Imagine you have a choice, and your choice determines the future of humanity... You can let 99% of people die, and the remaining 1% evolve greater intelligence and capabilities and build a new world and new humanity ; or you can save everyone but humanity doesn't evolve and we remain retarded for a million years.
Which do you choose?
You need the retards though. Unless you replace them with robots…
Okay, you get to replace them with robots.
The latter. Because the first choice involves a personal gain for me and an ego boost.
Which, combined with me being the reason for a few billion souls losing their physical bodies (to wit, a chance to further develop and evolve), will result in the worst imaginable karmic consequences for my soul.
Number two. Intelligence is overrated, never comparable to discipline. There's no talent that could be really comparable to it
Good point
intelligence is a talent but knowledge takes discipline and practise
Correctly applying intelligence is the trick, but some people have a lot more horsepower under the hood at an earlier age than others
it's all pretty much set in stone by about 6 years of age what your capacity is, but other talents can alter it, such as being boringly methodical or obeisant (and thus able to get into commie academia where you can do some work without thinking too much about how to feed yourself) - well, at least up to the point where you are defending your benefactors
ultimately intelligence is the corrosive acid of lies and establishments though, absolutely no question
So... Which do you choose? I'll be a little unfair and add "et ceterus paribus" - all else being equal. Everyone is thinking of reasons that I didn't think of, but its supposed to be a pure question of ethics vs morals.
that's the neat part, you don't get to choose, that's baked into the DNA you got spawned with
intelligent doesn't mean moral
i'm sure you've heard me speculate on the infant brain being printed to violence by violence... i think there was psychologists who speculated on this and probably studies that show several things, but the actual damage done to the human tendency of sympathy (to enjoy others pleasure and find others pain painful) is really the root of it
mothers are a big part of this, because they tend to be constant company for the infant until the walking days
Grr.
#2 the less genetic materia (diversity) he fragile the species. One little change on the circumstances and the whole thing is wiped out.
if you want to dig deep, check the parasite-host coevolution.
and to be honest, 99% of the species are constantly destroyed. we are no different.
I like the philosophical theme though, globalist opt for the #1 option.
That's a good point... I guess I should've included a line like, "all else being equal / no other changes in the scenario." But that's true, and I think there's an argument that humans are already less genetically diverse than we should be because of the last big wipe out
yeah we were once around 10,000 or so humans. Crazy to think about.
I would turn the question around and say, what if we could make shitty people better, smarter, gentile and so on by implanting them with a smart chip or something similar?
Very slippery slope, and I think we're in for some hard lessons when cybernetics really take off. But I was thinking cybernetics might be the evolutionary path of the 1% when I asked the question
yeah, a man that is 10% better than its peers will take 80% of the spoils. iterate the a couple of times and you don't need to kill anybody, the selection would be done automatically.
in this case your scenario might be inevitable. First adopters of the technology and rich people who can afford it will benefit the most.
Bitcoin... People aren't having kids because fiat makes everything stupidly expensive. Bitcoiners are literally an evolutionary step forward
