The question of personhood/humanity

[Anonymous No.1940437]

Why do we draw the line at the species boundary? Most of the great works of humanity which distinguish us from other apes are the product of a minority of especially bright humans. The rest are unintelligent, usually with no real talent and spend their lives as cogs in the economic machine. Of course they're useful, no argument there though many spend considerable resources combating efforts by the brightest few to improve our condition. But are they humans? If you go down the checklist of the properties which distinguish us from, say, chimps, how well do most fare?

I believe that the line of demarcation between human and nonhuman should be drawn *within* the species, perhaps around IQ 85-90 or so as confirmed by several tests using different metrics so as to obtain as accurate a result as possible. Testing would occur first at 5, then at 10, then again at 15 and finally once more at 20. The data gleaned from these tests should dictate whether or not that person qualifies as human and, accordingly, what rights they are to be afforded.

Pic related, an example of a nonhuman under this system.

[Anonymous No.1940446]

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Who was always there? God? Or the scientists?

"God"

Good, and I want you to remember that.

[Anonymous No.1940445]

RichardDawkinsrapesreligiousnut.gif

[Anonymous No.1940471]

>>1940437
IQ is a poor measure of intelligence. Also, elitist fag detected.

[Anonymous No.1940480]

>>1940437
Why should we do this?

My counter reply is that it's too open to abuse by other humans, deciding who does and does not have rights. It's simpler to just put the cut-off line at human species, with the rest of the decently smart animals in guardianship of us.

[Anonymous No.1940487]

>>1940471

>>IQ is a poor measure of intelligence

So what? I'm aware it's imprecise, that's why I set the bar so low. It allows for a sizable margin of error such that nobody who shouldn't be classified as a nonhuman will be, though a few nonhumans will squeak by and retain their rights.

>>Also, elitist fag detected.

What's wrong with favoring the elite?

[Anonymous No.1940498]

>The question of personhood/humanity
>Why do we draw the line at the species boundary?

[Anonymous No.1940534]

Who is the guy in OP's picture? Is the the guy who does the creationism speeches to children?

[The Jew: Aether !uipCI.PwdY No.1940536]

IQ is measured through oneist knowledge, literally, it's a oneist measurement.

You're not intelligent through oneist knowledge, you'd require cubic wisdom to be the pinnacle of intelligence. However, in modern society there is no place for a Cubician, yet.

Therefore your plan is invalid and badly constructed:

1. You're egotistical and not pure human, therefore you aren't in any position to claim who is human and who is not, for you're not human yourself.

2. If a true separation was to occur, then you would be in the latter group of non-humans.

3. A chimp is more intelligent and more wise than you.

4. Bright would mean you were 'enlightened', you're obviously no enlightened, so you're dim (by nature).

5. How ya feelin?

[Anonymous No.1940541]

>>1940534

>>Who is the guy in OP's picture? Is the the guy who does the creationism speeches to children?

Ayup.

[Anonymous No.1940543]

>>1940536
So many fallacies, so little time. We have "No true scottsman" paradox. Blatant falsehoods. Invented and bogus terms. Etc.

It's not just you are stupid though. OP is stupid too.

[Anonymous No.1940548]

>>1940541
That is fucking child abuse and should be illegal.

[Anonymous No.1940549]

>>1940543

>> OP is stupid too.

OP here. We may disagree on this one issue but it should be obvious that I'm not a stupid person.

[Anonymous No.1940574]

>>1940549
I think you underestimate the abuse of this system which would occur, and the pain and suffering that it would cause. Thus I think you're stupid.

[The Jew: Aether !uipCI.PwdY No.1940576]

I'ma make a thread specifically for you 'intelligent egotistical' people.

Also, give me the low down on the 'worshippers of Satan' rules, I'm yet to find out. If I remember correctly, Snape killed Dumbledoor.

[Anonymous No.1940577]

The standard reply to every eugenicist has always been some attempt to imply that they wouldn't qualify for humanity or reproduction rights under their own suggested system.

It doesn't matter whether it's accurate or not. The eugenecist (and I use the term in the most general sense, as someone who promotes genetic improvement, not necessarily the historical systems devised to do so) may be the fittest, smartest person in the room and still critics will struggle to find fault with him as if that somehow invalidates his worldview.

So let's say I'm a nonhuman by my own metric. Of course I'm not, but you relish the idea and want it to be true, so let's run with it. So what? Am I supposed to oppose the improvement of humankind because it would be bad news for me, as an individual? I'm not that selfish. Critics of eugenics usually are.

If separating humanity into superiors and inferiors means I would be condemned as an inferior, I would still support it, because I think it's wise and necessary. I'm not more important than the species and neither are you.

[Anonymous No.1940591]

>>1940437
Old.
>>1940536
>Aether
>>1940577
Old.

You need to try /new/. At least they'll bite.

[Anonymous No.1940593]

>>1940574

>>I think you underestimate the abuse of this system which would occur, and the pain and suffering that it would cause. Thus I think you're stupid.

It's possible to be wrong about something without being a generally stupid person. Were you not aware of this? Have you never been wrong? And if you have, does it mean you're a stupid person?

I'm willing to allow for the possibility that I'm wrong about this. I don't think I am, but I'm not so committed to the idea that I can't imagine it's a bad one.

Even so, I don't think your criticism is a valid one. Provided the testing process and results are very strictly scrutinized and done transparently, there can be as much abuse after that point as you like and it won't matter, as those being abused would be nonhumans. It doesn't especially matter what happens to them, does it?

[Anonymous No.1940610]

Mankind differs from the animals only by a little, and most people throw that away.
--Confucius

[Anonymous No.1940612]

>>1940437
While I agree with your reasoning, I believe you need a better metric to determine personhood. If personhood is largely knowledge based then there shouldn't be a cutoff age for becoming a person. At whatever point you can demonstrate certain abilities that's the point you gain full rights as a person. Some people may at 12, others at 40, others never.

I don't believe we should be cruel to nonperson-humans, but I don't believe in cruelty to any animals.

[Anonymous No.1940621]

Believe it or not, not everyone gives a shit about the advancement of humanity. Most people just care about themselves, and here's the shocker, that's fine. There is no objective reason to put human advancement over individual rights, other than that you happen to feel that it's important. Well guess what, the vast majority of people disagree, and mass social belief dictates policy.

TLDR; The philosophical basis of your "plan" is just an opinion, and there is no reason anyone has should feel the need to follow it at their own expense.

[OP No.1940622]

>>1940612

>>While I agree with your reasoning, I believe you need a better metric to determine personhood. If personhood is largely knowledge based then there shouldn't be a cutoff age for becoming a person. At whatever point you can demonstrate certain abilities that's the point you gain full rights as a person. Some people may at 12, others at 40, others never.

Excellent point.

>>I don't believe we should be cruel to nonperson-humans, but I don't believe in cruelty to any animals.

I don't think we should go out of our way to harm them, but the penalty for harming them should be no greater than the penalty for harming a wild chimp or something similar.

[Anonymous No.1940625]

>>1940549 it should be obvious that I'm not a stupid person.

You have not said anything to lead us to conclude you are not a stupid person, but your intelligence level does not directly address the truth value of the premise.

[OP No.1940626]

>>1940621

>>Well guess what, the vast majority of people disagree

I'd like to see a citation please.

[Anonymous No.1940649]

>>1940577
Yes. I am not a social Darwinist. Social Darwinist is evil. Such a fucker.

[OP No.1940652]

>>1940625

>>You have not said anything to lead us to conclude you are not a stupid person

I express ideas clearly and in a structured manner. You may disagree with the original proposal, but an impartial observer would conclude that I'm obviously not stupid.

All I've proposed is that we use an alternative set of qualifiers for personhood. It's not as if I've invented the concept of personhood, or as if I'm the first to suggest that there's such a thing as a nonperson. I'm just arguing that the bar has been set too low, and that most human beings alive today are human only in the genetic sense.

[Anonymous No.1940663]

>>1940626
I would disagree because few if any nations hold it as policy. Unless you're implying that most people actually feel the same way you do, but are too embarrassed to speak their minds or make any pronounced move towards bringing their world view to realization. I think we both know this is not the case, but if you want to hold on to that, then so be it.

[OP No.1940672]

>>1940663

>>I would disagree because few if any nations hold it as policy.

Human advancement isn't a part of any nation's policy?

>>Unless you're implying that most people actually feel the same way you do, but are too embarrassed to speak their minds or make any pronounced move towards bringing their world view to realization. I think we both know this is not the case, but if you want to hold on to that, then so be it.

I think most are concerned with human advancement, yes. We are not driven purely by selfish motives. That's an unrealistically cynical view of humanity.

[Founding father constitutionalist No.1940683]

>>1940672
>Human advancement isn't a part of any nation's policy?
I hope not. The goal of a society should not be some nebulous "advancement of the society", aka social darwinism. The goal of any moral society is the "well being" of its /actual/, /current/, individual members, not some hypothetical future members. Huge difference there bro.

[Anonymous No.1940693]

>>1940593
First problem: things change. Maybe in post-apocalyptic Neo New York, having retard strength is a bonus to fight out mutant rats. So eugenics will deprive us of our mightiest warriors.

To emphasize it, there is NO WAY the best test our limited intelligence can create can englobe every possible variation of a successful human, and sort the good from the bad.

Your basically a Christian, harping on about heaven or hell and angels or Ubermensch,

Minus the happy love, of course.

[EK No.1940696]

>>1940446
damn i hate the guy in OP's pic, and that quote makes my skin crawl.
anyway, OP, so you intend to rewrite the definition of what 'human' is?
pointless.
so what rights would 'non humans' have under your system. erm..ive not lurked yet, so..yeh this might be answered lower down.. i'll read the thread now.

[Anonymous No.1940704]

>>1940672
Human advancement? Arguably. Human Advancement at any cost, specifically the one you mentioned? No. Once again, we both know this.

Yes, most people would like for humanity to advance, but not at the expense of their rights, the rights of others they know, their moral values, or in the cases of some, the rights of anyone at all.

I have no inherent intellectual objections to your system as such, but trying to argue that the majority of humanity agrees with you is just stupid.

[OP No.1940707]

>>1940683

>>I hope not. The goal of a society should not be some nebulous "advancement of the society", aka social darwinism.

It should be though, and it was up until the late 1970s when our eugenics program was finally shut down due to public outcry.

>>The goal of any moral society is the "well being" of its /actual/, /current/, individual members, not some hypothetical future members.

Why, then, are we concerned about climate change?

[Anonymous No.1940715]

>people arguing about morality
Morality doesn't exist. Nothing can be "good" or "bad". It just happens. There's no magical "good and evil" shit.

[Founding father constitutionalist No.1940724]

>>1940707
Because that will hurt us now and our children. Also we're not dicks. The difference is people who /will/ exist vs the hypothetical people that we /want/ to exist. I'm for protecting people, not making people "better".

[OP No.1940721]

>>1940693

>>To emphasize it, there is NO WAY the best test our limited intelligence can create can englobe every possible variation of a successful human, and sort the good from the bad.

That would be true if we used an averaged set of several successful survival strategies. But we don't. Evolutionarily we've put all of our eggs in one basket, intelligence. We're not especially strong, or fast, or resilient. But we are smart, and that's proven over millions of years to be the most advantageous trait.

>>Your basically a Christian, harping on about heaven or hell and angels or Ubermensch,

False equivocation. Also, you forgot the apostrophe.

[OP No.1940739]

>>1940704

>>I have no inherent intellectual objections to your system as such, but trying to argue that the majority of humanity agrees with you is just stupid.

That's something my opponent argued, actually. I was inadvertently shepherded into defensively claiming that most people are on some level concerned with the future wellbeing of the species. Stripped of any specificity, that's absolutely true.

[OP No.1940755]

>>1940724

>>Because that will hurt us now and our children

Nope.

>>Also we're not dicks. The difference is people who /will/ exist vs the hypothetical people that we /want/ to exist. I'm for protecting people, not making people "better".

I've at least driven a concession out of you and pushed you back from your original claim, though of course you won't acknowledge that's what has happened.

Bottom line; we do, in fact, care about future generations and want what's best for humanity. The system I propose advances this cause.

[Anonymous No.1940772]

>>1940715

Can I just kill you without any reprecussions then?
:)

[Founding father constitutionalist No.1940775]

>>1940755
You care about making people "better". I care about making people "happier". That's the difference. I don't care about making people twice as smart if that hurts people.

[EK No.1940783]

>Morality doesn't exist
morality DOES exist, but its subjective. i think what you mean is that no objective good and evil exists.

[Anonymous No.1940789]

>>1940772
No. I will try to stop you, because I'm genetically predisposed to desire survival. The herd will want to punish you, because they are genetically predisposed (most of them) to hate the murder of another member of the tribe.

[OP No.1940796]

>>1940775

>>You care about making people "better". I care about making people "happier". That's the difference. I don't care about making people twice as smart if that hurts people.

Why are people unhappy? Name the most pressing issues today, in your opinion. Let's see how closely related they are to stupidity.

[Anonymous No.1940801]

>>1940783
So it's arbitrary and meaningless? One culture will believe one thing is evil and another will believe the same is good. There is no objective authorities on which to base morality. Morality is just an idea made because we are herd animals.

[EK No.1940814]

>>1940724
>I'm for protecting people, not making people "better".
can't you do both? genetic engineering to make people better, and then when they are born, protect them and keep them happy? best of both worlds, yes?

[Founding father constitutionalist No.1940811]

>>1940796
So, now the ends justify the means too.

[Anonymous No.1940813]

>>1940739
Fair. Allow me to restatement (rewrite) my position in more specific terms.

Believe it or not, not everyone is willing to pay the same price as you for the improvement of humanity. Most people just care about themselves, and here's the shocker, that's fine. For the less selfish, there are still many personal and moral objections to your system. There is no objective reason to put human advancement over individual rights, other than that you happen to feel that it's important. Well guess what, the vast majority of people disagree, and mass social belief dictates policy.

[Founding father constitutionalist No.1940830]

>>1940813
Almost no one thinks it's a moral goal to make people smarter. Most people are not social Darwinists.

[Anonymous No.1940827]

>>1940721
Immune systems aren't a subset of intelligence?

Do you know what happens when you only plant 1 species of tree? A bug that can eat it goes batshit crazy and starts a mass plague.

Now you want some sort of "intelligence" to be maximized. Suppose you only want math smart people in the world, and they can solve any and all math problems.

Not all problems are math problems. Now suppose you need chemist or biology fags who can remember words and have good lab skills. We don't have those guys anymore.

Replace chemist with job X and you have a world where the best person for a job not only doesn't exist... he will never exist!

And, yes, you are a Christian. The bible thumping, start World war 3 now so Jesus can get here faster kind. Replace bible with math tests (or whatever) and the apocalypse with genetic midterms and finals.

[EK No.1940831]

>>1940801
no, morality is evolved, we dont have our morals by chance, and it is pretty much the same for everyone with not much variation. for example, almost everyone feels murder is wrong, because a society where everybody murders everybody else is not stable.
theres sort of an unspoken 'agreement' with the rest of humanity, for us not to cause each otehr suffering, so that we ourselves ar eless likely to endure suffering at the hands of another human. obviously you CAN break this...but what comes around goes around...

[Anonymous No.1940837]

>>1940831
I know that. That's the point I was trying to make. We have this because it helps us survive. But to some species it's perfectly okay to kill another of the same species. There is no real morality. Nothing is fucking good or evil.
>what comes around goes around
Superstitious nonsense.

[Anonymous No.1940840]

>>1940830
I'm not sure if you were trying to contradict my points, but your statement was in full alignment with them.

[EK No.1940844]

>>1940827
yes but intelligent people tend to be good at many things, thats what intelligence is. those people good at maths are likely to be good at science as well.

[Founding father constitutionalist No.1940855]

>>1940840
Social Darwinism = "improving humanity". Most people are not social Darwinists.

[EK No.1940862]

>>1940837
>superstitious nonsense

no im not superstitious, im a rationalist. i meant that because of people morality they will punish transgressors. you would go to prison for murder, for example.

[Founding father constitutionalist No.1940863]

>>1940844
No. It's not. Please learn some neuro science.

[Anonymous No.1940867]

>>1940831because a society where everybody murders everybody else is not stable.

That's why it's difficult emotionally to murder someone you consider a human, but if you lump them into the group of "not human" it's very easy to murder them.

>>1940844

Your example only works because science requires math. There are plenty of skills in which being good at math doesn't determine success.

[EK No.1940886]

>>1940863
i don't need neuroscience to know the basics of how intelligence works. even my own past experiences are enough.
At school for example, all the 'geeks' the clever people, were good at all the subjects, the people go got A*'s got A*'s in most subjects, and still high grades in the rest. the chavs and bullies got consistently low grades, in everything. this is not a coincidence. if you were correct, and intelligence has to be in a specific thing, and people cant be 'jack of all trades' and intelligent at everything then you would predict A*'s (or high grades in general) to be scattered uniformly amongst individuals and amongst students. but this isnt what happens, intelligent people are intelligent at a wide variety of subjects, and stupid people fail at the same wide variety of subjects.

[Founding father constitutionalist No.1940894]

>>1940886
There is a middle ground. It's not black at white. Obviously pattern matching is a very useful skill, and some people tend to do either very well at school or not well at school. That is not proof that being apt at all things is split across on the population on a single measured dimension.

[Anonymous No.1940897]

>>1940862
How the fuck does this prove morality? We've evolved to hate murder.

[Founding Chairman Revolutionist No.1940899]

>>1940830
>Almost no one thinks it's a moral goal to make people smarter
at least no in the expense of less intelligent people

birthright elitism is so 1700's

[Founding father constitutionalist No.1940903]

>>1940894
>black or white
fixed

[Anonymous No.1940906]

>>1940855
Yes, perhaps (perhaps) I'm being stupid, but I fail to see how this contradicts anything

[EK No.1940909]

>>1940867
yeh murdering members of the 'outgroup' is not morally difficult at all, humans used to live in clans and tribes in the past, and wage war on one another. But we have a strong moral sense not to murder people we know, people we live amongst, or people who are related to us, for evolutionary reasons.
>There are plenty of skills in which being good at math doesn't determine success.
but being good at maths doesn't detract from this other ability, yes? you might be able to do the other task perfectly well also,

[Anonymous No.1940916]

>>1940886
>the chavs and bullies got consistently low grades, in everything. this is not a coincidence
as getting laid more often than geeks was not coincidence either

how does that make you feel?

[The Jew: Aether !uipCI.PwdY No.1940920]

Chavs + Bullies = Queers

[EK No.1940935]

>>1940897
>How the fuck does this prove morality?
I wasn't trying to 'prove morality' morality is real though, it is just peoples opinion on what is right and what is wrong, so its not something we need to prove.

[Anonymous No.1940931]

Above 85 IQ kills below 85 IQ. How long until above 100 IQ think about killing below 100 IQ? . . . where does it end?

How about we all go on a field and 50% are allowed to leave the field alive?

In fact, in history it has always been the fittest and/or the most intelligent that survive. I suspect it will remain so for quite some time. After all, those in the 98th percentile of intelligence have 98% of the population who wish to remain on earth. The same can be said for the most fit. If you're a dumb slob, your're depending on society to sustain you.

[Anonymous No.1940932]

>>1940920
sex = gay

oh ether you so crazy

[Anonymous No.1940943]

>>1940935
My point is that these opinions are meaningless. People who say something is evil or good have no logical basis for this assertion. There is no morality. Nothing is objectively good or evil.

[Founding father constitutionalist No.1940951]

>>1940943
"Morality does not exist" is different than "There is no objective morality".

[Anonymous No.1940953]

>>1940943
>My point is that these opinions are meaningless.
so is yours

have a nice day

[EK No.1940960]

>>1940916
hah! no, this wasn't actually the case as far as i remember... it might be generally... but no, i think they got laid pretty much equally as often, but the geeks stuck with the geeks and the chavs stuck with the chavs, they didnt mix much.

[Anonymous No.1940968]

>>1940960
>i used to fuck hideously fat girls with acne
good for you bro

[EK No.1940991]

>>1940968
1. im a girl
2. i find the geeks to be far more attractive than the chavs, of both genders (inb4 lesbian/bi, i can tell if a girl is attractive without wanting to sleep with her myself)
3. the geeks didnt have acne, they tend to have better personal hygiene than the chavs, and therefore had better complection.

[Anonymous No.1940997]

>>1940960
You'd be a fan of "The Bell Curve." It makes the same argument, that intelligent people marry intelligent people due to grouping by test scores and scholarships. Usually an offspring from an intelligent couple would regress towards the mean. However, enough generations have been "sorted" that intelligent people tend to have more intelligent children. No different than breeding dogs for a certain trait.

[EK No.1941004]

>>1940968
4. the geeks wern't fat either...on the whole, or definitely no fatter than the chav crowd... intelligent people (geeks) tend to have far more value for good nutrition and balanced diets than morons do.

[EK No.1941017]

>>1940997

yeh, it was kinda wierd back at school, the division between geeks and chavs was really clear..there was like no mixing whatsoever.
chavs tended to lose virginities earlier i think..and were quite promiscous and on/off with relationships etc, and then a bit later after that all the geeks pretty much paired off with other geeks, in what must have been just a few months.

[Anonymous No.1941018]

>The data gleaned from these tests should dictate whether or not that person qualifies as human and, accordingly, what rights they are to be afforded.

All it takes is an elite to lead a rebellion. Enjoy being struck down by righteous fury.

[Anonymous No.1941031]

>Suddenly, youtube atheists
and I've never heard the term chav before.

[Anonymous No.1941040]

>we are superior to them
yet if "them" manages to overcome "we" by preventing this system from being implemented, then "them" is superior to "we"

[EK No.1941051]

>>1941031
>chav
pikey, scally, ruffian, scum of the earth, lout, thick cunt, take your pick.

[Anonymous No.1941069]

>>1941017
Yeah, but at the high school level, geeks group because they are ostracized by their class. Post high school, they are grouped because of intelligence. They become the "norm" and socialize with their peers. MIT or Harvard students marry MIT or Harvard students. Extrapolate this for 100 years and you'll get a "breed" of intelligent humans. Their children will be more intelligent in general.

Again, breed for a dog with long ears, it only takes a few generations until most offspring have long ears. For humans, breed for intelligence and it will only take a few generations . . .

[Anonymous No.1941077]

>>1940844
What is this intelligence? Reading faster and remembering or understanding what's between the lines? Adding numbers fast or doing algebra?

But you say "intelligence" like some magic bag everything goes into. It comes down to solving problems and THERE IS NO WAY you can predict every situation and problem, and create an Ubermencsh who can deal with them.

NO possible test can be created to measure intelligence to a point where you can say: "Ah-ha! If everyone is smart like THIS we will be awesome!"

You basically want a society of clones. All perfect at being perfect... give or take an INFINITE amount of situations where they aren't perfect!

[EK No.1941097]

>>1941077
intelligence isnt just about solving problems. you can be intelligent at anything that is to do with any form of thinking. intelligent people are creative, they are artists, musicians etc.
>You basically want a society of clones. All perfect at being perfect
don't tell me what i want, you don't know me. i wouldn't want everyone to be the same, i would prefer for the human race to be, on average, as intelligent as it can be, and who wouldnt? because we cant los from this situation, only gain. i still want there to be variation.

[Anonymous No.1941101]

Really? Again?

[Anonymous No.1941108]

ITT: OP wants to get away with raping "non human" little girls.

[Anonymous No.1941159]

>>1941108
what law would be broken if one purchased a primate and treated it in such a manner?
this is a path we are on.
early recognition of it will occure to those on the higher side of the equation.
i see h.g. wells as having hit the mark pretty accuratly as to how it will eventually play out

[Anonymous No.1941187]

Eugenics in form of intelligence shaping is pretty stupid, if you rely on "natural" sexual breeding. History of life told us there are so many unknown factors, which could wipe out even the biggest population, when there aren't enough adapted individuals. Therefore the genetical pool of information that your non-human class wields is essential for a) the survival of the species and b) for transfering those traits on you "human" class via genetical enhancement.

Please always keep this in mind, when talking about Darwinism. And no a databank of 6billion of the genetical information of members of the human race at this exact time isn't sufficent to be capable to survive any predictable or unpredictable catastrophe (also including mass infertility) in the next 10 thousand years.

[OP No.1941244]

>>1941187
>>Eugenics in form of intelligence shaping is pretty stupid, if you rely on "natural" sexual breeding.

See:

>>1940577
>>The eugenecist (and I use the term in the most general sense, as someone who promotes genetic improvement, not necessarily the historical systems devised to do so)

[Anonymous No.1941383]

>>1941097
Eugenics is nothing but the removal of variety! You have some sort of vague mold you want everyone to be. This has more to do with your own problems than the world. You want more people "like you but better" basically, and that's nice.

Where you go wrong is thinking you have to select the traits you consider good and plant them in others. Pure opinion! An African herder will tell you the ability to count large amounts of things quickly is intelligence. Why? Because he herds animals!

An Asian rice farmer will tell you that predicting rain fall and judging water levels is intelligence. Why? Because he depends on judging those things to solve his problems.

The large scale euthanisation and even involuntary lobotomies is from ideas like this going out of control. We don't need "less of THEM", which is easy, we need more "let's make it work for all of us!" which is hard.

[Anonymous No.1941400]

>>1941383

Postmodernist idenfitied.