/b/ -Burrow

I volunteer as the first to be euthanized, it's for the good of my fellow reptilians.

>>2929
Indians have the highest birthrate. They're nothing but inbred cock roaches. India should be nuked honestly.

>>2932
China as well. Not sure if they come in as a close second or what but nevertheless they have a high number of people being born.

>>2932
>India should be nuked

This! Poos are the one race of people I can honestly say I'm totally racist against. I hate everything about them.

>>2929
Funnily enough, the race most concerned about overpopulation are the least populous. India, China, Africa – their inhabitants are by far the most populous people, more numerous than the entirety of Europe or the Americas. Yet they think little of overpopulation or resource scarcity in the slightest.

Really makes you think…

>>2952
Sir, what is condom?

>>2932
>>2946
>>2952
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6664843/Man-wants-sue-parents-giving-birth-without-consent.html

>The anti-natalist movement is gaining traction in India as younger people resist social pressure to have children.
Looks like the problem is going to fix itself.

>>2966
That article is anecdotal. I want to see statistical evidence that poo birthrates are going down.

It's amazing how little of people like us there are, look at how in-active a place like 4chan is compared to how many full concerts there are right now, or busy streets or work places. It's always weird to realize you're in the 1%~ of people who share your one hobby, let alone how different each image board users personality / other hobbies are to each other.
I feel like a piece of sand in an hourglass slowly reaching the bottom of the pile.

Mass eugenics and selective breeding should be enforced for the greater good. The birth of civilization eliminated natural selection and it's time to bring it back.

>>2986
Well that's another topic entirely but I get what you are saying.
Actually, now that I think about it, you may have a solution to this problem. I remember reading about a program the CIA started during the early 1900s where they would sterilize people with low IQs. If they wouldn't have stopped, the population would not only be reduced but would also be more intelligent as a result (so less normalfags and more people like us).

>>3031
>CIA
>early 1900s
The CIA only came about after WWII as the successor to the OSS.

>>3031
I'm low iq but i'd gladly support eugenics at least, god knows you'll never get everyone to support anti-natalism. China's baby limit is seeming like a better idea than ever.

>>3108
Same boat, not anything special in the IQ department (not that IQ actually measures intelligence beyond the arbitrary), but I can't support something that forces permanent change to another. If incentives existed but there was no pressure and/or coercion to partake of them, then fine, but I'd rather see everybody die than the alternative being that kind of despotism.

>>3112
I think IQ is important, though the higher it is is just a sign of specialized work aptitude imo.
Also seeing the difference between 80~ and 120 is definitely noticeable.
I think it's just that I have the type of intelligence that's of little use. Kind of how a philosopher can be a pessimistic visionary, though his work is of little more than for others with his mindset to say "ha! we knew it!" after everything he said happened and things got worse.
>I'd rather see everybody die than the alternative being that kind of despotism.
Yea, I believe in personal liberty first and foremost, it just seems like more and more people shouldn't be trusted with personal freedom.
For every one man who uses his liberty to work for his society, and enrich his own life, being a net benefit to himself and others.
It seems there are 3 men who will use it to be irresponsible with the health and future of his children, abuse hard drugs, and harm his fellow man.
Or men like me who just observe, and contribute little more than their presence and diatribes.

>>3115
There are also differing kinds of intelligence that it doesn't measure. I've encountered people with high levels of the kind of intelligence it does measure who are absolutely lost in entry level academic history because it demands a very different way of thinking than that which is considered conventionally intelligent. In that sense, it's also very easy to differentiate between someone who is IQ-intelligent (typically abstract reasoning and pattern recognition, mathematic logic etc.) and someone with the kind of intelligence required of other disciplines. Having seen the attempts at history writing by generically high-IQ people without the aptitude for it, it's not a measure of intelligence and if anything makes them look quite dumb. I don't think that IQ alone can be a useful measure for that kind of thing.

>it just seems like more and more people shouldn't be trusted with personal freedom.
Dangerous line. Sometimes you need to protect things you find distasteful for the sake of liberty. It's rough but it's better than being a fair-weather liberal.

As for contribution, that's also a part of liberty. Not everybody is going to do it and it's part of the problem with a coercion-based society that makes demands rather than terms. The former means that those who don't actively contribute are seen in the negative, yet are not allowed an alternative while the latter imlpies a voluntary scenario where you only partake of a society that you wish to benefit from, obeying the terms of that benefit in payment. Whether it's worth it becomes a personal decision and more free. I like the way Mill put it even though I don't agree with him in every respect. That someone's own good is insufficient warrant to meddle in their affairs.

>>3116
I agree with you're IQ summary and think similarly about it.
>Dangerous line.
In the way I put it in that sentence surely, i'll try to sum up what I meant. I think personal liberty is forfeited once you negatively effect others, or at the very least, others liberty to punish you as they please becomes more warranted.
Personally I agree with the extinctionist mindset, though my argument I guess is that it's not so great to be so black and white.
Full Individual liberty is an ideal we should strive for when humanity itself is near ideal. Other wise liberty implies the freedom of wickedness as well as altruism.
This only matters though if you're in favor of pain reduction, other wise it seems more in line with anarchy than liberty, as others liberty begins to threaten others liberty with misbehavior.
>That someone's own good is insufficient warrant to meddle in their affairs.
I'd agree, though if their affairs of deficient good effect others, such as the raising of a son like a dictator, the killing of others for their beliefs, liberty seems to spit in it's own face if it stands idly by as it's taken for granted by tyrants.
Thanks for the reply, debating these things is sometimes cathartic for me.

>>3120
In which case, I actually come close to agreeing with you on matters of liberty. I tend to fall closer to the old school of American liberalism which assumes inherent liberty, thus one can never actually forfeit it, but it can be suppressed.

I do have anarchic leanings, but my own philosophy is kind of complex in that it's also mixed together with hefty chunks of influence from early parts of American Republicanism (the philosophy, not the party) and is based on the idea of an amorphous group of voluntary societies (including societies of one) defined by membership of sovereign individuals, and a society needn't conform even to liberal ideas so long as membership is voluntary, and coercion not employed. Domestic tyranny is a matter of individuals. If people object to it, then they should act in a way to fix it. People are free to be tyrants and buttholes, but others have freedom in objecting to it (violently if need be) if that makes sense. It's not pacifist, and if anything the American school has me thinking a lot of the role of the militia in society. In fact, that pacifism that you mention, how libertarianism can act limp-dicked in the face of a tyrant is one of the reasons I think about this stuff.

>Thanks for the reply, debating these things is sometimes cathartic for me.
No wukkas, I love the topic so it's hardly work for me.