You Can Only Save So Many

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowYou'rePlayingWithPower
  • Start date Start date

The World Will End Wihout Ending 80% of it's Population, Who do you Save?

  • USA/Western Europe

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • Other North America/South America

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Middle East/Eurasia

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Eastern Europe/Russia

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Central Asia

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Southeast Asia

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Oceania and the Penguins

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Africa and Atlantis

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Top 20% Rated by Financial Success

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Top 20% Rated by intelligence

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • Total voters
    9
Floyd Eye said:
I was trying to differentiate between an ideal scenario and a realistic one. So I guess my answer would change depending on if you are talking about an organized, coordinated “ reset” or talking about a realistic situation where resources are scarce and will have to be distributed among a population based on individual ability to obtain and retain those resources.
Click to expand...

Well, depending on the situation; it could be the wealthy that hold power of an army of androids that you may be up against. If we're talking realism, I'm guessing that Darwinism is becoming less of a handicap with the advancements in technologies to protect those who want from those who can. On another end; Plenty of policies, laws, economics, cultural changes, etc... are already leading people to their willing population decline, anyways. Most seemingly in developed countries...
 
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower said:
How I see it is; The less complex you perceive complex things to be, the higher the intelligence. Ultimately, wouldn't come down to overall knowledge as much as it would a combination of both common sense and perception. Which would cover a lot of traits from reasoning and wisdom to down to earthness and charisma, etc... Imo, offspring would have a better chance of yielding higher than current levels of average intelligence through both genetics and the environment created for them by their parents and eventual society. The question in the OP is really however someone wants to interpret it happens, tbh. I was mainly just responding to Floyd's version of events.
Click to expand...

That's not too far off of how I was thinking about it in both of my scenarios. You would still need/want specialized and average intelligence & skills. Maybe in a 25/75 ratio of specialized to average respectively. Like you'd want more people who have intelligence & skills across a wide range (average) because they'd be more flexible and adaptable. But you'd still need a handful of specialized to help with the things that are beyond the average person's grasp. And of course the specialized people would need the average ones too. Being specialized makes you almost useless in other areas.

The part I deviate from you on is perceiving complex things as less complex equating to higher intelligence. I don't think that's necessarily true depending on the way you mean it. If you're going from the aspect of not perceiving the full complexity of something, I don't think I'd put that in the "more intelligent" category. Now if you mean it as being able to view something complex and being able to break it down into it's simplest form, then I agree with you.
 
Last edited:
MadAsAHatter said:
That's not too far off of how I was thinking about it in both of my scenarios. You would still need/want specialized and average intelligence & skills. Maybe in a 25/75 ratio of specialized to average respectively. Like you'd want more people who have intelligence & skills across a wide range (average) because they'd be more flexible and adaptable. But you'd still need a handful of specialized to help with the things that are beyond the average person's grasp. And of course the specialized people would need the average ones too. Being specialized makes you almost useless in other areas.

The part I deviate from you on is perceiving complex things as less complex equating to higher intelligence. I don't think that's necessarily true depending on the way you mean it. If you're going from the aspect of not perceiving the full complexity of something, I don't think I'd put that in the "more intelligent" category. No if you mean it as being able to view something complex and being able to break it down into it's simplest form, then I agree with you.
Click to expand...

Mostly the latter, and from the perspective of the average when I say complex concepts not being complex. 80th percentile is only slightly above an IQ of 110, anyways. Fairly average if someone did want to include it in their own reasoning. I believe the bulk of Jack of All Trade and those of high strategic capabilities still mostly fall below genius levels, but above that threshold. I'm not arguing for it as a metric, but believe there is validity to it.
 
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower said:
Mostly the latter, and from the perspective of the average when I say complex concepts not being complex. 80th percentile is only slightly above an IQ of 110, anyways. Fairly average if someone did want to include it in their own reasoning. I believe the bulk of Jack of All Trade and those of high strategic capabilities still mostly fall below genius levels, but above that threshold. I'm not arguing for it as a metric, but believe there is validity to it.
Click to expand...
According to most scales IQ of 80-120 includes Low-Average, Average-Average, and High-Average. I would just lump that all into one category and call it all average. For this type of scenario if someone wanted to put a metric to it I'd probably shift and tighten the scale to go 100-120 and put 110 at average. <-- yeah I know that's not how IQ scales work, but go with me on this LOL. I think that would fall in line enough with Top 20% by average.

Though I'm still going to stick with save the penguins. I wonder what kind of government structure they'd develop. Would there be a monarchy where Emperor and King penguins fight for control? Or maybe Macaroni penguins would send the lands into complete anarchy? 🤔:dunno:
 
I'm w Floyd on voting for whomever is fittest to survive. That's just how the (globe) earth works. :dunno:

Intelligence is important but if you have no outdoor/wilderness experience, ammo, gold or skills you are worthless to me.

Speaking of which, I'm off to the cabin with some friends from Terra Haute. There are approx 7 different ways to get to my cabin despite how remote it is. Caves, fresh water springs and food all around. You'd have to learn how to catch crawdads and shoot squirrel and poop in the woods but you are not welcome to come find me. I have a decent bug out box (storage locker) in my garage but I am far from prepper status. Anyone have any favorite prepper forums/website sources?

:cheers:
 
MadAsAHatter said:
According to most scales IQ of 80-120 includes Low-Average, Average-Average, and High-Average. I would just lump that all into one category and call it all average. For this type of scenario if someone wanted to put a metric to it I'd probably shift and tighten the scale to go 100-120 and put 110 at average. <-- yeah I know that's not how IQ scales work, but go with me on this LOL. I think that would fall in line enough with Top 20% by average.

Though I'm still going to stick with save the penguins. I wonder what kind of government structure they'd develop. Would there be a monarchy where Emperor and King penguins fight for control? Or maybe Macaroni penguins would send the lands into complete anarchy? 🤔:dunno:
Click to expand...

The Australians, Polynesians, Kiwis, etc... are still alive in the Penguin scenario. I'm guessing they would all be enslaved by the penguins and made to do tricks for their amusement.
 
311boogieman said:
I'm w Floyd on voting for whomever is fittest to survive. That's just how the (globe) earth works. :dunno:

Intelligence is important but if you have no outdoor/wilderness experience, ammo, gold or skills you are worthless to me.

Speaking of which, I'm off to the cabin with some friends from Terra Haute. There are approx 7 different ways to get to my cabin despite how remote it is. Caves, fresh water springs and food all around. You'd have to learn how to catch crawdads and shoot squirrel and poop in the woods but you are not welcome to come find me. I have a decent bug out box (storage locker) in my garage but I am far from prepper status. Anyone have any favorite prepper forums/website sources?

:cheers:
Click to expand...

Guessing that there would be very few Americans on the top 20% list of who can survive off of the land the best and/or do the most with the least. Even among the top preppers and mountain people. If you're talking about shoot first, take, and ask questions later; that probably isn't going to favor many of us, either. There's a lot of competition on the globe earth for ruthless warlord types and their tribes. At least when regarding overall world statistics and not a survivability rate specific to each location.

Would be curious what gold's value is in that type of world. Even in this one it seems it's main purpose is to get more consistently controlled and stable flows of electrons in high precision instruments. Outside of that, it's pretty much intrinsic and all gold is fool's gold, imo. If talking about a currency, feel like it would eventually just lead us back to where we are.

Findthetone1 said:
Do you think they'd make them all wear tuxedos?
Click to expand...

I don't want to begin to speculate on what the guardians of the Earth's edge have going on in their minds. Well above my pay grade.
 
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower said:
Would be curious what gold's value is in that type of world. Even in this one it seems it's main purpose is to get more consistently controlled and stable flows of electrons in high precision instruments. Outside of that, it's pretty much intrinsic and all gold is fool's gold, imo. If talking about a currency, feel like it would eventually just lead us back to where we are.
Click to expand...
I guess gold could be a holdover from what once was and used as a form of currency. But other than being a shiny metal it wouldn't be all that useful in a survival situation. If I'm trading, I'm trading for something useful. I'll give you a chicken for a bushel of wheat. It's not like it would make for good weapons or ammunition, there's better metals for that purpose. And when your first priority is food and shelter you're not thinking "hey I need some gold to build a super computer.
 
Honestly...


i dont care.jpg



elmo-burn.gif
 
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower said:
Guessing that there would be very few Americans on the top 20% list of who can survive off of the land the best and/or do the most with the least. Even among the top preppers and mountain people. If you're talking about shoot first, take, and ask questions later; that probably isn't going to favor many of us, either. There's a lot of competition on the globe earth for ruthless warlord types and their tribes. At least when regarding overall world statistics and not a survivability rate specific to each location.

Would be curious what gold's value is in that type of world. Even in this one it seems it's main purpose is to get more consistently controlled and stable flows of electrons in high precision instruments. Outside of that, it's pretty much intrinsic and all gold is fool's gold, imo. If talking about a currency, feel like it would eventually just lead us back to where we are.



I don't want to begin to speculate on what the guardians of the Earth's edge have going on in their minds. Well above my pay grade.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I would be jumping into the ruthless warlord competition. It’d be really really hard to get me out of where I am though. If you could even find me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top