When everybody “has” to graduate from high school, even the most stupid and the laziest, what happens is that the bar gets lowered. Create different bars. Vocational tracks (crafts, general office staff), arts tracks, different types of college tracks. For someone who doesn’t have a clear idea of what he wants to do, it’s easier to choose a “pack” than individual subjects; at the same time, people would still be able to focus on what they like and are good at. By making learning less painful, it becomes more interesting.
Take the “college requirement” out of professional sports. If a Big Huge Supaimportant Unviersity can’t survive without its football program, it should disappear; after all, it would be like a gizmo-making company that can’t survive without its manager’s ebay doll-selling business, it’s a company that’s not focusing (or getting its income from) where it should. That doesn’t mean “no more sports scholarships,” but if someone doesn’t give a shit about getting a degree, he shouldn’t have to get one.
The mis-speak about the 57 states is a stupid thing to reference — it’s at the end of the day, in full campaign mode, and obviously just the verbal equivalent of a typo. It does not compare, for example, to Sarah Palin’s inability to recall a newspaper she has read, or the Bush Doctrine, or a Supreme Court case she didn’t like.
Why make such bad arguments for your side, Shodan?
Yes, I think everyone in this thread is losing focus of the true goal here. Let’s try to remember: The stupids are not just the people who disagree with us. Most of the people who appear on Maury Povich’s “Shocking paternity test result!” shows or post dumb questions on Yahoo Answers probably don’t even vote, much less read political blogs or hold any passionate partisan convictions.
If we get too focused on trying to get rid of the stupids who simply don’t agree with us, then we get stuck fighting amongst ourselves about which side’s stupid people are expendable instead of actually getting to work eliminating stupidity!
My proposals were intended to fairly distribute the natural selection process among stupid people of ALL races, religions, political views. Let’s be fair in our efforts at social engineering and eugenics!
Every four years, timed to half way between each presidential election, everyone in the US gets to choose:
You can vote in government polls, ie president, house, senate, school board, prop 37 or whatever.
OR
You can vote for media related polls, ie American Idol, the next flavor of Mountain Dew, or online polls about whether there is enough Jesus in schools.
Here I was trying to make a game a little more engaging than, “People are stupid. Fix it,” and a few of you thought that I was presenting some kind of actual morality challenge. Did the taco bar not tip you off?
Obviously this is all tyrannical and unconstitutional. That’s kind of the point. It’s a thought exercise of sorts, we’re not planning to annex half the country or sterilize Nascar fans, for cripes sakes. Adjust tinfoil hats, set coordinates for “imaginationland.”
You got any cookies? People could eat a lot more fish, which is brain food, but its got mercury, so it kills you. Maybe dead people are smart, but we don’t know, 'cause they’re dead. Or we smart people could breed more, but then you have to raise more kids, which makes you crazy, so I don’t know if that would help. Got any cookies?..
Keep in mind that the content of this post is admittedly quite awful.
A strict darwinist would say that programs to help the disabled and mentally handicapped are watering down our species. If only the people who can get through life unassisted are allowed to reproduce, future generations would be much stronger. By allowing the disabled to live full lives, including the possibility of reproducing, whatever genetic predisposition allowed them to become disabled is passed on as well.
I’m not saying that must be remedied. In fact, I think the last person to do so was a failed painter named Adolph something.
It is worth considering, anyway, that when we developed a sense of compassion, evolution stopped. A philosophical debate about whether that’s an acceptable outcome would be interesting to watch, though it would need an extraordinary amount of disclaimers as I’m sure everybody involved would be offended in some way.
Empathy didn’t stop evolution. Empathy exists because populations with it usually do better then populations without it.
Would you want to go into the forest alone, or with a friend who has your back?
That you both have empathy genes is why you can trust your friend to not to kill you for your pocket watch when it’s convenient. Such populations lacking it would be highly dysfunctional.
Example: the Republican party.
Thus empathy genes are selected for.
Google “The Selfish Gene” for a better explanation.
If your friend broke his legs and was bleeding, attracting bears, would you carry him, slowing yourself down and making both of you targets, or leave him and fend for yourself?
Seems like an easy question to answer, but human nature and instincts in survival situations can be difficult to predict.
