site wrote:You must separate your conceptions of morality and ethics from simulations such as this. Of course unprecedented murder is "Bad". Would humanity bounce back as being overall "better off" with a higher median intelligence though?
The problem with eugenicist arguments like yours is that there is no objective measure of "good" traits like intelligence; there are only our subjective interpretations. The standardized tests used to measure intelligence are NOT concrete or objective, as evidenced by the fact that you will get progressively better scores if you take them more than once. Like the ACTs, the more you review the material, the better your scores will be. In practical terms, this means that those with the resources to afford such materials will do better on standardized tests than those without them. Therefore your mass-murder spree would disproportionately impact poor people with no regard to their actual intelligence (if there is even if such a thing).
It's also worth noting that all eugenicist arguments are entirely self-serving. People make arguments like yours only because they assume they won't be the ones targeted, and consider themselves to be "superior". It has nothing to do with the betterment of humanity, and everything to do with self-advancement and self-aggrandizement. We all love to think of ourselves as better than everyone else.