic
3 Let it simmer
4 Go to 1
>>7680170
>I'd invest a lot of time developing solid heuristics to detect and predict
>implying you wouldn't spend time jerking off instead once you realize how difficult it truly is to model human behavior and then you wouldn't return back /sci/ to shitpost s'more
'solid heuristics' lel more like solid bowel hemorrhages
>>7680222
I'm morally opposed to trolling. I don't think it's right to trick people.
>>7680224
>Implying I wouldn;t have access to a grand mass of information harvested from facebook-like data, your web history, your cell phone's gps data, and smart cameras that can interpret faces and basic behaviors.
>Implying I couldn't use this infrastructure to constantly correlate pieces data well beyond the capabilities of a human interpreter and on a much larger scale.
>Implying I wouldn't have psychological profiles so accurate I could predict what someone was going to do before they themselves knew, with increasingly little margin for error.
>Implying I couldn't use the information networks they believe they're tapping into and controlling to manipulate their perceptions and actions.
Cell phone, tell me what's the fastest route to X?
Go here, here, and here! I'll choose where you go and what you experience! I'm your omnipresent companion, I'm on your side...
>>7680239
We must do unspeakable things for the sake of science.
>mfw in my naiveness I posted a thread asking about a martian colony that practices immigration eugenics and thus vastly increasing average IQ, using extensive genetic testing to filter out known hereditary diseases etc
>banned for trolling
Fugg where else can I discuss the topic, eugenics = nazi everywhere so it's hard to seriously discuss.
>>7679613
>The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.
I know this is bullshit, but why?
>>7680389
It doesn't take into account the acceleration of one of the twins, that breaks the symmetry.
>>7680389
Velocity may be relative but change of inertial frames of reference (i.e. accelerations) aren't. Either both are accelerating and they both experience "slowed down time" with respect to a neutral observer, or only one is (and the other is the neutral observer).
>>7680143
Oh god I laughed so hard. Good, solid, nerdy laughter, at a a solid nerdy joke.
>>7680210
>well, one might argue that capitalism promotes shittest diet possible
One would be wrong. Capitalism is not a mysterious force onto which people project all of societies ills, its a system whereby people invest labour into land to create capital, and then reinvest that same capital to make ever more capital, in an almost endless supply of new capital, creating abundance out of scarcity. Unrestrained capitalism may quite easily promote healthy dieting; if all healthcare was delivered by health insurance, you may find your insurance premiums skyrocketing unless you signed up to a diet plan or agreed to work with insurance representatives who would completely control your diet.
>>7680522
I don't understand how you would distinguish between the two then. Since the speed of twin A relative to twin B is just the opposite velocity, then by definition of acceleration, both have opposite accelerations with respect to one another.
>>7679512
Please realise what you're saying. IQ is based on the results of others. If you'd kill off lowIQ people, the average IQ would stay constant by definition. Sooner or later, you would be shot like a dog, OP. And judging by your lack of knowledge, my bet would be on 'sooner'.
>>7680725
Judging by your lack of knowledge, that you can't understand that my thread is bait, I'd be safe for a few decades while you would probably be sent to the first concentration camp :^)
>>7680729
>I was just trolling dude xdxxdxdxdd
Damage control.
>>7679512
You would increase the IQ average of the world quite a bit. I don't see a problem with it.
>>7679512
The iq scale is median, so the more people you kill off, the harder it is to score a 100.
>>7679560
Compression waves (pushing an object) move at the speed of sound. It seems instantaneous on everyday objects, but a lightyear-long pole has a very large amount of those tiny spaces between atoms to compress; it would take a very long time for the first atom in the chain to displace the last atom in the chain.
>>7679512
Would a person with high IQ become a carbageman
>>7680351
Pretty much. If the nazis did it, and we didn't give their scientists immunity to come do it for us after the war, then no one wants to admit there could be any benefit in it.
>>7679512
That will include you OP you dense fuck.
>>7679512
>4chan shitposters in a world where there is no one to shoot porno or animate waifus
>good plan
>>7679512
>IQ is hereditary
Nice meme
>>7680699
It would "look" the same from either twin's point of view, but acceleration is not relative in the same way velocity is. If you get in a car and drive away from me, it may appear that we are accelerating away from each other, but only you actually feel the force of the acceleration.
What would be the point? people in capitalist societies already pretty much do whatever they want for a career, and the resulting mix seems to meet all of our needs and wants pretty well.
While your plan might increase the rate of technological progress, that doesn't really increase human happiness because every generation just becomes used to whatever they have. What's more important to subjective happiness are things like biological needs being met, social inclusion, expressive fulfillment etc, which low-iq people are just as able to experience and share, if not more so.
In fact, if you killed off every high-iq, overthinking sperglord, the resulting population would probably be happier.
>>7679588
>Ask question on /sci/ because don't know everything
>You're retarded for not knowing everything that I already know.
>>7680886
>In fact, if you killed off every high-iq, overthinking sperglord, the resulting population would probably be happier.
They probably would, until the infrastructure they depend on begins to crumble, and they can't fix it because they're all idiots.
>>7679854
>Undergrad philosophy is a joke.
this is actually a fascinating criticism. Are you suggesting graduate philosophy is not? I'm not trying to be a typical /sci autist right now. Just genuinely curious: what elements of graduate philosophy are more challenging/rigorous?
>>7680820
But the nazis got it from the fucking Americans in the first place, how is that in any way logical. History is truly written by winners. In any case eugenics are a taboo topic and you can't discuss it anywhere without "/pol/ pls go".
>>7680143
Kill everyone with sub 100 IQ.
Renormalize IQ tests, or not.
Don't kill anyone else.
>>7680944
>Renormalize IQ tests
That is done regularly to hide the decline (currently 14pts/decade).
Same with hearing threshold level.
>>7679512
you should start with yourself and observe the effects
>>7680933
But it doesn't really matter where they got it as far as the attitude my post describes. The nazis were involved in it, the allies didn't see fit to give those scientists immunity to come do it for an allied country like we did for those involved in weapons research, so now, eugenics=breed a blonde hair/blue eyes master race in most people's minds.
IQ is based off of environmental factors as well as genetic factors. So you might be killing geniuses that just haven't been in the correct environment for their genius to blossom.
>energy travels instantaneous in matter
Hehehehehehehehehehe
>>7679512
Maybe trying to raise the total IQ of the populace should be a start before we commit to genocide of a third of the population
>>7681046
>decline
Is this why my grandpa seems to know everything despite not knowing anything?
>>7679512
who will work at subway and build roads
>>7680848
:^)
>>7679560
This is glorious.
>>7681279
> a third of the population
>>7681409
:') truly beautiful
>>7681196
>But it doesn't really matter where they got it as far as the attitude my post describes.
I know, I'm just being bitter that every discussion, however hypothetical, into the future of the human species can be instantly detailed or outright censored just because "hurr nazi". It's that way even inside the academia. Take the martian society I mentioned, you can't have an ethics discussion about it, nor can you talk about such a society (god forbid it being better in any way than current world) without instantly being compared to Hitler. I realize why it's that way, it just doesn't help my disgust.
>>7679560
good one.
Almost too subtle.
>>7679512
An entire population who kills anything that doesn't live up to it's standards. Sounds like a great society.
People are getting too smart for their own good and the quality of life among these people are going down. What if we kill everyone off with an IQ above 100?
>>7680737
Oh noes, a /schi/tposter is mad at me and calling me retarded. What do? :^)
How many of you people actually has a high IQ, like over 130, or are in Mensa? I got the prerequisites to get in it but I dunno, it just feels like I'd be such a try-hard to actually pay the annual fee for a 'special club'. Plus IQ doesn't really mean shit, many people I know achieved much more and their IQ is lower
>>7681737
Should probably kill yourself :^)
IQ is not a measure of intelligence, its a measure of normality. And its not even a good measure
much simpler to start by killing everyone above 200 kg weight, then moving that treshold down to 175 over time.
Those people cannot physically benefit the society, and since they let thier bodies degenerate that much, i wouldnt trust them with mental tasks either
>>7681669
Indeed
>>7681990
Less happy? No. Less dependent upon modern conveniences developed since then? Well, of course.
>>7679659
BRAVE
R
A
V
E
>>7680944
Why has /sci/ just forgotten the concept of humor recently?
>>7681413
>falling for the bait
>>7679512
You would eventually kill everyone. IQ is weighted so the mean IQ is 100. Kill everyone with an IQ of below 100 now, and the mean IQ is still 100-- only now your retards are actually people who would have been average. Kill again, and your retards are the people who would have been considered intelligent. Keep killing and you'll be left eventually with only one person with an IQ of, by definition, 100.
>>7679512
No, c'mon. That's just common sense.
Ironically, you'd have to be stupid to think we'd be better off without stupid people.
>>7679616
I can appreciate what you did there, anon.
>>7681297
No it's because you don't realize how long he's been around
>>7679512
ok OP, I'm a fish
>question(...)
depend, if the reason of the iq <100 is because shit like chromosomal messing yes, otherwise no because you could reducing even more the human's genetic pool
>...(problem)
>implying you can move this pole
>implying you can move this pole without breaking
>more pic unrelated
