Ever wonder why we don't have flying cars, space colonies and nanobots that cure all diseases...

Ever wonder why we don't have flying cars, space colonies and nanobots that cure all diseases? That's because the collective Intelligence is simply too low. In order for society to be this way, everyone must have the intellectual capacity to be a scientist and engineer, not just the cognitive elite. The only way to achieve this is to financially incentivize high IQ people to reproduce and the low IQ to be sterilized and or executed.

Attached: futuristic-city2.jpg (640x406, 55.03K)

Other urls found in this thread:

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yeah let's just ignore the arts and have everyone live a boring and depressing life. Sounds good, definitely conducive to improved productivity.

Benefits to getting rid of all no poverty
>less crime
>nobody would struggle to survive
>technology would advance faster
>space colonization
>age of consent would be lower
>diseases cured

Actually, you need to have a high level of spatial intelligence in order to be a great artist. Living in a society where everyone's brains make connections and solve complex problems faster would guarantee a degree of emotional intelligence that would ensure a high degree of mental health.

People should get what they deserve. I have a high IQ, but I'm lazy, so I barely contribute to society, and I'm ugly and boring, so nobody likes me. Why keep someone like me around? Nobody wants me.

It's kind of funny and infuriating at the same time. People always tell me they wish they could clone me. Yeah, you know, there's already a way of cloning people, and no one's doing it with me. They're cloning my coworkers who can barely read and write instead. It's just one big fucking joke. Why do you care what's best for society? Society sure as fuck doesn't. They don't deserve flying cars, they deserve to live in fear of the sensational media and clinging to superstitions for comfort. If smart people care so much, they can just leave and build their own country.

For the time being, we still need 90 IQ people. Just refuse welfare to anyone who doesn't get sterilized.

I care about society because I want humans to survive past any great filters there may be. In order to become a space fairing civilization everyone must become a supergenius.

I wish smart people could also draw like da Vinci, oh wait...

Well, the people who created the last 500 years of civilization have decided to throw it all away by burning money to give brown people food and shelter. So, you should take your ideas to China.

Yet at the same time not every artist is smart like da Vinci, oh wait...

You already got BTFOd in the last thread. Why make another one?

I suicidal and stupid, you can euthanize me with your eugenics program.

I think designing those things is a lot harder than dumb people like you imagine it to be, which is why we don't have them (as well as the amount of resources it would take).
You seem to think high IQ is akin to magic.

Attached: dims.jpg (2048x1364, 299.91K)

We don't have those things because technology doesn't just magically appear out of thin air, it develops on top of itself.
The world we have today would look sci-fi to someone just 20 years ago.

>flying cars
The amount of energy needed to stay in the air makes this extremely ineffective
>space colonies
gravity makes it impossible to launch the tremendous amount of material needed to even build this, let alone all the other hurdles like weightlessness in space, radiation, fuel etc.
>nanobots that cure all diseases
It's not obvious they're even possible. A nanobot is not just a tiny robot - it operates on fundamentally different physical laws than the macro-scale universe

The only one here who probably needs to get sterilized and or executed is you

Eugenics would accelerate technological development just in time to surpass the great filter.

Men much smarter than you have disregarded technology much closer to reality than these. Einstein didn't think nuclear energy was a possibility, people mocked Edison's lightbulb, Edison mocked alternating current, Lord Kelvin mocked airplanes and x-rays, IBM thought copying machines and microprocessors were impractical, and lots of people thought railroads and steamboats and tanks and television were all memes.

Its called idealization SPERG

Yeah we should start this once I die naturally of course, heh heh

Earth does not have the resources or materials to create every single thing you've read or seen in sci-fi media.

Don't be racist.

>Men much smarter than you have disregarded technology much closer to reality

So that means that any retard can make some far fetched assumption because people had wrong predictions in the past, about things that were easier to predict?

What he's talking about isn't that farfetched, there are people looking into those things.

Singularity or technological singularity isn't possible without ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE not human intelligence

Attached: 1584900822217s.jpg (242x249, 9.89K)

it's hard to imagine that 100+ people are supposed to live on those things for a few months

You do not have to know how a car works to use it. Just call a mechanic. Same applies for flying cars, they just have to build them as automatic as possible that even a monkey could pilot them.

>splitting atoms is easier to predict than a machine that cures disease
guess you're getting sterilized

>flying cars
Probably not possible
>space colonies
Possible, but there would have be an incentive. Something like asteroid mining.
>nanobots that cure all diseases
Medical research is very complex. Humans are basically chemical computers. Slow research and developments regarding medical nanobots is to be expected.

In any case, you don't need to sterilize anyone, just use genetic engineering. We already have crispr, we just need to improve upon it.

Attached: 1584869194135-r9k.jpg (750x798, 57.84K)

Does anybody feel like the future would probably be something like the setting of Dead Space?

>100 years ago we didn't have cars, phones, television, modern medicine, or the internet
>ever since the industrial revolution technology has been advancing at an exponential rate; we've even surpassed moore's law recently
>despite this historically incredible boom in technology, OP still thinks we got too many dumb people and we should take extreme measures to accelerate technological research

If anything, the 'collective IQ' has increased significantly within the last century, which is a trend that will likely continue into the foreseeable future (assuming no world-changing disasters happen). Take a look at all the stupid fucking shit everyone did during the medieval era and maybe you'll appreciate the post-enlightenment sophistication of modern society. And even if you're that inpatient to experience the future's benefits (or you're just disgusted by the cognitively disabled), then gene editing is way more ethical, efficient, and realistic than your outdated-ass eugenics approach.

>no poverty
Maybe, but given the existence of capitalism there will always be a loser.
>less crime
Lol, smarter people with lesser values than the majority would commit crimes that are harder to solve
>nobody would struggle to survive
True
>technology would advance faster
True
>space colonization
Maybe
>age of consent would be lower
That would be nice. But if people were smarter, they'd probably decide on dating in their own age group anyways.
>diseases cured
Not all diseases. New ones will always popup.

Semi-unrelated note which was too long for the first post: Space colonization is LITERALLY the worst thing the human species could do. We can't even take care of half of the social, economic, and environmental problems here on earth, so what makes us think that we would do a better job in the very challenging environment of space? Let alone control a gigantic super-society which stretches across multiple planets and holds a population orders of magnitude greater than the number of people on Earth. Not to mention all of the pointless wild animal suffering we would cause by building ecosystems on planets such as Mars. There's no redeeming value in nature that can justify the creation or preservation of all the suffering inside it; it's nothing short of fucking astounding how abundant intense suffering is in nature, and yet people dream of wiping all that garbage on an entire planet just because they think trees look pretty. The only thing space colonization would do is spread the world's problems across the cosmos like a rapidly-growing virus of seething shit, infecting every planet in the galaxy until everything has descended into an astronomical hellscape from which there is no hope for return.

I'd only be open to the idea once we finally got our shit together and made the world a place worth spreading everywhere, but until then let's keep this shit down here, please.

Nominal IQ doesn't matter. G has been falling over the past century. Someone who was 100 IQ in 1900 would be 114 today.

It's probably a beneficial thing in terms of asteroid mining and space maufacturing.

>Maybe, but given the existence of capitalism there will always be a loser
And a winner.
>Lol, smarter people with lesser values than the majority would commit crimes that are harder to solve
Sure, which is true now, but it's undeniable that most criminal activity is done by low IQ people, typically between 70 and 90.

I agree, but I'm primarily talking about space civilization. I'm perfectly fine with astronauts going into space to gather useful resources, I just don't want to see people starting families up their.

Yeah I understand. Gravity is the number issue with living in space. A child birthed in a zero gravity environment would not have strong bones.

Do you have a source on this? I've heard people saying the precise opposite with just about as much evidence. I would assume that people living in the healthier, modern world would generally develop better brains than peasants constantly on the brink of starvation, but I'm not entirely sure.

I'm not looking up all the sources, but yeah, there's been a lot of information flying in every direction. My understanding of it is that people have been scoring higher and higher on IQ tests, but they score higher on non-g loaded subtests, and so basically they are smarter in a way, and that way is thanks to education and our daily lives including more activities similar to IQ tests. But people's performance on g-loaded subtests has actually been decreasing, and it wasn't until recently that (non-hereditarian-minded) people thought it was due to low IQ people outbreeding high IQ people, but now that does seem to be the case.

I disagree. This is for several reasons(morality aside):
1. Most of the people have average and below average IQ. Killing them would leave you with very few workers to do the shitty jobs. I know, we could use robots, but robots take time and money to build, and there's so much to do, and the things we regard as simple are so hard to write into code and to design a robot for, it would be a lot better to have an average Joe to do them than to build a replacement bot. Even mundane shit like changing a light bulb is super difficult from a robot's perspective, because it contains a lot of complex and precise motions. So instead of giving 5 bucks to Joe to do it, you'd have to develop an entire multi million dollar industry just to automatize one single mundane action.
2. Killing off so many people would drastically decrease the genetic diversity. This means that, should some weird disease show up 50 or 100 years from the deed, humanity would have lower chances of survival, as the chance of having a statistically significant group of people with a random gene that grants their owners resistance/immunity to the disease is lower.
3. Killing off dumb people would actually be counterproductive to the goal. There is a chance for the genius to transfer from parents to children, but it's so low and so random it shouldn't be taken into account. In most cases, children of geniuses come out normal. However, most geniuses were born from normal, average IQ people. So, you'd achieve a higher number of smart people per generation by letting people be, and allowing high IQ individuals to just pop up randomly, than to decrease the population to less than a fifth of it's contemporary value and have geniuses pop up randomly plus the marginal, almost insignificant chance. 1/2

I tried finding some info on IQ change but I'm mostly just seeing a bunch of articles contradicting each other. One will say IQ is decreasing, but then another will say it's increasing. Not sure what side to choose, but a lot of the positive articles mentioned the Flynn Effect. You might know about this and already have your arguments, but Flynn essentially says that IQ tests in the past were easier than the ones we distribute today. If this is true, then that means a 100 IQ man in 1900 would have a lower IQ by today's standards, not higher. Also, the negative articles emphasize that the IQ change is mainly environmental as opposed to genetic, which would mean that (negative) eugenics wouldn't help much compared to changing the environment. What do you think about all this? I didn't expect info on this to be so muddy.

I never said that. His logic is wrong.

4. It's easier to sell dumb shit to stupid people than to geniuses. Normal and below average people buy on impulse, while smart people are temperate with their spending. It's a lot harder to convince a smart person to give up their hard earned money than a dumb one. Hence smart people can get funding for their plans easier with the help of stupid people. Ask yourself if you could sell pet rocks to the Einsteins of the world and actually get enough money to fund a multi million dollar company that would revolutionize, say, genetic engineering. You couldn't.
5. Smart does not mean teamwork material. Even if all the people are smart, that does not mean grudges and competition won't show up. They can work together, but a filler material is needed, and average/below average people achieve this purpose just right.
6. Since most of our world is based around industries run by normal/below normal people, killing them all would consume A LOT of resources and bring the economy and industry to a screeching halt. It is not humanly possible for only the smart people to do the job of all the world, so the world would collapse, and the evolution of humankind would actually be slowed down. You can't produce rocket ships if you have no workers on the plants to make parts, no workers in the fields to give you easy food, and despite your rocket science bachelor's degree, you have to go plow land so you don't starve. 2/2

#1 is fine.

#2 is a meme. The cry for genetic diversity is just propaganda. There's no reason to think people with an IQ over 100 are significantly less genetically diverse than the entire population, once you control for IQ-related genes. You also have to ask who it is you care about. Not everyone is a humanist. If Iceland imports a million Chinese people and then all the native Icelanders die, does Iceland still exist? Will the Icelanders die, thinking, "At least China owns our island now!" No, probably not. Their people died. The fact some other people exist there now is, like, okay? If you, for whatever bizarre reason, care about other living organisms specifically because you can breed with them, which is what humanism is, then sure, they will carry on, but I don't care -- and if you're executing/sterilizing low IQ people, you probably don't care about them carrying on your name or something.

#3 is fair, except high IQ people are still more likely to have high IQ children than low IQ people are. So, while those low IQ people COULD produce a genius, you know, maybe, it's still less likely than the high IQ people, so I don't think that'll persuade OP.

I believe what's happened is that very recently (last year or two) the Flynn Effect has plateaued and started going in the opposite direction, but the Flynn Effect, as I'm aware, refers to nominal IQ, the less g-loaded a subtest, the more you see the Flynn Effect.

In fact, here's a study which just bluntly asks what caused a century of decreasing general intelligence, as if it's common knowledge. In the notes at the end, they mention how both this and the Flynn Effect can coexist.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017

The link doesn't work, it's only taking me to a blank error page. I'm interested, though.

4. That's a pretty weak argument. Dumb people today cost rich people money thanks to taxes and government services like welfare. In fact, white people flat out give black and Hispanic people in the US $700 billion every year. That's including white welfare recipients and rich black/Hispanic people, that's the net monetary exchange between the races. Imagine what that money could be used for instead of feeding dumb people.

5. Smart also doesn't mean moral, conscientious or attractive. I think OP knows that. But having dumb people around doesn't change anything.

6. This was mostly answered with robots, I'm pretty sure. Actually, you could make the argument that killing all the low-skill workers would have the exact same effect as freeing slaves, forcing innovation in technology. The arguments people use today for importing or outsourcing low-skill labor are the same arguments that were made for slavery and colonization, and we all know that those just caused technological and economic stagnation. There would also be a massive decrease in demand, obviously, because the population shrank, so it'd take less people to meet everyone's needs even without robots. I don't think a 105 IQ person will complain about being a farmer and making money off smart, rich people.

My bad, add this
-0131-7
To the end. Yas Forums thinks it's spam.

It is due to colonialism. Black people would have made all of these things by now if we had not persecuted them.

Attached: 8D240F61-ED3D-4AFB-8478-DEB4ED930B0C.jpg (400x400, 32.56K)

>It's easier to sell dumb shit to stupid people than to geniuses
Why are we bothering with this pointless economy that endlessly sells useless junk to the lowest common denominator?
We are so far beyond the time of scarcity of resources, business is useless from the viewpoint of societal evolution.

So much wasted time designing, manufacturing, shipping, selling fucking what? Slap-chops? Thin plastic trash that is designed to break in six months of use?
Why? So a business man can see profits that he spends on what? More business? To what end? Who gives a fuck?
The universe is 28 billion light years in diameter and we've explored a tiny fraction of our own solar system so far.

if everyone was smart engineer nobody would take care of cooking your fast foods, cleaning shit and other low tier jobs also getting higher average iq would just mean everything would stay the same but the bottom smart people would be more depressed, with their low jobs

iq is decreasing because of consumerist lifestyle, no real problems and because weak dumb kids wont die on birth (low child mortality = no natural selection/survival of fittest)

I have a 130 IQ and I work in a factory.

cool is majority of your colleagues as smart as you?
Smart people (from what i heard) tend to be underarchivers

Oh, God, no. Sometimes I can't help but see them as animals.

exactly as all smart people do and thats why they normally distance from them to a higher class and leave them be servant class

Sure, but I'm in the 97th percentile for neuroticism. I can't become a scientist or something, because I might fail, and I can't take that.

i get the fear of failure but you dont need to become scientist, even some office/computer job will get you higher

Let me guess OP your some high school drop out that got "above average" on an I.Q test online.

I'm going to try. I want to talk to a career counselor and try some things on my own. I was looking at computer programming and actuarial science, but they both have some pretty huge downsides. I dunno. I think I'm too old to find happiness, honestly.

you dont need to be happy but you dont need to suffer either