English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Homo Sapiens has risen to be the dominant mammalian life-form on this planet due, primarily, to superior intellect. If we wish to improve the genetic thread by humanely euthanising all the idiots on the planet, would the remaining twenty seven of us all agree to get along and build a new life somewhere warm and sunny? By a beach, if you want.
I think we should start by getting rid of all the politicians, religious leaders and people who still think that wearing a tie is a good idea - what do you think?

2007-01-26 19:28:51 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

idhard - with your avatar, you're assuming I'M GAY????
you're on the list, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY past number twenty-seven. Join the young conservatives if you're not already a member, we hunt them. On horseback. With dogs. And Port.

2007-01-26 19:44:48 · update #1

pete h:
Sorry pal, the telephone sanitisers all left on the "B" Ark, years ago.
The biggest mistake humanity ever made, not making room for Bush & Blair.

2007-01-26 19:50:29 · update #2

17 answers

Fantastic Idea, Glad to hear it's only going to be the 27 of us....
( Also we need to eliminate all queue's)

2007-01-26 19:35:50 · answer #1 · answered by legend 3 · 0 0

There is a problem that I foresee, the less than 30 of us would soon be so in bred that I believe there are likely to be health problems due to this, one only has to look at some regions of India.
To be sure we could reduce by large numbers the populace, keep say 50% of the females, the intelligent ones, for breeding stock, only allow female off spring at the rate of 1 per female, and with this we would soon improve the intellect of homo sapiens.
I do suspect though that the 30 of us would have very short ecstatic lives...

Now if THAT does not stir up a hornets nest nothing will.

2007-01-26 19:43:47 · answer #2 · answered by rinfrance 4 · 0 0

Let's not beat around the Bush... The idiots in power are the only real danger to humanity because they make decisions affecting the lives of millions. (Like going to war etc...) So there's no need to dispose of everyone else. All the innocent ineffectual idiots out there. While I have won numerous academic awards and medals throughout high school & university, I certainly wouldn't presume myself to be in the top 27 most intelligent humans on the planet so I guess I'll be among your proposed slaughtered... Though I don't plan to bear children so I at least won't be bringing more flawed people into this imperfect world. Ironically many of the intelligent people I have met don't want children so perhaps the world population's collective IQ will go down as the less intelligent reproduce...

Good luck with your band of geniuses on the beach. No doubt, you'll have the sense to wear sunblock so you won't all die of skin cancer...

:)
Cheers

2007-01-26 20:03:23 · answer #3 · answered by amp 6 · 0 0

While I agree with the premise in principle, I am somewhat sceptical of the detail.
I think that considerably more than 27 people are required for a viable genetic pool.
Killing (only an American would use a euphenism such as euthanising) the remaining population is unlikely to receive popular acclaim.
I suggest the more subtle approach of welfare payment linked to sterilisation and extensive use of intelligence tests in the selection of employees.
I do not like the tie idea, I wear one most of the time.

2007-01-26 19:56:38 · answer #4 · answered by Clive 6 · 0 0

Totally agree. Can we also get rid of people who's sole purpose in life is to find ways to sell us things we don't need or want? And people that can offer you a substancial saving on your double glazing/new kitchen as you qualify as a show house, but you need to sign up NOW. And please can we get rid of all traffic wardens. Anybody that thinks that a good way to make a living is to f*ck their fellow human beings is beyond contempt." I'm only doing my job" Yeh so were the people that operated the gas chambers

2007-01-26 19:40:58 · answer #5 · answered by Reg Tedious 4 · 0 0

I tend to agree with you on most points, however, the only issue I have is that the criteria for survival is too strict, and that there would not be sufficient diversity in the gene pool, which would lead to too much inbreeding resulting a decline in the quality of our descendants.

2007-01-26 19:44:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You are arrogant, and assume that you are perfect and the rest of the world is not. In billions of people, who selected the 27 and who are you to think that others ougt not to exist? Hitler and his mob thought so. They didi not live to see their dream come true.

Try to look at the world with more human eyes. Don't have grand illusions. If it persists see a shrink.

2007-01-26 20:35:00 · answer #7 · answered by Ravichandran 2 · 1 0

If you wanted to start a new world order with 27 people, your descendants in due course would be born idiots because of inbreeding. This is a fact, ask any doctor.

2007-01-26 19:34:36 · answer #8 · answered by Imogen Sue 5 · 1 0

OK I'm in. As long as there are some hot male intellects to start rebuilding the population. I ain't settling down with no nutty professor or freaky anorak.

2007-01-26 19:37:58 · answer #9 · answered by Banny Grasher 4 · 0 0

I think the past has shown us that an even bigger threat to humanity than idiots are intolerant, narcissistic people who believe in 'cleansing' the human race such as Hitler and ...apparently, you.
And leave tie-wearing people alone, something has to cover those pesky shirt buttons.

2007-01-27 14:02:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Could we have another 27 living on a mountain somewhere? A change of scene would be good for everyone, and we'd all learn how to ski. What do you think?

2007-01-26 22:55:46 · answer #11 · answered by Orla C 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers