Projekt ReHuman

Lain. What if we take 50 smartest people under age 25, then leave them alone in huge complex with robotics, computers, anything useful else. And let covid destroy humanity except them?

I don't know is it good idea, on one hand we have stable civilization, which can be progressive and very efficient, because it is civilization of smart people! On other hand I think smart people have different goals/ideals of life.

Four points: 1.) This virus isn't deadly enough for that, but maybe you were just joking. 2.) Intelligence is no guarantee of social cohesion. 3.) Maybe read Asimov's Foundation, which deals with a similar concept. 4.) I've been wondering for some time why states haven't tried harder to produce geniuses a la Wammy's House from Death Note. I would think that the program would be relatively cheap.

They would starve to death

>Lain. What if we take 50 smartest people under age 25, then leave them alone in huge complex with robotics, computers, anything useful else. And let covid destroy humanity except them? they would inbreed and the rest of humanity would eventually kill them.

....or make them breed with each other and then leave the smartest of them to breed and then continue. In 60 years time, with forceful breeding of every 15 years we can get pretty far

>>16972 >muh social cohesion >on an imageboard built by and habitated by shutins and asocials whew

There's no guarantee of social cohesion, for one. They probably wouldn't be able to communicate because of language barriers. Most of them would probably be very introverted and neurotic, so that'd also be a problem in getting anything done. And then there's a gender imbalance at the high end so there might only be a few women across a lot of men, which obviously won't end well.

This thread is already off to a bad start, probably due in part to the poorly-written OP, but I'll try again to get an interesting discussion moving. >>16973 >They would starve to death. Let's suppose that the complex is set up to produce food without much intervention, at least for a good while, as would be reasonable for a well-funded and well-designed project of this sort. >>16974 >They would inbreed Maybe we should say that we have the minimal number to produce the necessary genetic diversity. Even if not, my understanding is that inbreeding does not necessarily produce less intelligent progeny or lead to collapse in and of itself. >and the rest of humanity would kill them ...and let's assume that the complex is hidden and sturdy enough to take anything short of a full-scale assault (that is, an accidental bombing or the like wouldn't hurt it) There's a difference between a hurdle and a fatal flaw. Let's just assume that all the fiddly little details are sorted from the beginning. Also, why under 25, OP?

After raping the female, they would leave a long winded journal about making up a mental disease and kill themselves to avoid facing the task ahead. You need ignorant optimists for these kind of tasks

This is flawed. First, only people under 25 means you would lose a lot of practical experience that under-25s simply don't have. Also, you assume there is a metric you can use to determine who the top 50 would be. This is wrong, there's no such reliable metric. They would likely burn out due to the stress of having such a significant load placed upon them. Mental health problems in such a context would likely become commonplace. Overall, terrible plan. Sounds cute on paper, but would be disastrous for the human species.

>>16969 50 isn't a large enough breeding population to keep the species going without birth defects. So it'd still end humanity, just with a timelag. Secondly, IQ isn't everything. A lot of very smart people are depressed, or just plain lazy, etc. Smart isn't the same as curious isn't the same as industrious. You can measure IQ sensibly enough at 25, but those other factors are a lot harder to measure accurately without them having at least a decade of independent experience, but they'd be absolutely vital to make this a success.

"Smartest" is a very loaded word here. You're making the assumption that they would want to use those tools to make some cool robots or something but why would they? Maybe the "smart" thing to do would just to live a simple agrarian life.

how do we judge who is the smartest? with only 25 people isn't enough to create a sizeable population that would replenish the earth without inbreeding What about the 100,000 who had done great lifesaving work, why would we let them die just because they are not the smartest?

I think they point was for them to engineer a world for themselfs. I dont think robotics and computers will get them far ahead totally isolated. They would probably end up with some real stupid singularty bullshit that ends up killing them just like we do now.

>>16985 well since we can't measure intelligence effectively, we wouldn't know who is the smartest. also, yes. 50 or any small number like that is too little to repopulate earth (if that's the goal) - inbreeding would result in death. >>16969 presumably they would be well versed in "robotics, computers, anything useful else", what is this "anything else" though? people under 25 can learn a lot, but they still are limited by their time on the earth - so they can know only so much. if you focus on those who are great at computers and robotics, you just brought a bunch of nerds with no real life skills and they would probably die because they wouldn't know how to continue the society. even if that didn't happen, what would be the point? if covid-19 (or any other kind of pandemic) wiped out humanity except them, there isn't much to do.

>>16984 > You're making the assumption that they would want to use those tools to make some cool robots or something but why would they? i agree, i wouldn't meet the requirements there for sure, but even if i did, i might build a robot or work on some project (because it's fun and that's basically what i'm doing during the lockdown anyways) but if i am locked in some complex while everyone else is dying what's the point? i know the world as we know it is gone by the time i get out, there isn't much motivation to do anything. not that some robots and computers would help me much in that scenario anyways.

>>16974 They should be hidden first time, and then after some time they must be ready to defense. >>16977 > They probably wouldn't be able to communicate because of language barriers Smart people know English language, don't you? Why you there can be a language barrier? Why smart people can't learn English if they don't know? > And then there's a gender imbalance at the high end so there might only be a few women across a lot of men, which obviously won't end well. Somewhere you are right, so, we can balance gender equality. I believe we can find 25 men and woman. >>16982 > A lot of very smart people are depressed, or just plain lazy, etc then we have to ignore lazy. >>16985 > 100,000 Good idea for creating a population on another planet, but not the Earth.

>>16996 > you there ca why do you think*

>>16996 >Smart people know English language not necessarily. English is just a language like any other >Good idea for creating a population on another planet, but not the Earth. biology works on post-apo earth too >then we have to ignore lazy. so we might not have the smartest >>16969 so is this thing prep for roleplay or is this an ego thing?

>>16969 No one has mentioned biodiversity yet. If you artificially select for one thing like 'Intelligence' , even if you could , you accidentally select a bunch of other things by destroying the pool of alternatives. So maybe you end up with intelligent but suspectible to x disease , or more vulernable to cold, or limitations we dont understand yet. And so, if a new pandemic hits, perhaps the current 1% who would be immune wouldnt have been selected and all humans die.

>>16969 >And let covid destroy humanity except them? COVID-19 isn't deadly enough to kill >99% of the human population. At worst we will have a situation similar to the 1918 Spanish influenza.

>>16982 I think you don't really understand laziness. A lazy person is, in pretty much all cases, on of two things: He's either incredible bored with whatever he should be doing, so he decided to not do that instead and instead spend the time with something more pleasant. This won't be the case in a micro society designed to let the people flourish in their desire to build and to create. It's essentially what they're doing at valve and it seems to be working great for them. The other possibility is that the task at hand is just too big to solve, so he'd rather not start and is searching for other things to concentrate onto that seem like they'll work out better with his skillset. This could be the case, but it's also very unlikely, considering the atmosphere is likely very helpful

Define smart

>>17618 some people actually are just lazy unambitious soykafs though

>>17629 I doubt that this society would raise lazy children

Humanity would probably end up with a lot bad eyesight, asthma, and Crohn’s disease lol

>>16969 so basically the movie idiocracy, but without the idiots

I don't understand why we have to massacre the entire human population. I believe just giving a group of smart people a building would suffice.

>how u measure smartness IQ tests. they're one of the most reliable things in psycology, so if ur throwing out those u have to throw out most of the entire field >inbreeding yes, this would probably happen because of more men than women and a small number. But itd get them at least a couple generations to fuarrrk around. assumming they survive that long, they could probably figure out gene editing somewhat, find a way to live longer, or something along those lines >mental health yea this is inevitable but most people have issues like that already. Plus, odds are that one of the 50 has some leadership skills and could boost morale >inexperience/lazy most people are pretty motivated by death >misc skills vs computer skills small scale farming isnt that hard when u have a complex designed for it and a database to check with

I wonder if that would change anything. Smart people are already running the world, because they're smart. If they weren't, they would have been replaced already. Of course, this thread is doomed to fail since you haven't defined what "smart" or "intelligent" means for you so we can start anything resembling a conversation.