Why does society need people with an IQ under 120?

[kananaskis]

I am discontented because of the mediocrity and feebleness that I see, and I think that the implementation of soft-hearted humanism is helping to preserve and perpetuate the inferior. Man is a monolithic block of stone in need of chiselling. Only a fool thinks that the preservation of human defectiveness is "progress." It is not a going beyond, it is a staying put. To a large degree, we use our technology to tread water. Human life is not special. Each one of us can have our place in society replaced. Emotional and moral arguments are for the weak, religious secular humanists. Killing a human is no different than killing a cow, a cockroach or a fish.

I don't see a reason to keep stupid, criminal, perverse, and mean people around. I think we should act and breed toward a higher level, and if this means extermination of 90% of humanity, well, who cares? The end result will be better, and those people will be happier than the masses of breeding idiots ever will. The lives of the dumb and miserable have been made worse by their own machinations, as they have made all other lives worse, so their future is not a great one anyway. But there's a bigger point here.

A species that keeps moving forward includes individuals who are not obsessed with themselves and are aware of their own small role in the universe. This is realistic. Even more, since it is aiming toward a higher goal, they are never without challenges that present a sense of achievement when even partially fulfilled, and there is a sense to the entire society of purpose. In contrast, a society which worries too much about its lowest members feeling equal has chained itself to an anchor from which no progress in quality can come, although political "progress" is assured and will do nothing but further adulterate its hope of growth. We depress ourselves with this anchor, and the people we use as the anchor do not have a great time of it either. So why do it?

We do it from the pretense that we are "helping" them, but as numerous thinkers have suggested, our actual motivation is to make ourselves feel important and higher. This is fighting over details, since whatever higher we have now can be improved upon, as can whatever lower we have. This is true in any age. A time of humans with 200 IQ points average, seven-foot tall bodies of rippling muscle, and a newly supermannish clearsighted character can still improve, even if only working on teeth that never cavitize. We must always be improving, or in stagnation, we self-cannibalize.

Which leads us back to the IQ question: If all people under 120 IQ points died today, would life be better or worse?

The answer is that only a few people here will seriously considered the question.

The rest of you didn't want to face it, and you invented lots of lies about how it's necessary to have people cleaning toilets or how immoral it was.

The real reason?

You like having people under you. It makes you feel as if your own status is that much more important. You like having someone to make fun of because they're proof that you're smarter, sexier, hipper, etc.