If you want a “real” answer, it’s that the small number of people left on earth at that point would quickly split into groups and start warring with each other over resources since all infrastructure would probably shut down with no one left to do menial day to day jobs anymore. If not that then the people with 180 IQs would start planning to sterilize half the remaining population and that would start a war. The fundamental flaw in your hypothesis is assuming that these so called “smart” people would also have common sense, empathy, or just common decency but since they’re all super cool with forced sterilization then they probably have none of these
It was a response to the post he made about mass sterilization for anyone with an IQ below 130. It got deleted because of his childish responses to everyone who disagreed with him and he came here to cry about it
Yo, could you specify which post you think got wrongly removed? I would be happy to look over it and explain why it got removed / reinstate it if it was wrongly removed.
You removed it because the conversation got heated and kneejerky. That’s clear enough. The moderation needs to tolerate hot conversations. That’s where the energy is.
If you were a moderator you would know exactly which post I refer to. The one with this title : “If we neutered everybody who scored under 130 IQ, what do you think society would look like in 3 generations?”
And no, citing rule 7 is clearly bullshit.
The problem is that most of the lamebrains can’t think past “nazis bad”.
They lack mental flexibility. They lack breadth of perspective. So fuck em.
Congratulations on volunteering to be the first subject for the snipping - your posts have demonstrated your IQ to be well below the mandatory threshold for sterilization.
It was rightfully removed because it was purposefully stupid. Now stop crying because your sad little troll post was deleted and go try and create some actual content.
I’m glad you put this here. It got deleted while I was working on an answer on your IQ neutering question.
Ok, so everyone has established that the concept is evil.
Now that that’s settled, let’s hypothesize.
I looked up the percentile chart for IQ, and it’s probably not completely accurate, but it gives us somewhere to start.
So, you’ve made it so 97.7% of the current population cannot reproduce. That leaves 181.4 million potential parents.
The WHO estimates that one in 6 people experience infertility. That leaves us with 149.6 million potential parents. Roughly the population of Russia.
Of those who are naturally able to reproduce and passed your IQ test, only 30% of them are between the ages of 20-39. At any given time you’d have 45 million people who are at the age to have a child. Sure, you could go a little younger, or older, but we’re talking about a society of geniuses. They will be less likely to get knocked up in high school, or risk the potential effects of a geriatric pregnancy.
These people will be spread out across the whole world. So, let’s just assume they will be scattered equally throughout the 6 habitable continents. Australia would probably not have as many fertile geniuses as the entirety of Europe or Asia, they only have 26M total people as it is, so let’s just loop them in with nearby Asia and divide by 5.
Each continent now has about 9 million potential parents.
Let’s zoom in on North America, because that’s where I live, and the numbers work out well. North America is 9.5 million square miles. That works out to a little less than one fertile person per square mile.
You haven’t completely eliminated the less intelligent people, so our fertile geniuses will still be interacting with the “dummies”, and whether you like it or not, they will fall in love and not have children.
And I just realized we didn’t even count the 5-10% of people who are gay. They probably won’t be procreating much.
So, if you were lucky enough to pass the test, and wanted to start a family, you’d have to find one of the 1.5 million straight Members of the opposite sex scattered across the continent. And then one of you will have to uproot and move cross country just to be together, and it would probably help if you had some things in common or found each other attractive.
We’d never see the third generation. Humankind would die out before that happened.
I didn’t like that the only responses you got were “Oh my God that’s horrible! You can’t say such things!”
It is horrible, but horrible things happen. Let’s think out the scenario and see what happens. It took me a good 20 minutes to look up the numbers, do the math, and think of other obstacles you’d encounter.
I wanted to offer a theory with a little bit of thought and effort behind it. I finally got to share it and your only response is “Nah, we’d figure it out.”
If you’re going to present these wacky scenarios, (and yes, I have noticed your username attached to quite a few provocative questions lately) at least be willing to put some thought into it yourself. Tell me how “we can organize the smarties”.
If you want to have open thoughtful discussions about hypothetical situations, I think we should be able to do that, but if you just dismiss anyone who doesn’t think you just had a great idea, get out.
OP might maybe have had a shred of plausible deniability up until now as being someone edgy or wacky or whatever, or at best someone with a very active imagination. But that reply there pretty solidly confirms OP is just a downvote farmer.
Downvote and move on, no further point wasting any more of your brainpower on them.
Why do you think your “shaming” will cause others to change their behavior, when being “shamed” by others doesn’t cause you to change yours? Symmetry would suggest that if it doesn’t work on you, it’s not very reasonable for you to expect it to work on other people.
You’re aware, presumably, of how you respond to other people “shaming” you; why would anyone else respond differently to you than you are prepared to respond to them?
I think it’s less to do with tolerating stupid questions and more to do with the fact it was against their rules…Rule 5 in particular. If you waited, you might’ve been able to eke by on their joke/troll question day.
Some of us don’t feel baited at all. Some of us can even think about it rationally and answer the question. Peruse the replies. They exist. Not everybody is babbling “nazis bad!”
Dude pretends he can’t understand the difference between stupid and offensive and trolling. A question can be some, all, or non of these things. His stupid questions aren’t removed because they are stupid. They are removed because they are offensive and trolling… but he knows that. He’s just trolling until he gets banned and creates a new account to continue his “work”.
If your post truly was about eugenics, then it would have run afoul of the instances rules.
To explain, eugenics is and always has been a concept rooted in racism- there’s no way around it. No one who has ever advocated for eugenics has ever done so in good faith, despite their claims.
Besides which, who gets to define what intelligence even is? You? A guy who can’t even see why this topic is offensive? I think not.
Add comment