Conquer Club

Survival of the Fittest is a wonderful idea. The fact we are getting away from it is leading to the destruction of the planet, the human species, and many many other species on the planet. The main problem, is there are too many people on the planet. We need to get rid of lots and lots of them. I'd prefer to get rid of the stupid ones, not the smart ones. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, go watch the movie Idiocracy. My plan to get rid of the excess population is this:

All social programs will be cut. No more food for the poor, no more healthcare for the poor, no more anything for the poor. Let them die. Poor people are typically pretty stupid, so we don't need them. If you can't afford it, you can't have it.

Punishment for all crimes against other people will be death. You hit somebody, you die. You rape somebody, you die. You run over a kid, you die. You hit your wife, you die. You smoke pot, nobody cares, because you haven't hurt anybody. If you steal from me, you die. This will make the world a more polite place, as people that are pieces of shit, will die.

I figure this will get rid of a good 30% of the population. Now that there are fewer people, global warming will be pretty much solved, we won't cut down as many trees, etc etc etc. Plus the world is smarter now, so we won't be so stupid with our actions...

But seriously, go watch Idiocracy. It's a great movie, and is already coming true. We must stop this decline immediately.

I figure your ideas would get rid of ~90% of the population and I think I have a better idea: Sterilize every child at birth. The problem of humanity will be permanently solved in a century or so.

You're plan is flawed on so many levels... I've always found that the poor, starving writer is a helluva lot smarter than the middle class factory worker or Paris Hilton and the like.

The rich and powerful elite love the poor masses and fear them at the same time. They love them because, were there no poor masses, there could be no righ and powerful elite, for who could you be rich and poserful over? They fear them, because, even though the poor and huddled masses do not realize it, they could rize up and crush the rich and powerful elite in short order... but they are so dumb and disorganized, they will never realize it.

bedub1 wrote:I'd prefer to get rid of the stupid ones, not the smart ones.

Careful there Dubby, you're arguing yourself into irrelevance.

Anyone who agrees with this idea without first seeing who will decide who's "stupid" should be the first down the plughole. Actually, that'd probably just about fix the problem. And a few others besides.
Second to gurgle down the drain would be anyone who'd allow bedub to decide.(Note this would get rid of bedub himself in a cunning move).

I've never been able to get into Darwinism. Hawkingism, DaVinciism, Euclidism... Those are all religions I can get behind. I mean, saying you study the work of those guys doesn't usually cause any problem, but as soon as I say I'm studying Darwin's work, it's inevitable that some Jesusist, or Popeist will pop in and try to talk to me about it. So, rather than deal with some superstitious followers of Mosesism, or what have you, I prefer to stay away from Darwinism.

Darwin's theory is a whole bunch of Uffda. I don't now where he got it from.

hecter wrote:You're plan is flawed on so many levels... I've always found that the poor, starving writer is a helluva lot smarter than the middle class factory worker or Paris Hilton and the like.

First, I admit I might be one of the first one's dead.
But I must ask, if that poor starving writer is so damn smart...why's he/she poor and starving? And paris hilton isn't smart...she's a dumb bitch.

JJM wrote:Darwin's theory is a whole bunch of Uffda. I don't now where he got it from.

Uff da.
Two words.

Simon Viavant wrote:

JJM wrote:Darwin's theory is a whole bunch of Uffda. I don't now where he got it from.

Uff da.
Two words.

Always nitpicking...

Simon Viavant wrote:

JJM wrote:Darwin's theory is a whole bunch of Uffda. I don't now where he got it from.

Uff da.
Two words.

No simon it is one word. I know me facts.

I know my facts, unless you are Irish, then me facts works.

The peroblem with that is stupid people are more usefull than you seem to think. They can be forced to work for the smart people and they can do all the jobs that other people wouldn't want to do. You are also going to have a lot of good smart people getting cought up just becasue they have bad luck or whatever, so they have to resort to crime, or they become homeless.

bedub1 wrote:

hecter wrote:You're plan is flawed on so many levels... I've always found that the poor, starving writer is a helluva lot smarter than the middle class factory worker or Paris Hilton and the like.

First, I admit I might be one of the first one's dead.
But I must ask, if that poor starving writer is so damn smart...why's he/she poor and starving? And paris hilton isn't smart...she's a dumb bitch.

I said she was a dumb bitch... A starving writer, smarter than factory worker or Paris Hilton.

Writers are often poor. That's just the way it is. Writers don't get paid much and it's hard for them to find work. Doesn't make them stupid though.

captainwalrus wrote:I know my facts, unless you are Irish, then me facts works.

The peroblem with that is stupid people are more usefull than you seem to think. They can be forced to work for the smart people and they can do all the jobs that other people wouldn't want to do. You are also going to have a lot of good smart people getting cought up just becasue they have bad luck or whatever, so they have to resort to crime, or they become homeless.

Uff da (can also be spelled uff-da, uffda, uff-dah, oofda, ufda, ufdah, oofta or ufta) is an exclamation of Norwegian origin that is relatively common in the Upper Midwestern states of the United States. It roughly means "drats," "oops!" or "ouch!", especially if the "ouch!" is an empathetic one. In Norwegian Midwestern USA culture, "Uff Da" translates into: "I am overwhelmed." It has become a mark of Scandinavian roots, particularly for people from North Dakota and Minnesota

Must suck to be simon... correcting someone that wasn't in error. Sorry simon... maybe if you weren't so busy stealing my avatar, you might have thought to look it up.

Anytime BES

JJM wrote:Darwin's theory is a whole bunch of Uffda. I don't now where he got it from.

I don't think you may of heard of it in North Dakota, but in the world there is a thing called "science". It's a rather beautiful thing, and has allowed the knowledge of humanity grow. Now, as for Charles Darwin, he went around on a boat (called the Beagle) and collected scientific evidence and evolved (haha) the theory of evolution of what we use as the basis today. Of course, scientists since Darwin have expanded his theory of evolution, but his evidence found throughout his travels and led us to know where he got it from.

Hope that helped. Now you can tell your friends in North Dakota to search throughout the world, and even the States, and find new and interesting things.

bedub1, the thread title should be "Social Darwinism," ala Herbert Spencer. This is a philosophy with a long and distinguished following. It won't do to attract the wrong kind of criticism, as Timminz and Skittles pointed out.

To any who disagree that stupid people are dangerous, I cite Carlos Cipolla's introductory work, The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity. He offers a powerful definition of a stupid person:

Carlo M. Cipolla wrote:A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

I strongly suggest reading the rest of his essay.

However, I disagree with bedub1's policy toward stupidity and crime. Robert J. Sawyer's 'solution' in his fictional series appeals much more. Suppose antisocial tendencies have a genetic component. If violent and (potentially) theft crimes carry the threat of castration (or sterilization for females) for anyone sharing 50% of the criminal's genes, that society will benefit in many ways. First, it acts as a deterrent - socially enforced by the families of potential criminals. Second, as males are overwhelmingly criminals, removing his testes reduce the hormonal component to his agression. Finally, removing the entire group from the gene pool is in accordance with the eugenic goals of social darwinism. This plan also removes the danger of invasion by more populous countries that abstain from overextending their death penalty.

Finally, most writers are not starving. That stereotype (and its social approval) stem from the sixties beatniks. Authors generally write as a private hobby whilst earning bread from another job (HP Lovecraft, Stephen Crane) until they establish a sufficient following (Stephen King, Tom Clancy).

Nzen wrote:

Carlo M. Cipolla wrote:A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

That all hinges on taking an extremely loose definition of 'gain' though, doesn't it?

For example, I know a great number of exceedingly clever people who spend several hours a week using various internet message-boards for nefarious purposes. They physically detriment themselves by wasting their time baiting imbeciles, abusing random strangers, and generally behaving in an ill-mannered fashion. The only thing that they cause is frustration and sadness.

However, nobody I have ever met would ever classify those people as 'stupid'. As such, the only way that we can reconcile such a state of affairs with your favoured definition is by stating that our subjects must be deriving some small amount of enjoyment from their activities, or else that their process of abusive procrastination is somehow a 'gain' to them.

However, to take such a definition of 'gain' is to destroy the usefulness of the original definition of 'stupid'... as we can happily justify almost any allegedly stupid act that you care to imagine as generating some loose form of (now, widely defined) 'gain'. A result which robs your proposed definition of all value before it has even got off the ground.

The only way to steel your advanced definition against such attacks is the substitute the word 'person' for 'act'... though even that would only serve as a minor a speed-bump to a similar line of act-considering reasoning.


In other words: I think that definition is demonstrably wrong.

Timminz wrote:I've never been able to get into Darwinism. Hawkingism, DaVinciism, Euclidism... Those are all religions I can get behind. I mean, saying you study the work of those guys doesn't usually cause any problem, but as soon as I say I'm studying Darwin's work, it's inevitable that some Jesusist, or Popeist will pop in and try to talk to me about it. So, rather than deal with some superstitious followers of Mosesism, or what have you, I prefer to stay away from Darwinism.

Oh no... I hope that's not a Jesusist over there... WAIT! IT IS! Oh noes... they will force their religious nonsense on me; better run to the ACLU.

Religion - the apparent reason for the lack of scientific progress in the United States. Don't let those priests burn you at the stake!

bedub1 wrote:Survival of the Fittest is a wonderful idea. The fact we are getting away from it is leading to the destruction of the planet, the human species, and many many other species on the planet. The main problem, is there are too many people on the planet. We need to get rid of lots and lots of them. I'd prefer to get rid of the stupid ones, not the smart ones. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, go watch the movie Idiocracy. My plan to get rid of the excess population is this:

All social programs will be cut. No more food for the poor, no more healthcare for the poor, no more anything for the poor. Let them die. Poor people are typically pretty stupid, so we don't need them. If you can't afford it, you can't have it.

Punishment for all crimes against other people will be death. You hit somebody, you die. You rape somebody, you die. You run over a kid, you die. You hit your wife, you die. You smoke pot, nobody cares, because you haven't hurt anybody. If you steal from me, you die. This will make the world a more polite place, as people that are pieces of shit, will die.

I figure this will get rid of a good 30% of the population. Now that there are fewer people, global warming will be pretty much solved, we won't cut down as many trees, etc etc etc. Plus the world is smarter now, so we won't be so stupid with our actions...

But seriously, go watch Idiocracy. It's a great movie, and is already coming true. We must stop this decline immediately.

You are stupid.

Dancing Mustard wrote:
For example, I know a great number of exceedingly clever people who spend several hours a week using various internet message-boards for nefarious purposes. They physically detriment themselves by wasting their time baiting imbeciles, abusing random strangers, and generally behaving in an ill-mannered fashion. The only thing that they cause is frustration and sadness.

You're just making that up. Nobody would do that.

jonesthecurl wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:
For example, I know a great number of exceedingly clever people who spend several hours a week using various internet message-boards for nefarious purposes. They physically detriment themselves by wasting their time baiting imbeciles, abusing random strangers, and generally behaving in an ill-mannered fashion. The only thing that they cause is frustration and sadness.

You're just making that up. Nobody would do that.

Isn't it so frustrating when people do that? it makes me sad. Who are these exceedingly clever people?

bedub1 wrote:Survival of the Fittest is a wonderful idea. The fact we are getting away from it is leading to the destruction of the planet, the human species, and many many other species on the planet. The main problem, is there are too many people on the planet. We need to get rid of lots and lots of them. I'd prefer to get rid of the stupid ones, not the smart ones. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, go watch the movie Idiocracy. My plan to get rid of the excess population is this:

All social programs will be cut. No more food for the poor, no more healthcare for the poor, no more anything for the poor. Let them die. Poor people are typically pretty stupid, so we don't need them. If you can't afford it, you can't have it.

Punishment for all crimes against other people will be death. You hit somebody, you die. You rape somebody, you die. You run over a kid, you die. You hit your wife, you die. You smoke pot, nobody cares, because you haven't hurt anybody. If you steal from me, you die. This will make the world a more polite place, as people that are pieces of shit, will die.

I figure this will get rid of a good 30% of the population. Now that there are fewer people, global warming will be pretty much solved, we won't cut down as many trees, etc etc etc. Plus the world is smarter now, so we won't be so stupid with our actions...

But seriously, go watch Idiocracy. It's a great movie, and is already coming true. We must stop this decline immediately.

First of all, as Skittles and Nzen pointed out, Charles Darwin did not create the theory of Social Darwinism. Darwinism itself is a scientific theory based on natural selection (survival of the fittest) and evolution, applied to animals up to the point when humans evolved, and as humans and other animals continue to evolve as species.

Social Darwinism, on the other hand, was the excuse given by many Europeans for their oppression of people in Asia and Africa during the late 1800s. They essentially claimed that white people dominated because of "survival of the fittest" even though it was because they exploited other people. They knew that they were oppressing people, but had to justify it. They were convinced that they were further evolved than people in Africa and Asia, giving them supreme rights over everyone else. Charles Darwin did not create the theory, nor did he support it.

As a side note, the Darwin Awards are awards "given" to people who did something extravagant or otherwise judged to be idiotic, and died as a result. They are called the Darwin Awards because we are commending them for successfully removing themselves from the gene pool. In case anyone thought we were discussing that.

Finally, the idea that all or most poor people are stupid is condemnable. Poor people know much more about the real world than you or I. They see what really happens, and occasionally obtain the means to show sheltered people like us things about the world. They are first hand witnesses to oppression, murder, disease, and they suffer through that often at our expense. Someone has to lose. That in itself is terrible. The thought to kill those who suffer most and survive, for no legitimate purpose (as presented) is downright obscene. Overpopulation is a problem. I admit to that. The murder of anyone at all is no solution.

Does natural selection include the premise that one needs to experience adversity to grow? In other words, if I sit at a desk all day and type, am I less likely to develop the necessary abilities/strength/endurance to survive in, let's say, the Saharan desert?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I would think people living in poverty are more likely to be better evolved (in a natural selection sense) than, say, Donald Trump (not to pick on the Don).

Am I anywhere close to being on track here?