NationStates Jolt Archive

Get back to me as soon as you can find a suitable, actually measurable criteria by which to choose which humans are allowed to live. T

*points back at the suggestion of enforcing "fertility laws" a la Larry Niven to limit if and how many children an individual may produce in his/her lifetime.

Yay for state-sponsored murder of children! And parental infanticide or desertion of children where the child has some disability that will mean their chances of supporting the parents in old age are reduced! And the same where the family really wanted a child of the other gender! Need I go on? Hardly produces just outcomes. Try again.Just outcomes? For the planet a reduction of human population is just. You wanted a suitable, actually measurable criterion by which to choose which humans are allowed to live. I gave you one.

*points back at the suggestion of enforcing "fertility laws" a la Larry Niven to limit if and how many children an individual may produce in his/her lifetime.or just ask the Chinese.

or just ask the Chinese.

\begin{devils advocate}
Nivens system discriminates. All individuals get one birthright for free. Both partners need to hand in a birthright to be allowed to have a child.
Additional birthrights can be obtained by qualifying for at least one of the following:
1. Can pay 1 million stars a birthright (currency in the novels, significant sum) - since the ability to make lots of money is a useful trait.
2. Has hereditary genetic traits that are desirable (perfect teeth, excellent vision, superior brain etc). The type of trait determines the numbers of birthrights issued.
3. Wins a fight to the death in an arena against someone who has a birthright available (which they obviously lose by dying).
4. Wins one in the birthright lotteries, which exist because the above criteria alone do not produce enough children to keep the human race at its desired size.

One can also add some SMS voting rules here ;)
\end{devils advocate}

Just outcomes? For the planet a reduction of human population is just. You wanted a suitable, actually measurable criterion by which to choose which humans are allowed to live. I gave you one.

You cannot be just to a planet. Only to the things living on it. And our primary moral priority is naturally our own species. And even if you're not going to accept that principle, if we want to look after the environment lets move to a sustainable economic system. That would enable us to reduce our environmental impact without embarking on mass murder.

Would the world be a better place if there were yearly IQ tests and those who scored lower than a certain amount were all sentenced to death to make sure only the average or smart survived?

Discuss.

Do you even know what an IQ test is?

You cannot be just to a planet. Only to the things living on it. And our primary moral priority is naturally our own species. And even if you're not going to accept that principle, if we want to look after the environment lets move to a sustainable economic system. That would enable us to reduce our environmental impact without embarking on mass murder.Mass murder works faster. ;)

That would be horrible if people were killed for being dumb. What about Jessica Simpson?

That would be horrible if people were killed for being dumb. What about Jessica Simpson?

Jessica Simpson is so superduper intelligent that we simply do not understand her.

Jessica Simpson is so superduper intelligent that we simply do not understand her.Humer's third daughter?

Humer's third daughter?

Me no understand simple question.

Were derogatory terms called for?

Surely you must agree that the human race has a J shaped growth curve and is therefore detrimental to our planet, plague perhaps being too strong a word.
Why, exactly, should we value the planet more than our own existence? Insuring that we only breed at a rate compatible with it remaining comfortable is one thing, eliminating others in name of this cause is entirely another. It is murder, and to dress it up in any other way is merely a means of putting to rest a (rightly) guilty conscience. Now, if you were being sarcastic, then none of this is intended specifically at you, but rather anyone who would actually advocate such a thing.

Why, exactly, should we value the planet more than our own existence? Because the planet's value is above that of our own existence. We need the planet. The planet doesn't need us, least of all those retards who deny the planet's value in itself.

Because the planet's value is above that of our own existence. We need the planet. The planet doesn't need us, least of all those retards who deny the planet's value in itself.

We need ourselves. We only need the planet insofar as it helps ourselves. Our importance is greater to us than anything else.

Because the planet's value is above that of our own existence. We need the planet. The planet doesn't need us.
The planet only has value to us insofar as it helps us achieve our survival. Beyond this it has no intrinsic value, and certainly no more than our existence - i.e. its value is contingent on our being able to use it to further our own survival. Exterminating most humans for the planet's sake (as it if were some anthropomorphic entity) is murder, however you want to look at it.

Now, would you actually go personally and kill all these individuals? Or is it far more convenient just to advocate that they be killed by some authorized entity?

We need ourselves. We only need the planet insofar as it helps ourselves. Our importance is greater to us than anything else.Only speak for yourself.

Only speak for yourself.
Since your existence is not of value to you, and since overpopulation is a problem, why not kill yourself right now and help end it? Or are you above so doing?

Only speak for yourself.

I speak for anyone. If you seriously value the planet above your own self, why have you not killed yourself? Everything you do has a heavy ecological impact which hurts the environment. You are a destructive influence and since the planet is something you value more than any individuals there is only one solution.

You are acting like you know for a fact that we aren't here for a reason. How can you, a pitiful human in this mindbogglingly massive universe, know that for an absolute fact, to the point were you would kill others so a planet you don't even know is more important than humanity can exist more peacefully?

The planet only has value to us insofar as it helps us achieve our survival. Beyond this it has no intrinsic value, and certainly no more than our existence - i.e. its value is contingent on our being able to use it to further our own survival. Exterminating most humans for the planet's sake (as it if were some anthropomorphic entity) is murder, however you want to look at it.
Now, would you actually go personally and kill all these individuals? Or is it far more convenient just to advocate that they be killed by some authorized entity?I am not talking about the planet as if it were some anthropomorphic entity. I talk about the non-human life on it. There is absolutely no reason to set one species over all others.
I have no problem with reducing human numbers if that helps to keep the rest of the planet alive. And once a procedure to achieve this has been agreed upon I would have no problem implementing it.

You are acting like you know for a fact that the other species on this planet aren't here for a reason besides serving humanity.

I don't know, actually.

You are acting like you know for a fact that we aren't here for a reason. How can you, a pitiful human in this mindbogglingly massive universe, know that for an absolute fact, to the point were you would kill others so a planet you don't even know is more important than humanity can exist more peacefully?You are acting like you know for a fact that the other species on this planet aren't here for a reason besides serving humanity.
Do you really think humanity has been good for this world?

I am not talking about the planet as if it were some anthropomorphic entity. I talk about the non-human life on it. There is absolutely no reason to set one species over all others.
Animals are not (potential) rational, moral agents, the only kind amongst which duties can arise - this sets humans considerably above them. They cannot claim rights. They do not respect human existence, and would in fact just as readily use us as a means to fulfil their ends.

I have no problem with reducing human numbers if that helps to keep the rest of the planet alive. And once a procedure to achieve this has been agreed upon I would have no problem implementing it.
Are you going to begin with yourself then?

Animals are not (potential) rational, moral agents, the only kind amongst which duties can arise - this sets humans considerably above them. They cannot claim rights. They do not respect human existence, and would in fact just as readily use us as a means to fulfil their ends.


Are you going to begin with yourself then?

What he said.

Animals are not (potential) rational, moral agents, the only kind amongst which duties can arise - this sets humans considerably above them. They cannot claim rights. They do not respect human existence, and would in fact just as readily use us as a means to fulfil their ends.What are you talking about? Duty causes superiority?

Are you going to begin with yourself then?If someone can be found who can be trusted with the implementation, then yes.

What are you talking about? Duty causes superiority?
...no, rational agency does (and is why we may have moral duties towards other moral, rational agents). It differentiates us significantly from other animals.

If someone can be found who can be trusted with the implementation, then yes.
There are plenty of easy ways of doing so yourself, right this moment.

...no, rational agency does (and is why we may have moral duties towards other moral, rational agents). It differentiates us significantly from other animals.And it negates their right to live unharmed? Why?

There are plenty of easy ways of doing so yourself.Making sure that the agreed upon part of humanity is eliminated?

Making sure that the agreed upon part of humanity is eliminated?
You are part of humanity.

You are part of humanity.And?

And?

So by killing your self, part of humanity is eliminated.

So by killing your self, part of humanity is eliminated.Do you have reading problems?

And it negates their right to live unharmed? Why?
Whence such a right? It may occur between rational agents for the mere fact that they cannot simultaneously advocate not recognising someone else's right to life without forfeiting their own. They also fall into logical contradiction by willing a state of affairs that it is alright to kill - but if this maxim were universalized, life would cease, making killing impossible, given that killing presupposes life. Yet no such difficulty arises with non-human animals; these are not rational beings.

Making sure that the agreed upon part of humanity is eliminated?
Making sure you yourself are eliminated. It's a small step towards reducing over-population, you know.

Whence such a right? It may occur between rational agents for the mere fact that they cannot simultatenously advocate not recognising someone else's right to life without forfeiting their own. They also fall into logical contradiction by willing a state of affairs that it is alright to kill - but if this maxim were universalized, life would cease, making killing impossible, given that killing presupposes life. Yet no such difficulty arises with non-human animals; these are not rational beings.Whence your right to live? And why is a rational being worth more than a non-rational being? Because you say so? Because you set the scale of worthiness?

Making sure you yourself are eliminated. It's a small step towards reducing over-population, you know.Insufficient step if it's just me. But if humankind would somehow agree to reduce humans by a considerable number and I would be in that number, I'll go.

Whence your right to live?
I've already outlined it for you (of necessity, a rational agent must forfeit the right to kill, or more clearly he/she must recognise a right in other such agents to live).

And why is a rational being worth more than a non-rational being? Because you say so? Because you set the scale of worthiness?
Rationality is a differentiating factor between humans and the vast majority of animals. It is what makes mankind unique. That is the relevant consideration behind Kantian morality as I have expounded it, not whether rationality is intrinsically more or less valuable than a lack thereof.

Insufficient step if it's just me. But if humankind would somehow agree to reduce humans by a considerable number and I would be in that number, I'll go.
No, but it's a good first step. In fact, all you guys who advocate murder as a means of reducing global over-population should get in touch and commit collective suicide, and stop imposing on the rest of us, who actually want to live.

Would the world be a better place if there were yearly IQ tests and those who scored lower than a certain amount were all sentenced to death to make sure only the average or smart survived?

Discuss.

Who would serve you at Macdonalds?

I've already outlined it for you (of necessity, a rational agent must forfeit the right to kill, or more clearly he/she must recognise a right in other such agents to live).

Rationality is a differentiating factor between humans and the vast majority of animals. It is what makes mankind unique. That is the relevant consideration behind Kantian morality as I have expounded it, not whether rationality is intrinsically more or less valuable than a lack thereof.That's complete rubbish. Rationality does not cause any increase in value as a living thing. Your distinction between humans and animals is completely arbitrary and only reflects a pretty arrogant anthropocentric perspective.

No, but it's a good first step. In fact, all you guys who advocate murder as a means of reducing global over-population should get in touch and commit collective suicide, and stop imposing on the rest of us, who actually want to live.Don't be so arrogant to think your life is worth more just because you want it. In the case that humanity agreed upon any procedure such as the OP or others have suggested, who are you not to comply?

That's complete rubbish. Rationality does not cause any increase in value as a living thing. Your distinction between humans and animals is completely arbitrary and only reflects a pretty arrogant anthropocentric perspective.
Where did I say it causes an increase in value? I gave you a relevant discriminating factor between humans and animals, indeed a major discriminating factor. It is hardly arbitrary - it is the very reason I can conceive of a right. Or is every chicken we kill to put on our dish tantamount to murdering a human? As for being anthropocentric, the moral system extends to all and any rational agents. If dolphins, say, were to evolve rational agency they'd be included.

Don't be so arrogant to think your life is worth more just because you want it.
Why are you still typing away here and not organising your participation in collective suicide?

Don't be so arrogant to think your life is worth more just because you want it. In the case that humanity agreed upon any procedure such as the OP or others have suggested, who are you not to comply?

Are you saying that killing someone who wishes to be killed is equal to killing someone who doesn't?

Damn, UB is not only a rabid anti-Israeli and atheist, he's a rabid vegan too. Learn something new every day.

Where did I say it causes an increase in value? I gave you a relevant discriminating factor between humans and animals, indeed a major discriminating factor. It is hardly arbitrary. Or is every chicken we kill to put on our dish tantamount to murdering a human? As for being anthropocentric, the moral system extends to all and any rational agents. If dolphins, say, were to evolve rational agency they'd be included.Only according to you. And your distinction is indeed completely anthropocentric and thus necessarily arbitrary. Otherwise you could surely present some evidence why human life is more important or more valuable than non-human life from a neutral perspective.
If a baby has a similar rationality to that of a chicken, would you eat that?

Why are you still typing away here and not organising your participation in collective suicide?I'm waiting for the IQ test.

If a baby has a similar rationality to that of a chicken, would you eat that?

Does it taste good?

Atheism is a religion the same way that bald is a hair color.
Sigged. That is a great analogy.

Are you saying that killing someone who wishes to be killed is equal to killing someone who doesn't?You might want to ask convicted killers and those who put these killers to death...

Damn, UB is not only a rabid anti-Israeli and atheist, he's a rabid vegan too. Learn something new every day.I'm no atheist and no complete vegan.

Does it taste good?
*cue dead baby jokes*

A baby is significantly more rational than a chicken, anyway.

You might want to ask convicted killers and those who put these killers to death...

I'm no atheist and no complete vegan.
If you were killing two exactly equal people, rather than one who has committed crimes... and many convicted killers are quite happy to be killed rather than spend life in prison, besides.

So you believe animals are equal to humans, but you support stealing their bodily fluids and drinking them, or something of the sort?

*cue dead baby jokes*

A baby is significantly more rational than a chicken, anyway.A baby is dumb as bread. A baby does evidently not even have the neural pathways yet to be anywhere near rational.

A baby is dumb as bread. A baby does evidently not even have the neural pathways yet to be anywhere near rational.
The last time I checked, chickens couldn't read.
well, I could do this at one year...
Babies can fit pegs into similarly shaped holes, they can feel basic emotions etcetera.

A baby is dumb as bread. A baby does evidently not even have the neural pathways yet to be anywhere near rational.

A chicken can't become more rational, now can it?

A chicken can't become more rational, now can it?

But it's more rational with its head on... :p

The last time I checked, chickens couldn't read.
well, I could do this at one year...
Babies can fit pegs into similarly shaped holes, they can feel basic emotions etcetera.And chicken don't? Or other animals?

A chicken can't become more rational, now can it?And it deserves to die for that?

And chicken don't? Or other animals?

... no?

Apart from perhaps chimpanzees and the like.

And it deserves to die for that?
Do soy beans deserve to die because they don't have brains?

... no?

Apart from perhaps chimpanzees and the like.How do you know? And chimpanzees and the like do deserve not to be eaten but chicken do not enjoy this privilege? After all, form an anthropocentric view, it's all just meat.

Only according to you.
Kant would be happy to know that I came up with his Categorical Imperative, then.

And your distinction is indeed completely anthropocentric and thus necessarily arbitrary.
Non sequitur. Rational agency indeed differentiates humanity from all other animals. Do you deny this? Everytime I accidentally step on a bug or grass, do I violate its right to life, and am I therefore liable of murder (for lack of a better term)? If so, then other animals too are guilty and ought to be killed. The reason we do not imprison an animal for manslaughter is because it is not a rational agent, ergo not a moral agent. It has no concept of rights and wrongs. This is precisely why rationality is a discriminating factor of relevance.

Otherwise you could surely present some evidence why human life is more important or more valuable than non-human life from a neutral perspective.
I was not using value as a justification - instead, I was using a relevant differentiating factor.

If a baby has a similar rationality to that of a chicken, would you eat that?
Dunno, do babies taste good? Maybe with a little seasoning they do. Oh I know, I'll go bake one into a pie right now!

:rolleyes: Babies, unlike chickens and most other animals, have the potential to become rational agents.

I'm waiting for the IQ test.
Why waste precious time? Why only kill the stupid?

Kant would be happy to know that I came up with his Categorical Imperative, then.The result is a humanity living on an otherwise dead planet. Kant would love that.

Non sequitur. Rational agency indeed differentiates humanity from all other animals. Do you deny this? Everytime I accidentally step on a bug or grass, do I violate its right to life, and am I therefore liable of manslaughter? If so, then other animals too are guilty and ought to be killed. The reason we do not imprison an animal for manslaughter is because it is not a rational agent, ergo not a moral agent. It has no concept of rights and wrongs. This is precisely why rationality is a discriminating factor of relevance.But why does rationality set human life above non-human life? How is one life more precious than another? Does a bug, a bird, a pig, a cow, an ape not like and deserve to live as much as you do? Human conduct is destroying the planet, animal conduct isn't. So in fact the rationality rather is a damaging and degrading factor, isn't it?

I was not using value as a justification - merely a relevant differentiating factor.And yet you say that there is no need to stop human overpopulation, which is equivalent to destroying other life effectively. The global ecosystem is dying because of humankind, and yet you feel no urge to do something because of your anthropocentric arrogance.

Dunno, do babies taste good? Maybe with a little seasoning they do. Oh I know, I'll go bake one into a pie right now!Go ahead.

:rolleyes: Babies, unlike chickens and most other animals, have the potential to become rational agents.I don't see how that is a valid point. The babies also have the potential to become agents of global scale destruction, unlike chicken.

Why waste precious time? Why only kill the stupid?Would you die to serve humankind, or life on this planet as such?

But why does rationality set human life above non-human life? How is one life more precious than another? Does a bug, a bird, a pig, a cow, an ape not like and deserve to live as much as you do?
What intrinsic value does the life of any of these creatures have? They have value to us as means to service an end.

And yet you say that there is no need to stop human overpopulation, which is equivalent to destroying other life effectively. The global ecosystem is dying because of humankind, and yet you feel no urge to do something because of your anthropocentric arrogance.
Strawman. I did acknowledge that there is an overpopulation problem. What I am disputing is your claim that humans ought to be killed to ameliorate it for the sake of other nonhuman creatures.

I don't see how that is a valid point. The babies also have the potential to become agents of global scale destruction, unlike chicken.
Animals are quite capable of ravaging eco-systems too. It is not a differentiating factor. Our (potential) rational faculty is.

Would you die to serve humankind, or life on this planet as such?
No.

Animals are quite capable of ravaging eco-systems too. It is not a differentiating factor. Our (potential) rational faculty is.

So the severely mentally handicapped should have no rights and can be consumed ?

So the severely mentally handicapped should have no rights and can be consumed ?
To the extent that they are not rational agents, no. A society may choose to grant them legal rights, much as it can with animals, and individuals who care for them may act as custodians, but that is as far as it goes.

To the extent that they are not rational agents, no. A society may choose to grant them legal rights, much as it can with animals, and individuals who care for them may act as custodians, but that is as far as it goes.

Fair enough.
Aside: what is your opinion on a society that awards rights based on "the indivdual can" and "the indvidual is" instead of most western societies that historically base them on "the individual cannot" and "the individual isn't" ?

Aside: what is your opinion on a society that awards rights based on "the indivdual can" and "the indvidual is" instead of most western societies that historically base them on "the individual cannot" and "the individual isn't" ?
Could you provide some examples? I'll probably get round to answering it tomorrow, since I'm off to sleep now.

Could you provide some examples? I'll probably get round to answering it tomorrow, since I'm off to sleep now.

Hmm. A better way to phrase it would actually be "based on capacities instead of on aspects unrelated to the right itself".
As in "John has black skin - therefor he cannot vote" vs "John has the mental development of a three year old therefor he cannot comprehend voting on a sufficient level to let him".
Logical extension of this reasoning could be (and has been) argued to require protecting animals that possess the capacity to feel pain against torture. The rationality requirement is irrelevant in such a system.

And I just woke up. Aren't timezones lovely ?

Ok. Only keep the first-borns.

Actually, if you forced everyone to have only one child (if we are talking about couples) you would have such an extreme population cut that many countries/societies/economies would not be able to handle.

If it is per person then the one child would make sense, due to there being deaths before having a child or choosing not to have children.

Animals are not (potential) rational, moral agents, the only kind amongst which duties can arise - this sets humans considerably above them. They cannot claim rights. They do not respect human existence, and would in fact just as readily use us as a means to fulfil their ends.



Are you going to begin with yourself then?

It'd be nice if people stopped telling people to off themselvs...

You are acting like you know for a fact that the other species on this planet aren't here for a reason besides serving humanity.

They exist to live and breed. If we manage to domesticate them to serve our interests

Do you really think humanity has been good for this world?

What is 'good' for the world though?

We are an example of evolution. If we cannot adapt to allow our continued survival then we will fall by the wayside. If we can and then adapt other creatures to aid us in that then

However I wouldn't suggest acting maliciously or causing unnecessary harm is that useful or ethical.

We can survive sustainably at lower population levels (say 4-5 billion) whilst living on earth if we do it correctly.

Rationality is a differentiating factor between humans and the vast majority of animals. It is what makes mankind unique. That is the relevant consideration behind Kantian morality as I have expounded it, not whether rationality is intrinsically more or less valuable than a lack thereof.

How are other animals (for the most part) not rational?

Actually, if you forced everyone to have only one child (if we are talking about couples) you would have such an extreme population cut that many countries/societies/economies would not be able to handle.

If it is per person then the one child would make sense, due to there being deaths before having a child or choosing not to have children.
But then there are still those who wouldn't reproduce because of various reasons. This would impact on the population but not as much. Homosexuals would not be as likely to reproduce unless they could use the genetic material from their partner. Then there are those who are mentally disabled and unfit to parent because they would be barely able to care for themselves. There are also the very ambitious who would see children as an impediment; those who would rather just party etc...

Would the world be a better place if there were yearly IQ tests and those who scored lower than a certain amount were all sentenced to death to make sure only the average or smart survived?

Discuss.

No.

1. Intelligence is too poorly defined to know how to design a test that preserved only the better potential citizens.

2. Businesses would arise coaching people at passing these tests so that it would quickly become a death penalty for being poor.

3. The whole idea is fucked upl

But then there are still those who wouldn't reproduce because of various reasons. This would impact on the population but not as much. Homosexuals would not be as likely to reproduce unless they could use the genetic material from their partner. Then there are those who are mentally disabled and unfit to parent because they would be barely able to care for themselves. There are also the very ambitious who would see children as an impediment; those who would rather just party etc...

That is the point. You could sustainably (in a state/economic sense) decrease the population.

Do soy beans deserve to die because they don't have brains?

Yeah! Fucking soy beans. Soy beans raped my dog. Kill 'em all.

(the above was a joke. But there's nothing funny about glycine-canine sexual violence. Learn what you can do to prevent glycine-canine sexual violence in your neighborhood, and together we can end this tragedy.)
--The More You Know

Would the world be a better place if there were yearly IQ tests and those who scored lower than a certain amount were all sentenced to death to make sure only the average or smart survived?

Discuss.

Why would you commit suicide? Life is worth living even if you aren't very bright, as evidenced by your trolling question.

Would the world be a better place if there were yearly IQ tests and those who scored lower than a certain amount were all sentenced to death to make sure only the average or smart survived?

Discuss.

Someone has to clean the toilets.

Would the world be a better place if there were yearly IQ tests and those who scored lower than a certain amount were all sentenced to death to make sure only the average or smart survived?

Discuss.

A similar system was set up by nature. It's documented on http://www.darwinawards.com/

That is the point. You could sustainably (in a state/economic sense) decrease the population.

But why would you want to? It would mean that the foundation is weakened. You would have more dependants than contributes. Yes people are living longer, but it doesn't mean they can still do the same things they could when they were younger. The body has natural limitations that come with age.

Any social security system would be inevitably threatened due to the lack of younger workers and a sharp increase in pensioners.

In some places, a decrease would work but where there is little, zero or negative population growth, sustainable population declination would have economic repercussions that would likely throw an economy into recession because of a natural lack of workers. There needs to be a pool of workers who remain unemployed; a low but sustainable ratio so they can replace those who leave, as well as large base pool of employed workers to keep the clock ticking.

...uh... did I just pull that out of my ass or what? Heh...

Why would you commit suicide? Life is worth living even if you aren't very bright, as evidenced by your trolling question.

Posing the question: Is life worth living, even if living means having to be SL?

Life as SL... or dead in a gutter... hmm...

Posing the question: Is life worth living, even if living means having to be SL?

Life as SL... or dead in a gutter... hmm...

What about a ditch? Ditches are good.

What about a ditch? Ditches are good.

Yeah, a good honest, down to earth (as it were) ditch seems pretty attractive compared with the prospect of having to be SL.

Yeah, a good honest, down to earth (as it were) ditch seems pretty attractive compared with the prospect of having to be SL.

Allow me to help...

'Once upon there was a ditch. It was a very lovely ditch. It was on the side of a small rural country route that was rarely used by anyone except those who were desperate to avoid the larger, more congested thoroughfare that was about two kilometres west of this rural route.

'Now this ditch was no ordinary ditch. Like we have established, it was a lovely ditch. There was nothing around to take away from the beauty of it.

'Nature had graced this ditch with the finest weeds known to man. There were various dandelions, ragweeds, purple flowers that no one much cared for and other generic, all purpose law-killing weeds. There were also many patches of dry, dead grass, mud, both dry and wet. It was the perfect ditch for anything or anyone to crawl into and die. No one would really notice; after all, the taller weeds near the roadside would serve to hide what lay beyond.

'The ditch was very deep. The first few steps from the road weren't too precarious but one misstep and a person could fall in, landing in the heart of the ditch with no way to get out.'

Sounds like something Saki would write.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saki

Except he wouldn't have used kilometres.

The result is a humanity living on an otherwise dead planet. Kant would love that.

He so totally would!

No.

1. Intelligence is too poorly defined to know how to design a test that preserved only the better potential citizens.

2. Businesses would arise coaching people at passing these tests so that it would quickly become a death penalty for being poor.

3. The whole idea is fucked upl

3) Fun kind of nasty baby! :D Even though this was one of my joke ideas I still found it worthy of political discussion.

Who would serve you at Macdonalds?
Any of the workers maybe. DUH!

that's no excuse..

wait, just thinking of the filipinos i know, they are rather silly. but one of them is also cool. the generalisation doesn't work.. no excuse.

Works too, note that only one out of the rest you know aren't silly so in general we are like this by nature.

I don't think so. It matters what you do with what you got, not how much you got. Think of Forest Gump.
Oh, and supposing the world was a "better place", it most certainly would NOT be worth price.
Now piss-off Sir Troll.

Edit: oh, wait you're that facist-dude. Never-mind, you're not a troll, you're serious.

Learn to remember the posts on the first page and how I DON'T agree with this and how I was merely asking not suggesting. False accusations I beleive fall into defamatory I beleive. Giving people the wrong ideas of someone is defamatory.

And please note that expressing your hatred for me just because I disagree with the majority does not add any value to this thread at all. So please refrain from doing so.
from the first page. it suggests to me that you DO agree with what you said, so don't accuse others of defamation.

from the first page. it suggests to me that you DO agree with what you said, so don't accuse others of defamation.

How does it suggest it? Did you even read the full first page?

Learn to remember the posts on the first page and how I DON'T agree with this and how I was merely asking not suggesting. False accusations I beleive fall into defamatory I beleive.

You believe wrong.

Please don't YOU start with crappy legal analysis too, we get enough of that from Corneliu.

You believe wrong.

Please don't YOU start with crappy legal analysis too, we get enough of that from Corneliu.

Read the first page and you'll know that I don't agree with the hypothetical system I posted on post #1.

Saying I agree with it even though I don't creates hatred towards me for something I didn't do.Which is defamatory. And if you are willing to do it to me freely whats stopping you from doing it to other posters? Your lack of respect for order sickens me.

He DID break the rules and you are condemning me for up the law or rather just reminding him, which expresses your utter lack of respect for it. Isn't it blatantly obvious that we don't get enough of it, not even from Corneliu? Or else posters wouldn't do things like this commonly. Does it not occur to you that NSG is infamous for bigotry, flame fights, overt bias and the lack of worthwhile argument and you think that we get more than enough. We need more to take up Corneliu's example if we want NSG to be as Max Barry intended.

He DID break the rules and you are condemning me for up the law or rather just reminding him, which expresses your utter lack of respect for it.

I dare you to say something that makes less sence.

We need more to take up Corneliu's example

That's probably the first time those words have been said.

if we want NSG to be as Max Barry intended.

I think Max is perfectly capable of speaking for himself.

I dare you to say something that makes less sence.



That's probably the first time those words have been said.



I think Max is perfectly capable of speaking for himself.

3) Yes he is really, it's just the posters that need constant reminder of what he means. Read the FAQ and rules.

But why would you want to? It would mean that the foundation is weakened. You would have more dependants than contributes. Yes people are living longer, but it doesn't mean they can still do the same things they could when they were younger. The body has natural limitations that come with age.

Any social security system would be inevitably threatened due to the lack of younger workers and a sharp increase in pensioners.

In some places, a decrease would work but where there is little, zero or negative population growth, sustainable population declination would have economic repercussions that would likely throw an economy into recession because of a natural lack of workers. There needs to be a pool of workers who remain unemployed; a low but sustainable ratio so they can replace those who leave, as well as large base pool of employed workers to keep the clock ticking.

...uh... did I just pull that out of my ass or what? Heh...

You bring up a valid point (no brown marks on it). The main thing is that our technology decreases the time working hours needed to fulfill the same level of production. With increases in efficiency of current machines, along with better systems and energy gathering devices we can also decrease the amount of population required to support the dependent sections of society.

Also, a population that is at only slight negative growth would not have that many more dependents than it normally would.

Also the time for unemployment does matter. If you have, say 1% of the potential working population that is unemployed for only a short time (3 months at most) then you would be much better off than another region that has 1% unemployed for years..

Total employment can also work so long as you have a proper structure to facillitate easy job employment. Retaining workers effectively is as important as making sure you employ as many as possible.

Best of all is if we increase the amount of researchers as well. That would allow us to improve out technological systems faster (and perhaps have more effective interplanetary travel).

Learn to remember the posts on the first page and how I DON'T agree with this ...

All I can see is that on the page you specifically said "I disagree with the majority" which is the exact opposite.
Perhaps you mean otherwise. If you say-so, I'll believe you, but you don't say-so on the first page.

Nope,
even if it succeeded in making the general population more intelligent, it won't stop inteliguent poeple of making dumb ass decisions.

Bjorn Barnix,
Enlighted Despot of Leuvenation

If being dumb were a capital crime, every last person in the world - and I do mean every person - would be put to death.