Hypothesis: Only the elite class should breed.

Post Reply New Topic

That is just going to keep going and going until nobody is capable of independent thought. If that happens it will be too late and humanity will be doomed.

Hopefully the people who hate the industrio-technological system will one day lash out and send humanity into a state of stone-age primitivism. People had real freedom back then, not the crap we call freedom.

Nope. Some people really are superior.

no, they actually aren't. there are no superior people who are better in all ways. we are all flawed in some areas.

some people are better-looking, but have no physical prowess
some people are socially well-rounded, but have little intelligence
some people are accomplished in business, but are unattractive
some poeple are smarter, but have no social skills
&c

nobody is perfect, or even truly superior, except perhaps in isolated categories. we're all just a mixture of traits, some which may become more or less important are our society changes or we evolve.

Agree with above poster..

For example, the lambs I am looking after all have their own traits. Baabara, is the best at breaking out of the lamb pen. Britney is the bossiest and most pushy. Doll is the most soft and pretty. Woolly is the gentlest. Nobs is the most appealing to humans as he looks like a little pig.

Which is the superior lamb? All of them have traits that make them better than the others, but which one is the best depends on opinion, or what the situation calls for.

Last edited by zen_mistress on 26 Sep 2010, 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you!

And what about the severely handicapped? What are they generally better at? If Steven Hawking weren't a genius, he would probably just be in a special care home.

Even further, are all categories given the same value? No. I might be an expert nose-picker, but the possible uses of this are very limited. I might also be brilliant, and there are a lot of possible uses of this. Which is better to have: Brilliance or nose-picking skills? The former, and that is relatively uncontroversial. Now, there might be certain areas of more question, but the issue is that there are people one is deservedly envious of, and this is also pretty obvious to anybody who isn't handicapped by some overly egalitarian ideology.

The fact is that some people are smarter, have better social skills, are socially well-rounded, successful in business, and good looking, and you aren't them.

Ducking back to the "contextual importance" card, also doesn't really seem that relevant either. It may have impact on the margins, but there are still certain qualities more important in more environments than other qualities, and individuals who generally have more better qualities than you or I might have.

LOL!

what are you on about? are you saying i'm not goodlooking, or smart, or whatever? how silly of you to make any assumptions about me! i noticed that you try to insult me when you start to lose a argument...

i am not perfect, and nor is anybody else. i do not know of a single person on the planet who fits any notion of perfection or even true superiority. that is my point, with no insults included.

There could be someone who has great nose-picking skills who becomes a You Tube celebrity. Or a comedian.

On the other hand, brilliance does not always lead to success, especially if the person lacks other traits needed to go with the brilliance.

Also, a person could be a potential genius but be a peasant farmer in harsh conditions. They might be able to grow some good crops, but they wont win the nobel peace prize, not without any form of education.




Context is very important. What would be the point of being Paris Hilton if there was a nucleur holocaust and people started walking around with wheelbarrows of money?

What would be the point of having polished, fine social skills if you ended up in a brutal prison and suddenly realised that having a rough, street upbringing would have been far better preparation in this point in time?

What if civilisation collapsed and it all got down to who could plant the best crops, build the most sturdy makeshift shacks, fight the best to protect their belongings? What would happen to todays "superior" people? They would have to give way to tomorrows "superior people.

Also, skills, talents and looks can be lost. What if a person who relied on being pretty had lost their looks in some unfortunate way? What if a brilliantly intellectual person gets brain damage for some reason. Sure, some people are blessed with some great gifts, but there is no guarantee they will have them for life.

yes, and well spoken. i admire the clarity and precision with which you present your points.

EDIT: fixed broken quotes

Last edited by hyperlexian on 26 Sep 2010, 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is no doubt that Stalin, Hitler, Mao, were superior individuals in their own way. Some superiorities I can happily live without.

I didn't insult you at all. I wasn't even making a statement about you in particular. I don't even know what you look like. Frankly, I am making a generic statement about most people. If you don't recognize when I am insulting someone, then you really deserve to be insulted so that way you can tell the difference.

I didn't say anything about "perfect". Perfect isn't necessary for my point.

well, you directly quoted me, then said:



it appeared that you were speaking of me specifically. i can accept that you were, in fact, speaking generally, but it is still not necessarily true. since you cannot see us and you do not know us, your statement is unproveable.

Youtube celebrity really isn't a good thing when picking one's nose. Nose-picking also wouldn't be enough for a comedy act.

On the other hand, brilliance does not always lead to success, especially if the person lacks other traits needed to go with the brilliance.

Also, a person could be a potential genius but be a peasant farmer in harsh conditions. They might be able to grow some good crops, but they wont win the nobel peace prize, not without any form of education.


Paris Hilton isn't a person who is better looking, smarter, having better business skills, or whatever than myself. Frankly, there would likely still be a point. Hilton also likely owns hard assets as well.


A lot. You could use them to avoid being beaten up or killed. Great social skills are always valuable when dealing with people.


Too many counter-factuals.


Yes, but the loss of ability isn't relevant to whether a person is currently an elite. Random acts of luck are just not relevant to the current abilities and limitations of a person.

I mean, all that is said and done here, I don't think that you have really refuted the easy cases. The easy cases being the people who are stronger, smarter, harder-working, with better social-skills, and who even look good, or even the people who are extremely handicapped. It isn't as if neither category exists. And if we can establish that there are some people who are easily described as "better" or "worse" except for the most improbable and ridiculous of circumstances, then the categories of "better" and "worse" can be described as existent. If those exist, then we can effectively still classify individuals into those categories.

I mean, zen_mistress, I believe if we take this relativist view/logic of better and worse seriously, we are forced to recognize that it applies to most things, whether it is in identifying what is true and false, evaluating social systems, evaluating moral choices, and so on and so forth. And it ultimately leads us to the absurd conclusion that no belief, choice, or anything else, is better than anything else. The issue is that in all of those other fields, this would be a reductio ad absurdum of this kind of reasoning, therefore, I do not see why I should take it seriously in organisms if I am unwilling to take it seriously when evaluating social systems, or the truth of something. This argument goes to hyperlexian as well, as I know that you, hyperlexian, have criticized social policies, but how can you actually identify better or worse policies if it all really does boil down to context in this as well? Shouldn't you, if you are actually being consistent, have to admit that extremely impoverished nations, homelessness, and strict immigration policies, actually could just be strategies/results of strategies that in different contexts would be better than other policies?

This is, basically, a question of life or death. No one is unprejudiced or even intelligent enough to fairly make this kind of decision. I am aware it is nevertheless made in everyday critical circumstances and many stupid tragedies occur because of it.

Underlying this whole discussion is the long standing habit of privileged groups to blame victims for their predicament and solving the civilized problems of the poor, the unemployed, the injured, the sick and the physically and mentally damaged by simple massacre to get rid of them. Not being religious I merely find my basic human sense of decency and fairness highly offended by these attitudes. From what I have heard of Christians I imagine they would be horrified of this from their fundamental beliefs.

Currently in he NY Times there is an article by Paul Krugman (September 27 2010) describing how the conservatives are blaming the huge unemployment problem on the lack of skills of the out of work people. It stems obviously from the same source of blaming the victims and relieving those on power of any obligation to the unfortunates. It is totally disgusting to me as a prime example of the intensely smug and selfish privileged and powerful classes relieving themselves of responsibility for their fellow citizens.