Thank you. However, I'm not sure if I correctly explained what I meant, perhaps I wasn't clear. So let me try this a different way:
Let's advocate for no choice. Now, the society decided to go with Mr A's model of maximizing stupidity through selective breeding and plummeted into permanent idiocracy with no hope of return, instead of adopting your model.
Was that a good outcome, in your opinion?
Within a society of choice and maximizing stupidity like we see in the US, even our worst and darkest seem to see that there's things wrong with it. Getting rid of choice within a broken model will simply lead to revolt unless it's done slowly, and even there Stupidity's a bit more of a thunderstorm compared to the more temperate aspects you'd find within Intellectualism. To reference WALL-E once again, once the lowest of the low were shown the issue with their machines they opted to change their society (in this case by going back to Earth with no agricultural knowledge and hoping for the best).
You don't need intelligence to rebel, but intelligence would change the nature of those rebellions away from raw herd mentality. As such the very stupidity that was believed to be the glue could turn on it's own system if they otherwise see it as smart to do, while those who are intelligent would be more likely to upkeep the existing system from seeing the alternative as the dumb thing to do.
We need to instead pat people on the back for the intelligence they believe themselves to already have while we find ways of otherwise ridding them from the gene pool.
Disclaimer: This post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of Turncoat nor the Sociopath Community administration.
Yes, but your argument now assumes that the movie WALL-E is an accurate depiction of what would happen in reality.
Art imitates life just as life imitates art. Do you imagine people who are given enough choice to doom themselves as doing much better than they are?
The idea of choice is quite dreamy to imagine, but left in the hands of the common man it will continue the path it's already on: Genetic destruction. When people like myself are allowed to procreate, when those born of flesh like mine are made to take meds at a young age just to maintain status quo, what do you otherwise expect the outcome to be?
I'm not defending Mr A's model. I am asking you if you thought it would be kind of shit if it were implemented in reality where free choice was up to debate -- instead of your own model -- and now the society will forever be doomed to idiocracy with no hope of return.
It's not doomed when stupidity is easier to rally. We can already see through our politicians and lawyers how we live in an age of heuristic-rape.
What would stop Mr. A's model from crumbling when even his own security and janitorial services are too dumb to do their jobs? If it's left purely up to machines, then you have no backup option should someone weaponize an EMP or something, and at that point you'd have people who are otherwise just as useless as the machines that shut down.
If that happened, it would be the end for us -- correct?
That depends on how enclosed his supersaturated stupidity model is. If it has exposure to outside ideals, they will likely grow to hate themselves like we otherwise already see happening.
If we "live-and-let-live" we will destroy ourselves.
Why?
Complacency leaves it in the hands of others, others who by odds alone likely cannot be trusted as they live for their own profit within the notion of YOLO.
We need to get rid of choice, and Abortion is one of many things worth putting on the chopping block so that people can become happier.
Disclaimer: This post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of Turncoat nor the Sociopath Community administration.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
