Should we sterilize the unintelligent?

Correct me if im worng, but intelligence isnt exactly genetic.Krazy_duck

It is to an extent.

Sounds like a great idea. It really does.

They should start with those who don't know what sterilize means

YES!!!!!!

But only because there are too many people on the planet, if we would sterilize some people and bring the population down to like 1 billion then the world would be a better place AND we wouldnt directly be killing anyone.And btw people can be edjucated you know...

Well ofcourse some people have better genes and hav greater potential but we shouldnt start cutting the balls of from anyone with lower than average edjucation just like that.

And what about sterillizing fat and ugly woman? Fele7

Then I'd be safe! *is vain* :P

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="MattUD1"]How shall we decide who is intelligent or unintelligent?yoshi-lnex

And IQ tests are the final word on something that hasn't even been properly defined and varies by definition from person to person?

Who cares. Success in life is not all about money, career path, influence, and net output of work. Success in life is about being happy and possibly contributing to the longterm survival of the species by procreating (though there are certainly enough people doing that). I think it's safe to say I'm extremely intelligent given how well I did in my studies, but I hold what would be considered a low paying job as a music instructor, which lots of people think is just something a person does on the side. And the work I contribute isn't going to make or break society. So by your definition, I am unsuccessful in life. Problem is that I do consider myself successful, mainly because I'm very happy doing what I do.

Our ultimate purpose is not to be a drone for society. People would do well to remember that. And those who aspire to wealth would also do well to remember that it is the less intelligent people upon which their wealth is built. In a capitalism, you need people to do tough, low-paying manual labour that most intelligent people would sneer at as a career path.

And what about sterillizing fat and ugly woman?

Fele7

How about we sterilize shallow people instead?

[QUOTE="Krazy_duck"]Correct me if im worng, but intelligence isnt exactly genetic.Funky_Llama

It is to an extent.

Of course. There are certain disorders that seem to cause higher intelligence, like Apserger's (hey, Einstein, Newton and the guy who made Pokemon had it).

I made a topic long ago saying we should sterilize ugly people...or assign them licenses permiting them to be in public at certain times of the day but have to be inside there homes the rest of the time. I hate looking at them_-MURS-_

I think we should issue licenses to people who don't understand the difference between 'they're' 'their' and 'there,' only allowing them to post from 3:00-3:10 a.m. because it irritates me to have to read the word used incorrectly.

Sterilize 9/10ths of the population? It would solve over-population problems and some pollution, at least.super_mario_128

Wait, do you mean Earth or USA? And good thing I'm probably part of the 1/10th that isn't castrated :P.

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"]Sterilize 9/10ths of the population? It would solve over-population problems and some pollution, at least.Video_Game_King

Wait, do you mean Earth or USA? And good thing I'm probably part of the 1/10th that isn't castrated :P.

Earth - it was kind of a joke. >_> I'd also be a part of the 1/10th. ^_^ POWER TO THE INTELLECTUALS!

Personally I believe 90% of the human population shouldn't be allowed to breed, besides just the fact that certain people are stupid. Shenmue_Jehuty

That statement was painfully ironic, because (assuming your 90% idea has basis) you would certainly be one of those. It just pisses me off when i see people make such obviously supremist statements like that.

I find that most of the time the person stating an idea for sterilization etc is worthy of it themselves because of the terrible moral intellect one would have to make such an assertation.

PS if it was a joke try harder next time.

[QUOTE="_-MURS-_"]I made a topic long ago saying we should sterilize ugly people...or assign them licenses permiting them to be in public at certain times of the day but have to be inside there homes the rest of the time. I hate looking at thempianist

I think we should issue licenses to people who don't understand the difference between 'they're' 'their' and 'there,' only allowing them to post from 3:00-3:10 a.m. because it irritates me to have to read the word used incorrectly.

We should also issue licenses to people who abuse the "indifference" and "rolleyes" emoticons.

Hell, while we're at it, let's go ahead and throw in people who use de-motivational posters, image macros, "facepalm", and "/thread".

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="_-MURS-_"]I made a topic long ago saying we should sterilize ugly people...or assign them licenses permiting them to be in public at certain times of the day but have to be inside there homes the rest of the time. I hate looking at themBlood-Scribe

I think we should issue licenses to people who don't understand the difference between 'they're' 'their' and 'there,' only allowing them to post from 3:00-3:10 a.m. because it irritates me to have to read the word used incorrectly.

We should also issue licenses to people who abuse the "indifference" and "rolleyes" emoticons.

Hell, while we're at it, let's go ahead and throw in people who use de-motivational posters, image macros, "facepalm", and "/thread".

I personally use this all the time ":|"

But to add to the list I think we should add people with girl problems topics, and people that try too hard in post your picture topics...

Natrual selection already does that for us.foxhound_fox

Not so much these days with modern medicine and all.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Natrual selection already does that for us.MetalGear_Ninty

Not so much these days with modern medicine and all.

and warning labels on items that dont need warning labels

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="MattUD1"]How shall we decide who is intelligent or unintelligent?Blood-Scribe

And IQ tests are the final word on something that hasn't even been properly defined and varies by definition from person to person?

It's kind of hard to take such a statement seriously considering the fact that it's nothing more than a test that only determines certain attributes of a person, and it's completely conditional and there are countless factors that can come into play when determining a persons performance. In many cases, an IQ test seems to lean more towards problem solving and mathematical problems, which basically only measures one dimension of a person's "intelligence".

The problem with how you go about defining intelligence is the fact that there's a lot of different facets to it, and it's not something that can be easily assessed. You can have people that are supposedly intelligent when it comes to math and science, but are out-right horrible when it comes to reading skills, deductive reasoning, history, or whatever. If we're going to bother trying to measure something that's essentially impossible to measure, the least we could do is not do it in such a one-dimensional and easily manipulated format. That's something that a test couldn't hope to achieve.

There's also the problem with mental conditioning that would come when the subject is taking the test. Some people get anxious and unstable when they've got pressure riding on them to take tests, which can result in them making simple mistakes that they wouldn't normally make if they were just answering a simply question posed to them by a person, rather than a test. If you've got your life riding on the line between a flimsily defined and tested standard of "intelligence", and you just so happen to have tipped the scale to an opposing favor simply because you didn't eat that last bit of eggs in the morning to keep your mind well nourished, well then that's a damn shame, and all the more reason to show that a test isn't going to cut it.

But even if such a standard of intelligence were to exist that were somehow agreeable with everyone for all given circumstances, how in the hell would just killing the "stupid" people make things better? We need a diverse environment in order to get a good look from all perspectives. We need seemingly idiotic people so that they can be used for certain tasks that only they could achieve. Some people end up being pawned by others, and the people pulling the strings end up reaping the benefits. If the idiot didn't exist in that situation, you'd end up with a scammer that doesn't end up making his mark. It's sad to think about, but that's how the world works. It's all a system of checks and balances.

Some people just aren't ambitious enough to pursue interests that others tell them they should. I'm sure there's plenty of people who have made high marks on the supposedly reputable IQ tests that aren't as successful as you seem to imply just because of a relationship between IQ and success (which, by the way, you have not shown me). The funny thing about it, is that success is also something that cannot be measured, either. Success is based on how a person deems themselves to be. You can have a billionaire who thinks that he had a horrible year because he didn't meet a quota that was previously reached, and he thus deems himself, unsuccessful. Then you can have a taxi cab driver who just immigrated the the U.S., and deems his goal of at least being able to live, a success, and they can be content with that.

So what I don't get is how you can expect someone to be competent enough to do as well as they should on a test if their life is on the line. I'd get pretty flustered and unstable if I were told that if I don't pass some bull**** test, I don't get to have the right to live my life the way I see fit. I also don't get how you could say that the world would be a better place if we just killed stupid people, since if we bothered to do that, the standards that we would apply to people who are supposedly stupid would constantly change. We'd kill the stupidest person, and then we'd have to change our standards for who is the stupidest person, because the original would be dead, and then you'd deem the next stupidest person to be the stupidest person in existence. So at some point, you'd end up killing people who are supposedly of the highest intelligence, because by the standards of that situation, they'd be slightly less intelligent than the most intelligent person, but by a small enough margin to the point where they can be considered the stupidest because there's no one stupider than them.

So at face value, you'd think killing "stupid" people would be a great idea, but once you actually consider the implications of a given situation, you realize how big of a load of crap it is. Like I've been saying before, stupidity and intelligence are completely relative, defined differently from person to person, and ultimately, incapable of being measured.

Yep, but in that sense everything is relative.

Natural selection is blind -- there is no such thing as good genes or bad genes just genes that are fit for one particular environment; and those genes prosper.

Nothing is inherently better than anything else -- they just survive because they suit the environment.

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"]

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"]Sterilize 9/10ths of the population? It would solve over-population problems and some pollution, at least.super_mario_128

Wait, do you mean Earth or USA? And good thing I'm probably part of the 1/10th that isn't castrated :P.

Earth - it was kind of a joke. >_> I'd also be a part of the 1/10th. ^_^ POWER TO THE INTELLECTUALS!

Yes, glory to the 10% of us! Too bad intelligence is a minority :(.

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"]Or give them a book.nodgenico

But would the dumb people read the book?

If they are interested in books yes.

If there were no stupid people, we'd have no one to make fun of. o_o

Edit: I mean people who do stupid things...if that tones down my statement a bit.

Short answer, yes.

Long answer? Just kill them instead.

Notadog

I vote this man for President of the World.

....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1sE1E3z7jU&feature=related

Kick them all where they make babies! :twisted:scorch-62

Bah, Falcon Punch is the only way.

But, yeah, participant evolution is bull. The stupid people will get weeded out of the gene pool anyway.

Or humanity as a whole will die.

Whichever.

We need fools in this world... Start of stupid, then you reach the point where the stupid look useless, then you get higher and realize just how much they are of use.

Don't worry, you'll get there.

But I must admit, sometime it just seems like life might possibly be better.
Of course it would never work out though, and that's why we have morons.

:)

Or we could pump more money into the education system.KG86

Uneducated=/=Unintelligent

How do you measure intelligence? Currently, there is some controversy about the measuring of intelligence. There is the IQ, which some believe to be an inaccurate and archaic way of quantifying intelligence. So a person scores a high mark on a IQ test. They are "intelligent," but let's say for the sake of argument that the person is also an unemployed, criminal, drug addict? Now contrast that with a person who has a slightly below average IQ, but they make smart decisions in their life and are upstanding members of their communities who actively contribute to society. Of the two, who do you think is more desisrable?

Some individuals might also have poor measured intelligence, but they can do amazing things like effortlessly create works of art, compose music, recite countless numbers/statistics from memory, etc.

Given all these factors, I think it is almost impossible to quantify intelligence. But let's just say that since the IQ is the best thing we have for the moment, we will simply go with it... Fine, but then where would we draw the line? On a normal distribution, the mean of all IQ scores of individuals would be 100 with a standard deviation of +/- 10 points. IQ below 100 is generally considered "slow," and when you start going 20 points below or more 100, you are in the "retarded" range. So how about drawing the line at 100? Well, if we did this then I don't think we would see much of a difference, since most people who are mentally retarded often times do not get married and procreate anyways, so I doubt that drawing the line at 100 would have a statistically significant impact on the overall rate of population. Fine, you say, how about raising it up a notch. People below 110 cannot reproduce. Additionally, who will decide where we draw this line?

the government ( which is mind control broken down, " ment " is latin for mind and well govern means to control) will eventually control the population by dumbing us down to the extent where we will not be able to question there foolish acts.

the government ( which is mind control broken down, " ment " is latin for mind and well govern means to control) will eventually control the population by dumbing us down to the extent where we will not be able to question there foolish acts.

serjitup

wait, what?

you serious?

[QUOTE="serjitup"]

the government ( which is mind control broken down, " ment " is latin for mind and well govern means to control) will eventually control the population by dumbing us down to the extent where we will not be able to question there foolish acts.

atejas

wait, what?

you serious?

No, for one there is no definite way to distinguish between people who are just stupid and those who are intelligent and it is also entirely probable that two idiots can get together and create a genius. I do think however that genetic manipulation to encourage intelligence should definitely be considered, assuming it is available to everyone, I also think people with debilitating diseases that have a high potential of being passed onto their children should not be allowed to have kids.

I also think it should be considered that natural selection doesn't really occur in humans anymore given our technology that allows people to live and reproduce who would otherwise not be able to, thus passing on defective genes that would otherwise be bred out.

[QUOTE="atejas"][QUOTE="serjitup"]

the government ( which is mind control broken down, " ment " is latin for mind and well govern means to control) will eventually control the population by dumbing us down to the extent where we will not be able to question there foolish acts.

serjitup

wait, what?

you serious?

Is this David Icke I'm talking to!?

[QUOTE="serjitup"][QUOTE="atejas"][QUOTE="serjitup"]

the government ( which is mind control broken down, " ment " is latin for mind and well govern means to control) will eventually control the population by dumbing us down to the extent where we will not be able to question there foolish acts.

atejas

wait, what?

you serious?

Is this David Icke I'm talking to!?