Jam wrote:Guys I was just wondering. Do you think Poland would be better off economically and/or culturally today if Germany had won the war? Same thing for the rest of eastern Europe and Russia, or just Europe in general really. I'm not saying that they should have won, the Nazis were obviously very bad and did horrible things, but they also manage to turn a bankrupt nation into the best country in the world in 10 years so they must have been doing something right. I'm just thinking from a purely practical point of view, which is completely different, that maybe Europe would have been better off if they had won and brought their program of modernization, social unity and eugenics to the more backwards rac *ahem* NATIONS of Europe. Any thoughts?
1. Who takes the decision to purge the other half? A program set to ineluctably annihilate people or the population itself? 2. If it's the latter, does it mean that those who proceed to purge are within the top half and totally unbiased? 3. Does the bottom half accept its fate? 4. Is the top half 100% able to quell any rebellion?
If the instigators are among the best half AND cannot for sure put down a rebellion, then the 50:50 ratio is a pretty good gamble if I fail the test.
Now assuming I'm certain to be in the top half, I'd rather eliminate 40% and keep some "retards" to make them feel important so as to be able to prevent revolts. The less you kill, the more peaceful your life becomes in this paradigm.
That system wont work. 50 percentile is too much. (50% marks in the test would be entirely different). The percentile should be based on the excess pop above desired. And its too frequent. Every 5 years or 10 years would be more suited to this. Even then depending on what purging does it would have radical effective on social behaviour. Assets are owned by families. People will just name their Assets to one person in family who will be trained to pass the test. If purging involved killing. Then will result in broken families, orphans. Too much power to the designers of the exam. Recipe for disaster. Country will collapse within 5 years.
What can be done to achieve the intended result - Legally allow only 1 child per couple. Yearly test of iq,eq,aptitude taken once in lifetime by each adult at a predetrmined age (21 or 18, dont remember which is the peak for mental capacity). This brands the individual as a + or -. Those with + result are allowed 1 more child. If both parents are + then upto 3 children. This will result in significant demographic change in the population within 3 generations (70-80 yrs). With added benefits of population control.
Depending on the current pop and expected growth. The threshold test performance to become a + can be manipulated and decide every few years.
At the age of 21 and once yearly after that point the residents of a country underwent a Test. The bottom 50% of that Test would be Purged - their assets liquidated and used to fund public education.
Provisions would be made to prevent dropping below a certain population level, allowing for exceptions to be made to pass the Test.
IE: If a limit of 100 million is set, and there are only 120 million people over 21 living, only a mere 20 million will be Purged.
If this was done, would the country be better off?
100 years later into the country's future, would they score higher amongst other countries than if they had not instituted such a measure?
For the purpose of the poll, assume that the Test was a completely unbiased and objective measure of an individuals intellect and knowledge amongst a wide array of relevant subjects.
You're sick, young man. I'm tempted to beat a lesson into you, young man. You're gonna learn some respect.
Purge, maybe not -- nobody would support that and it wouldn't work eventually, but segregation based on intelligence might be an interesting social experiment.
Basically if you are not able to contribute to a technological/advanced society with your own creations, maybe you don't deserve to live there and you're just a free rider.
Though maybe the age limit should be slightly higher than 21. The brain is largely developed by 24-25 years of age, so 25-26 would be a better cut-off point.
Dolan wrote:Purge, maybe not -- nobody would support that and it wouldn't work eventually, but segregation based on intelligence might be an interesting social experiment.
Basically if you are not able to contribute to a technological/advanced society with your own creations, maybe you don't deserve to live there and you're just a free rider.
Though maybe the age limit should be slightly higher than 21. The brain is largely developed by 24-25 years of age, so 25-26 would be a better cut-off point.
To some extent yeah, because it's a sociological fact that people of similar kind tend to flock together. But the large public is still a free rider of discoveries made by a small % of bright individuals.
Not me, I have spurned society and currently live my life out in the remote wilderness. I re-invented the computer and internet so I can post on these forums.
