The weak and stupid survive

[Maj]

Fact is, people look out for themselves -- and that's the way it should be. I don't want to be forced into being "nice" to other people. I'll do it when I damn well please.

Another fact is that people who haven't succumbed to utter selfishness and self-devotion will also look out for others. You don't need to be "nice", just tolerant.

Do you think you'd be at the level of comfort and success you're at now had you been born and raised in a slum overlooking Rio de Janerio?

Yes, because I have the will to overcome any adversity. Being born in North America says nothing about how you will do in the future.

Do you have even the slightest notion as to how those who live in the gutter of life go by their daily lives? Do you think that if all they needed was a collective will that they'd all be able to get up off their "lazy" tooshes, walk into the city, get an education, get a job and then move into a condo neighbouring their once impoverished bretheren? Do you believe that a person's future is in NO way affected by the violence, poverty, hunger, ignorance, hate, misery, suffering and death they must LIVE through during their upbringing and if they're lucky (some might say unlucky) adulthood? Apparently you have grown so accustomed to the infrastructure and safety nets installed by the government and people of your state and nation that you really have no clue as to what adversity to many of Earth's citizens actually is.

Democracy strengthens the strong, and neutralizes the weak. Do you really think people that have a lower mental capacity, for example, a cocaine dealer, really cares or possesses the capacity to comprehend political and socio-economic issues? Not likely.

Cocaine barons and their underlings understand politics, law and economics so well that they have been able to establish one of the most profitable industries in the world without so much as serious injury from even the most powerful nations in the world, which pour tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars into efforts to slow the trade. Those with weak moral fibre don't necessarily possess weak intellectual prowess. The crooked and corrupt can be intelligent and strong, in a democracy or not.

As for socialism, well, I'd have to know what your definition of it is before I gave you my stance on that ideology.

Having the government force you into serving the nation, in terms of wealth -- where you are taxed based on how much you take in for income (Finnish speeding tickets of $100,000+ anyone?)

I'll post my response in your "Politic Pick" thread some time this week. And yes, I know, no debating

"You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.
You cannot help the wage earner, by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

You're just reiterating except now with the words of someone else. Explain what Abe means.
And if you (or anyone else) knows if these words were spoken before or after the unionization of factory workers in the United States, please let me know.

- Maj

 

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by PaleHorse76
Caligastia, I have asked my wife the same question. I was of the thought that keeping the weak around only brings down the strong. Then I got a scary feeling, what if I am the weak and I just don't know it. There are many different ways at looking whether a person is weak or strong. A good example is my last job. One of the guys I worked with was in amazing physical shape. He had arms as big as legs and was cut! He had asthma but that isn't what made him weak in my mind. What made him weak was his lack of temper control (which he was getting better at) and his lack of intelligence (which never improved). Unfortunately some people in the Army place physical ability in a higher category than intelligence (meaning if you are in good shape but as dumb as a rock but you can do more pushups than the smart man that is in decent shape, then you are a better soldier, so amgine how this physical stud was always praised even though he couldn't do his job -computers- to save anyone's life). I am not speaking from anger directed towards this guy as I was higher in rank but I am angry at how people can slip thru the cracks and get thru loopholes.

Well, when I say weak I am meaning mentally. I think intelligence is more important than physical heath, but while we are at it why not have both?

 

[duke o' york]

Natural selection has changed, and as such has become far less natural. Originally, only the strongest survived. You could be as smart as you liked, but if you were unable to hunt down and kill a deer then you'd be predated and would swiftly die. If you didn't take advantage of your parents' protection while it was available to learn the skills necessary for survival then there was no chance you'd survive. Nowadays, this is no longer the case, and intelligence has become far more valuable to your possible survival. If you are intelligent enough to hold down a good job and achieve things then you will be more successful than someone who is exceptionally strong but has little mental power. This is maybe why professional sport is such a good thing: it reminds us that it is still possible for those who are essentially strong yet stupid to succeed in this society. Professional sportspersons have invested so much time in achieving their physical prime that they have perforce neglected their intellectual development.
I am quite happy with the state of things as they are, but remain very aware that my intelligence isn't going to help at all when the 16 stone bruiser swings his fist in my direction. Natural selection no longer applies to humans, merely to the plant and animal kingdoms.

 

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Nowadays, this is no longer the case, and intelligence has become far more valuable to your possible survival. If you are intelligent enough to hold down a good job and achieve things then you will be more successful than someone who is exceptionally strong but has little mental power.

The problem is that those who are more successful in their careers due to intelligence are having less children because of the demands of their careers.

On the other side, those who are not intelligent enough to hold down a job are having bucketloads of children on welfare.

 

[Sixchan]

The optimal government is to break up a nation into city-states, then have each of the states practice a certain government. All citizens that wish to follow a certain governmental style, move to that city-state. All of the city-states would be responsible for paying the administration for defense -- or you will be expelled from the administrative district.

Let's say you break up -- Minnesota, United States

Minneapolis (pop. 500k) is turned into a "Conservative" district
St. Paul (pop 350k) is turned into a "Liberal" district
Duluth (pop 90k) is turned into the "Communal" district
St. Cloud (pop 50k) is turned into the "Libertarian" district.

A collective sales tax of %1 is set on all city-states, as they must provide for the administratives' defense. Decisions on defense are made up staff of representatives from certain districts, selected by the governor of the city-state.

What do you think?

Unbelievably, I actually agree with what you say. This seems a really good idea, but how could we get it to work?

 

[Blackadder]

About the army not wanting intelligent people, there is a reason for this in the old book of government, The THREE STRATAGIES OF HUANG SHI GONG. It states the people best employed by a good leader:

1. The wise, who like to establish their accomplishments.
2. The couragous, who inspire others through realizing their aspirations.
3.The greedy, who fervently pursue profit.
4. The stupid, who do not mind sacrificing themselves.

That is perhaps the extreme, but most can connect with at least one of the four aspects. Whether they own up to doing so is their problem.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Sixchan


Unbelievably, I actually agree with what you say. This seems a really good idea, but how could we get it to work?

Simple: you don't.

 

[joespaniel]

Originally posted by Maj
Do you have even the slightest notion as to how those who live in the gutter of life go by their daily lives? Do you think that if all they needed was a collective will that they'd all be able to get up off their "lazy" tooshes, walk into the city, get an education, get a job and then move into a condo neighbouring their once impoverished bretheren? Do you believe that a person's future is in NO way affected by the violence, poverty, hunger, ignorance, hate, misery, suffering and death they must LIVE through during their upbringing and if they're lucky (some might say unlucky) adulthood? Apparently you have grown so accustomed to the infrastructure and safety nets installed by the government and people of your state and nation that you really have no clue as to what adversity to many of Earth's citizens actually is.

Yeah, man, the slums of Ottawa are pretty rough!

 

[Magnus]

Remember, relativity applies to everything that can be measured.

Therefore you cannot be smart without stupidity and you cannot be strong without weakness, and you can't be rich without poverty.

 

[Gruntboy]

If the meek ever inherit the Earth, the strong will take it from them. The meek exist to be eaten by the strong.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Sixchan


Unbelievably, I actually agree with what you say. This seems a really good idea, but how could we get it to work?

This idea sucks. How can a city state possibly pay for its own defense? What are they fighting with bows and arrows? the modern-day weapsons cost millions if not billions of pounds (or dollars). Also there must be some kind of federal government ot provide nation-wide laws regarding safety, employment, civil rights etc. Then there is the issue of a central bank to control monetary policy. If there are different governments in each section then it will affect the mobility of labour which will severly affect the effective of the economy. For example, if one section demands for labour then people may not be willing to move to the different section and so will remain in the original section and create unemployment. The world is not breaking up into smaller states it is consolidating into larger ones.....and for good reasons.

 

[Maj]

Yeah, man, the slums of Ottawa are pretty rough!

Woo yah. The buses can be up to fifteen minutes apart.

Seriously though, you need not live in adversity to have a notion as to what it can be.

 

[knowltok3]

Originally posted by Caligastia


The problem is that those who are more successful in their careers due to intelligence are having less children because of the demands of their careers.

On the other side, those who are not intelligent enough to hold down a job are having bucketloads of children on welfare.

And herein lies the crux of the problem. We have created an environment where certain traits lead to greater procreation. This will, over the long term lead to those traits being more and more widespread. Or it will lead to a polarization and the eventual creation of multiple variaties of humans based upon those traits. The saving grace could well be genetic engineering, but that was covered in an earlier thread.

Originally posted by MrPresident

The world is not breaking up into smaller states it is consolidating into larger ones.....and for good reasons.

True in some instances, in other parts of the world though there are those that want smaller and smaller chunks for their own self-determination. Chechnya, Yugoslavia, and Quebec come to mind. Don't get me wrong, I think forming a larger state and learning to get along with our differences is better, but this view is not universal.


Still, I say enjoy your superiority over those that you are superior to and revel in your ignorance of those that you are inferior to. Proper self delusion and arrogance can convince you that you are one of the smartest people in the world. The trick is to not be smart enough to realize you are doing it.

 

[Skulker]

We've managed to evolve the means to achieve an explosive population growth. (Breeding is really what it's all about.) This has happened in the past in nature and has been documented when new species are introduced to ecosystems and on newly created volcanic islands. It can also easily be duplicated in the laboratory with bacteria in a petri dish. The end result is always a population crash and the return of natural selection with a vengeance. Natural selection cannot be stopped, only delayed.

Certainly when everyone can breed as much as they want with little or no restriction there cannot be natural selection. But that can only be a temporary state. There are geographic limits we cannot exceed - chiefly water and arable land. There are biological limiters as well - waste production (pollution as well as sewage) and increasing risk of disease with overcrowding.

In our case, the argument can be made that our food production is artificially sustained by fossil fuels which we use not only to work the soil but to provide water during dry conditions, fertilizer to boost production, pesticides to reduce crop loss to pests, transportation of harvest to markets and consumers, etc. And fossil fuel is a limited resource so if it cannot be adequately replaced a shortage could cause famine by itself.

Our waste production has reached a point where it is actually affecting the global climate. This will have completely unforseen effects -- who knows, it might even enhance food production, giving us a little more time before we crash. But crash we will, make no mistake.

Our population growth will be controlled by one of, or a combination of, four factors:

1. Disease.

2. Famine.

3. War - triggered by diminishing resources - the most likely, unfortunately

4. Self Regulation - the most desireable but least likely

In each case, a set of natural selectors will return and our species will begin to evolve again, based on the new limits placed on our breeding. Note that genetic engineering is not natural selection. It is not evolution at all, until natural selection comes into play. We might introduce what are in effect 'mutations' in our genome that might be selected for, but that's about it. And until natural selection returns, these artificial mutations won't spread through the population and cannot be said to really affect the evolution of the species.

Again, natural selection and evolution is all about breeding; specifically, which set of genes makes it into the next generation and in what fraction of the total population. That's all. It has nothing to do with intelligence or strength or longevity if those factors do not directly affect ability to breed.

 

[damunzy]

Blackadder: Is that supposed to be "THREE STRATAGIES OF HUANG SHI GONG" or FOUR?

and from out of nowhere comes Skulker! Good points. What's to say that with the land limitations there isn't a push for faster space development and we then expand to other planets and maybe other systems. I know what I am speaking of is Sci/Fi as our science currently stands but at the begining of the 1900's so was space travel.

 

[Knowltok]

Just my humble opinion, but I don't think space colinization has any chance of coming fast enough to reduce population presures. The only way I see that happening is if we both find an extremely cheap method of getting something in space, and then discover some sort of FTL travel to get us to human habitable worlds. I just don't see it being cost effective at any point in the next 100-200 years to fly masses of unskilled humanity to Mars, build domes or whatever, and come up with some way to support them.

Perhaps I would have skoffed at the idea of space travel in 1903, but I just don't see it happening in a way that will relieve population preasures in time.

 

[Skulker]

Expansion into space isn't currently considered a viable option because of the enormous expense of getting stuff into space. Sure, you could set up a colony on Mars that would quickly become materially self-sustaining, but you still have to get the people there. And that means lots of heavy lifts out of Earth's gravity well. By any existing and any reasonably foreseeable technology, that is going to be prohibitively expensive.

 

[Blackadder]

No Palehorse, my book says clearly three stratagies. The part I took the 'classification' of people from was part of the Middle stratagy, about the secrets of controlling generals and officials. There are only three stratagies; the Upper, Middle and Lower. If you find something different PM me about it.