If all the lowest 30% were magically gone...

[Overly Serious]

Lets say via some vastly successful social movement, a mad scientist who identified the dumb gene, or any other hypothetical and unrealistic scenario, the lowest 30% of human society via IQ were suddenly gone. Gone gone. Wiped out, gone. What do we think would happen? To save people some arithmetic, the 30th percentile would mean anybody with an IQ of less than 93.

I'm interested in views that treat this as an isolated thing for a given country, and answers that would treat it as a global everywhere thing. But I'm not really interested in "it's not feasible for this to happen" type replies. What I'm curious about is how a society would function in which large numbers of less intelligent people didn't exist. Is society harder to control? Does it suffer in particular ways? Does the society become less able to fight wars? More efficient? What industries would collapse? And why.

I find this an interesting thought experiment.

 

[Beef Void]

If it was global, there'd be a pretty big, brown purge since most non-Asian, non-White races are sub-93 iq on average. The population sink would create some pretty huge problems for the browns in these nations and opportunistic countries would probably snatch up most of their land.

For nations that would sustain more numbers like Europe and East-Asia, I'd guess things would actually remain pretty similar, however crime rates would drop a decent bit and businesses that rely on the low-iq would collapse. Fast food would stay around since they can still employ teenagers, but delivery food, Uber and hotels would all be in a huge pinch since they have no immigrants/ retards to employ now. Scam businesses, like those rent-to-own places would also get destroyed.

I don't think any big political change would come from this intelligence shift, if anything, political change would actually become far more difficult. Political change comes from what they call "great men", the types who can really rile people up. It's a lot easier to rile up the low IQ, you can more easily convince them to die for your cause since they have a bad understanding of the future and tend to just live in the present. A higher IQ population would be a lot more cowardly since they actually understand how dangerous it is to rebel.

Also, Africa would become a literal wasteland lmao.

 

[KSachiko77]

Much like the poster above me said, you'd pretty much lose a massive substrate in the background that helps keep things running for the most part. Africans would be near extinct in at least some parts of that continent if it's global and the world in general would be more peaceful. That said, theres tons of economic activity you'd be deprived of if that were to happen. Agricultural bitch work, ubereats style gig work, warehousing and transport jobs and stuff like that would suddenly have severe labor shortages which I'm not sure you could compensate with midwits. First world midwits are typically some of the worst unskilled workers you could have because they'd turn their noses up more easily at work than the low IQ and a genuine labor shortage would give them a modicum of power for them to abuse. You'd see mass automation almost immediately taking root to a greater degree. Wages would still likely go up though because you simply wouldnt have the short of expendable human mass that you see today. As for the stock market itself, it would crater horribly and investment assets will drop in value for a long time. You'd also see the current paradigm get even further entrenched because the people who are too dumb to fool are gone now. Tax revenue is also going to take a greater hit too, because while the low IQ typically don't pay income tax, they still pay copious amounts of Sales tax, which goes into the system since they'll typically buy most of the tobacco and alcohol and prepackaged food you see in the store. In general: it would actually be a pretty severe downturn for at least the next 5-10 years, if not longer.

 

[The giant penis of doom]

The "local or global" only matters for countries that significantly differ from the norm. That means Africa. In a global scenario that would become a wasteland, at least south of the Sahara.
But everywhere else: Cataclysm. With the capital C. Losing ~30% of the population is a giant hit, doesn't even matter that much which 30%. Especially modern societies and globalist economies are not ready to lose this many people in a short period. The above mentioned industries would fall apart immediately, and the chain reaction would knock the whole economy down.

Long term, who knows. Hard to tell. Sadly, with midwits and intelligent people, it would be hard to dislodge the kikes, you need a good amount of anger and violence for that, so the world would be worse off, with a probably Chinese dominance.

 

[Gog & Magog]

To save people some arithmetic, the 30th percentile would mean anybody with an IQ of less than 93.

Scoring a 100 on an IQ test isn't indicative of possessing a well-rounded intelligence.
example: me

 

[Overly Serious]

Scoring a 100 on an IQ test isn't indicative of possessing a well-rounded intelligence.
example: me

It's not indicative of well-rounded education or being informed. It is indicative of your potential and general ability to think and plan. So if you have an IQ of 100 but behave like someone with an IQ of 90, that's a choice.

So interesting points about the capacity for political change. Two people have both commented along the lines of political change becoming harder because the big stick of angry uneducated people is gone. Curious. But is it not the case that this stick is more often wielded against our interests than for them?

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

Islam would disappear, for one.
Then the remaining 70% would ostracize the lower 1/3 of what's left.
It's not a lack of IQ that divides society, it's common values and morality. Any idiot can be a decent human being, but it takes a really clever motherfucker to get away with massive crime and a full blown psychopath to accept it as normal.

 

[KSachiko77]

It's not indicative of well-rounded education or being informed. It is indicative of your potential and general ability to think and plan. So if you have an IQ of 100 but behave like someone with an IQ of 90, that's a choice.

So interesting points about the capacity for political change. Two people have both commented along the lines of political change becoming harder because the big stick of angry uneducated people is gone. Curious. But is it not the case that this stick is more often wielded against our interests than for them?

Not necessarily. First, you have to understand who uses them in the first place. Typically, it's disenfranchised elites (usually, people with solid upbringings and carrying IQ in the 115-130 range) who agitate political change and get the masses behind them. They're usually able to do this in the first place because there's enough widespread discontent on a base level that the lower IQ can't quite articulate. In that sense, theres a mutualistic relationship of patronage which forms a sort of high and low organization to use. Without the high organization, you simply have a mob that will be stamped out, and without the low, you simply don't have the mass to force a foothold, especially in the era of mass politics that we live in.

 

[Georgio Cocklord]

If it was global, there'd be a pretty big, brown purge since most non-Asian, non-White races are sub-93 iq on average. The population sink would create some pretty huge problems for the browns in these nations and opportunistic countries would probably snatch up most of their land.

For nations that would sustain more numbers like Europe and East-Asia, I'd guess things would actually remain pretty similar, however crime rates would drop a decent bit and businesses that rely on the low-iq would collapse. Fast food would stay around since they can still employ teenagers, but delivery food, Uber and hotels would all be in a huge pinch since they have no immigrants/ retards to employ now. Scam businesses, like those rent-to-own places would also get destroyed.

I don't think any big political change would come from this intelligence shift, if anything, political change would actually become far more difficult. Political change comes from what they call "great men", the types who can really rile people up. It's a lot easier to rile up the low IQ, you can more easily convince them to die for your cause since they have a bad understanding of the future and tend to just live in the present. A higher IQ population would be a lot more cowardly since they actually understand how dangerous it is to rebel.

Also, Africa would become a literal wasteland lmao.
View attachment 6295515

Isn't chinas 105 self reported? I suppose they don't have that high an average iq as well.

Scoring a 100 on an IQ test isn't indicative of possessing a well-rounded intelligence.
example: me

I scored a 134 and I'm still extremely stupid, hate inducingly so.

 

[Troonos]

Africa would have like 3 people left. We could easily take it and turn it into the world's biggest water park.

 

[Nonconsentual Pronouns]

Isn't chinas 105 self reported? I suppose they don't have that high and average iq as well.

Correct. The CCP cherrypicks people for tests and cherrypicks results in order to make their country and their race look better. I'd like to remind everyone that the Chinese are so retarded that they believe everything is some kind of magical medicine, as though the alchemy system of Oblivion applies to real life. I can't fucking stand Chinese cooking documentaries because the chefs will ramble about mushrooms cleaning the eater's blood or some shit. They think that consuming powdered rhino horns is like taking a magic dick pill, just because the horn is hard and erect. They believe that drinking milk will make their breasts grow, because milk comes from breasts. They're so retarded that they wiped out their native bird population to 'protect' their crops, causing nationwide famine when along came the bug population that was no longer kept in check, and they did similar shit while wiping out the tiger population.

On average, they lack common sense and critical thinking at alarming rates on par with the darkest gorilla niggers. It's why they have no innovation and just steal everything from whitey and say "nuh uh!". Their military tries to carbon copy every single aspect of the American military, right down to the retort pouches in our MREs, and they can't even manage that.

They're like actual children, they just happen to have memory and calculation abilities (similarly to many insect and arachnid species) often attributed to certain stripes of autism. They are literally retarded.

 

[Schwarzwald]

My favorite part would be those in the 70-49% category who would become the new dumbest 30% of society. The bar would raise, but it's all relative with societal roles to a certain extent. Things would gradually shift over time, even with the current base level of competence for certain jobs.

That and the people celebrating the initial purge, only to actually be in the 30% that gets wiped out.

I also recognize it would mostly be darkies, but would be heartbroken at the proportion of pretty girls that would likely be wiped out by this. The glasses and cankles crowd would likely be just fine, though.

 

[Crypto Six Gorillionaire]

It's one step towards undoing the dysgenic practices of the past two centuries.

 

[Fastest Hand In The East]

Well at least the first few months would be very stinky because there will be noone to clean the toilets. Besides, doesn't IQ in a human group tends to fall into the IQ curve again in several generations? You'll need to make sure that no low-IQ people are born.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

the lowest 30% of human society via IQ were suddenly gone

Unless it's about removing entire racial populations, the answer is not a lot. IQ does not equate with morality and while you have near bestial people on the bottom of the Gaussian, the damage they can do is limited.

 

[Fishmalk Observer]

Unless it's about removing entire racial populations, the answer is not a lot. IQ does not equate with morality and while you have near bestial people on the bottom of the Gaussian, the damage they can do is limited.

have you visited detroit or a similar city ? the damage they can do is massive

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Barring major unforeseen technological changes, everything would return to normal, just with somewhat smarter people at the bottom of the hierarchy. Somebody has to dig the ditches and mop the floors no matter how intelligent everyone is.

The other question is how you measure IQ, and whether or not you're failing to consider other elements of intelligence that are situational. E.g. someone living in the deepest Congo jungles might have an IQ of 65 by Western standards, but they're very capable of surviving and thriving in an ecosystem that would be an utter deathtrap for you or I.

 

[Georgio Cocklord]

They believe that drinking milk will make their breasts grow, because milk comes from breasts

This is just too funny, probably gonna go to random.txt

 

[Anonitolia]

What do we think would happen?

 

[Overly Serious]

My favorite part would be those in the 70-49% category who would become the new dumbest 30% of society. The bar would raise, but it's all relative with societal roles to a certain extent. Things would gradually shift over time, even with the current base level of competence for certain jobs.

I think through my career and the number of midwits I have had to deal with - people whose inflated opinion of their intelligence causes no end of problems - and I wonder if it might lead to less social stability as all these people think they're too good for blue collar jobs. Despite that most of them would be worse at those jobs in all probability.

That and the people celebrating the initial purge, only to actually be in the 30% that gets wiped out.

I think deep down a lot of them know they're above their station due to connections, boot-licking etc. That's why they're so adamant at keeping people who might show them up down.

I also recognize it would mostly be darkies, but would be heartbroken at the proportion of pretty girls that would likely be wiped out by this. The glasses and cankles crowd would likely be just fine, though.

Women tend to cluster nearer the centre of the IQ scale whilst men are more present at extremes. Therefore a culling of the 30th percentile without regard to sex (which is what I specified) would lead to a significant imbalance in the sexes. There'd be a lot more women for every man than before