I don't know about anyone else, but here in America, there's a lot of legislation/policies refined and made so much so that they are nearly idiot proof, essentially hurting the whole by dragging the rest down. At the very least it's an annoyance. What i'm asking is, do we have a moral responsibility to protect those who are not smart enough to not spill hot coffee on themselves, and if they do blame it on the person who served it to them for not having a "Warning: Drink may be hot" sign on them? Do we really need to keep those people around? I do not mean that we get rid of them, that would be monsterous, but should we as a community paste warning signs all over the place, spend loads of extra time idiot proofing, for people who are not smart enough to realize that standing up in a roller coaster MIGHT be a bad idea? Should we let it be survival of the fittest, where the stupid die off and the smart live long?
The bums of the society drag the whole down, and true, there are legitimate people just down on their luck, but many are those who are un-educated because they were too stupid and dropped out, druggies or other people with vices, and they just drain everyone. However, when you have people who are so unintelligent that they cannot reason the simplest things out, should we just let them be, and if harm comes to them because of a self inflicted injury, not be responsible as a whole? If you don't wear a seatbelt when you drive and you die, it's not the governments fault, it's the driver's, but yet, we now have laws in place that you are fined for not wearing one because people are too stupid to do so. Would it not be better for society to just let those die off? Less people to support, more self-efficient people, less time expenditure to ensure the safety of the whole, and an entire slew of other problems, gone, just by letting stupid people be stupid.
A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.
It isn't fully clear if "deep tissue damage" is a 3rd degree burn or just a 2nd degree because i find it hard to believe that there could be a 20 difference in their research.
I say we get rid of all common sense warning labels, like the hot coffee and don't turn carseet upside down with a baby in it with the seatbelt unbuckled labels, and let natural selection take course. The important ones, like allergy information and hospital radiation lines, should stay.
The amount of protection towards babies is appalling. doesn't the world have a big enough population? at this rate the Grim Reaper will go out of the job.
We have legal system which caters to idiots but it's all so tangled up upon itself that you can't really make such a radical change. i think that in school there should be just a common sense test and if someone is so stupid they don't pass it then they get help.
If we protect idiots we'll become the stupid ones. Intelligence is bred as easily for humans as it is for animals. Survival of the fittest is what made humanity brilliant enough to get where we are. An utter mess.
Humans consider themselves intelligent and brilliant beings worth recognition because they have so much wealth in things like technology, medicine etc. But they aren't. Almost every idea is inspired from something else. Our ancestors were the brilliant ones, (a small few of them) because they did all the hard work.
Modern society in most cultures is like a teenager giving the middle finger to a medal wining WW2 veteran. It really is. My school is full of self cetered detestable people.
If I were any kind of- lets say god, and I had to choose a permanent fate for the main species on it, those choices being: Survival of the fittest and smartest, or how it is now. I'd choose survival of the fittest. No question. Some aspects of life may be grimmer, but it would actually make us a more powerful species physically and mentally.
Did you know that there was a time period on earth where humanity was only a few thousand, but they co existed peacfully harmlessly and happily? Fighting barely happened. We concentrated on adapting and surviving to make ourselves content and happy. ------------------------------------------------------------------ We should all live live to whatever we think is the fullest. Don't let anyone tell you what it is. Live it how you think you should, and think every decision through. Just because someone says, say, something or other is terrible. Don't believe it, Find out for yourself. Explore.
i believe that we should stop all the stupid signs it's true that we need some way of "cleaning"(don't like this world makes me sound like a nazi) our gene pool. BUT stupidness isn't something you recieve when your born (assuming we are not talking about mental ilness) it's a thing you get from living or it's a lack of common sense, and common sense is gained trough learning or experience(fact). so in conclusion there should be a common sense lesson with a test and grading system and those who are failing should go to summer camps and learn who to live (dude im diying of laughter x) )
I don't excatly know what kind of idiots do you mean. The mentally challenged, the delinquent bums, the elementary school brats and teenagers...please clarify.
Well thank you so much for taking your time to read the thread. I pretty much went over all of that on page 2.
Idiots take to much space on our planet. they cannot be cured and thus should be isolated or left to rot.
I do agree, the world is beggining to become overpopulated, and in general just in the way. By protecting them, we are just harming the whole.
I think the question you should be asking is not should we tolerate idiots, but why do we have so many idiots in the first place. Since society isn't willing to go all Nazi on them, it seems your only humane, and in my view logical, response would be to educate young women not to have babies early. Let me explain. The vast proportion of idiots are members of the underclass, who were born into families with parent(s) who place little to no value on education and therefore an idiot cycle occurs. In addition, poorer families tend to have far more children than richer ones, exaggerating the effects of this idiocy on society.
So yea, give young poor women an alternative life to having as many children as they can to maximise their welfare cheque and the problem is halfway solved.
I hope I don't sound too snobby about this issue, for the record I am a social liberal with a small 's' and 'l'.
Humanity is structured this way, huge masses of idiots work hard to maintain the society waiting for it to generate a genius that will make it advance, so without a solid idiot base, the society won't generate any genius. Actually this the structure of life in general here on the earth. Just think about how evolution works. Masses of normal animals live their meaningless life waiting for an individual to be born with a successful genetic mutation. And this also explain why monarchy is the most obvious government form. Yeah, it's sad. But it's life. (literally)
Humanity is structured this way, huge masses of idiots work hard to maintain the society waiting for it to generate a genius that will make it advance, so without a solid idiot base, the society won't generate any genius.
True this would leave a gap in the manual labor department, but we're advancing technologically quite fast, many things are becoming automated. I wouldn't put it past society to have some completely, or mostly, autonomous system to handle manual labor by the end of this century, really the main opposition to this would be the labor unions.
Actually this the structure of life in general here on the earth. Just think about how evolution works. Masses of normal animals live their meaningless life waiting for an individual to be born with a successful genetic mutation.
You want to good traits to survive, and intelligence is largely influenced by genetics. Breeding masses of idiots is detrimental to society's progression, although it does improve the chances of species survival as a whole.
To be brutally honest, we could, if society were willing, eliminate all extremely harmful genetic disorders by disallowing those with them to reproduce, and largely reduce the amount of AIDs/HIV infected portion of the population by prohibiting them from sexual activity or by using a condom or something...many things could be eliminated completely by the end of the century if it was deemed necessary, however that leads to things like what happened with the Nazis, superiority and war/conflict.
And this also explain why monarchy is the most obvious government form.
Monarchy-ish types of government with sub-rulers actually I think would be the most ideal government, except for that power corrupts, you'd need to have the smartest person as the ruler, and it couldn't be passed on to decendents unless they were coincidentally the most qualified person after the current ruler dies. There are many things that would be ideal, but are not possible due to the masses/idiots/psychotic out there that would be opposed to it.
I'm going to go searching for some figures on how many people in the world are below the average IQ by at least 1 standard deviation and how many people suffer from mental retardation and such.
Little correction, by idiots I was meaning the perfect average person who nobody would notice if they would disappear. If you mean people who actually have an under average intelligence yes, removing them wouldn't make any bad effect either in a natural or human society, but they should be a minority anyway. (and no, I'm not a nazi, I'm just speculating)
