Would they have all still fought against him?
Yeah, because it’s so morally defensible to eliminate all of the developmentally disabled and republicans.
Submitted 1 year ago by Thief@lemmy.myserv.one to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Would they have all still fought against him?
Yeah, because it’s so morally defensible to eliminate all of the developmentally disabled and republicans.
rip grandma
cougheugenicscough
I’d bet good money that most republicans are smarter than AOC
You think most Republicans could graduate cum laude with a BA in International Relations and Economics?
Case in point.
Given they are republicans who harp on about one member of Congress that likely doesn’t represent them, I doubt it
Done, how much we going in for?
Considering that most are over 70 and believe in a magical ecosystem that would suddenly stop burning with ever-increasing frequency and severity each summer overnight if West coast states where that happens most often elect more Republican leadership- I highly doubt they’re that clever at all, let alone more so than one congresswoman who lives in their heads rent-free
Jokester over here
Hang on, do you mean “with the capacity to be dumbest,” or is he killing all the babies and children
I mean, the average newborn is smarter than the average politician, so maybe it’s not as bad as we think.
Bruh babies cant even talk or have object permanence, don’t try to spin that as being smart.
Politician dumb
They’d still be appalled and try to stop him given their strong moral code. And given that they’d be at full strength they’d probably find a way to stop him and reverse things faster than they did in OTL
I’m frankly astonished anyone could genuinely think the Avengers would ever somehow be more ok with letting Thanos kill “only the stupid people”. Like…that’s a very strange read on these characters to think they’d ever react any differently in this scenario.
You think none of the Avengers is in the “dumb” 50%?
Of course not, didn’t Drax have a calculus scene in guardians 3?
Deep cut
And given that they’d be at full strength they’d probably find a way to stop him and reverse things faster than they did in OTL
Good point. But I dunno. Thor is a big power loss, and unless Captain America gets a free pass for emotional intelligence counting, they’re short in leadership, too.
Would they have all still fought against him? I know this is No Stupid Questions but…come on.
Why on Earth would the Avengers react any differently? Is the assumption that they’re moral bankrupt enough to actually reconsider in this scenario?
You see the Avengers are super big into eugenics. It’s in the subtext mate
50% was such a dumb number anyways.
It requires a single doubling to get back to where we were. To double, you’d need about 10 times a 7% growth. Probably within less than 100 years you’d be back at the same problem
Not to mention that when you murder a shit tonne of people, and when it’s over you’ll likely have lots of people getting babies, so you get a birth wave about 9 months later. That regrowth starts FAST.
This message was brought to you by the Rabbits in Australia
Build the fence! Build the fence!
The real question is which avengers would be gone. Putting my money on Thor
Thor, Starlord, Drax, and Mantis would all be toast.
Not necessarily any Avengers would be gone.
If Thor is on the upper half of intelligence in his kind then…
Good point, technically. But… We all know Thor would be gone. There’s no way the rightful heir to the throne of Asgard is in their top 50% intelligence.
I mean, he could have just created 200% more resources as well. Or he could have equually redistributed all the resources. The problem he was trying to solve would still eventually happen again, because solving the problem relies on everyone working unselfishly, which is simply not possible when humans are involved.
I think he should have cut the birth rate to a third of what it now. No one would notice. No one would die or be missed. There’d just be a lot less people within fifty years.
OK while that would be a better idea the thought that no one would notice is laughable. We have detailed pregnancy rate records going back 75 years, an immediate 30% change would definitely raise a lot of red flags.
That wouldn’t have impressed death. He is into goth girls.
Actually a good point. He should have just done that.
Yeah, Dan Brown dealt with it in a much better manner.
I think the whole 50% depopulation is a flawed premise, of the hundred of thousands of years modern humans have existed that would throw total population back to... 1970
Yup. His movie motivation was dumbed down. The whole resources thing is stupid for exactly this reason.
In the comics, Thanos became infatuated with the Marvel Universe incarnation of Death. …And naturally he figured that if he killed half the universe at once, he’d get her attention. (cause girls love it when a boy makes a huge amount of work for them…)
Anyway, his plan was still moronic, but “manchild does stupid thing to impress girl” is a classic for a reason.
Dude, he killed Vision and Gamora and other people close to the member of Avengers, no way they gonna let him off the hook.
I think it largely depends on his definition of “dumb”…. Given he’s already committed to wiping out half of all life, I’d consider his mental facilities to be of questionable already. His idea of who is dumb may be similarly questionable…
Then we know he would have killed all of GOTG
Why couldn’t Thanos just wish for unlimited resources? Or universal peace? Or literally any number of things that would have solved the problems he was trying to solve? His method was stupid.
He also could have just created trillions more planets so that there wouldn’t be natural resource shortages. Nope. Gotta murder quadrillions of life forms.
I always wondered if your goal is to reduce population. Why not just make half the people infertile?
I don’t think the hulk would have reacted at all, since he’d be gone. But does that mean Banner would stay somehow?
Thanos was a fucking stupid character in the MCU. The human population is currently doubling every 61 years with a growth rate of about 1.14%. Assuming similar numbers across the galaxy, he didn’t do anything except cause suffering. He’s a very poorly written villain.
I guess to stay on topic, they would have looked at population growth, and determined that his plan was moronic, and fought him.
Ant-Man: Well come on, wait, you know, there are different kinds of intelligence, right? Please someone tell me I’m not making that up.
Thanos could have literally chosen 1000 other options that were better than killing 50% of all living things, and I’m sure nobody would have disagreed!
That leaves an interesting situation for Bruce banner/the hulk
You killed all of our kids!
What would make this question more interesting is can you think of any metric where they would flip, or at least consider it. For example, all the members of Hydra (a bad example, would never make 50%, but you get the idea).
would’ve still fought him because their job isn’t to stop evil, it’s to maintain the status quo
They all would have been wiped out.
Avengers would have been much better prepared. T’challa, Hank, Janet, Dr Strange could have all helped plan the response. Bucky, Sam, Hope, Peter Parker could have all helped execute the plan.
Drax and Quill are still goners. The rest probably aren’t snapped.
Vision, Gamora, Loki, Heimdall unchanged since they died before the snap.
Would they all still exist?
Can we please not hypothesise about eugenics and people's reactions to eugenics, with the current global climate?
Not an answer to the question, but relevant communities that could use more activity
!asksciencefiction@lemmy.world
!whowouldwin@lemmy.world
Exactly the same
Thanos was a fucking stupid character in the MCU. The human population is currently doubling every 61 years with a growth rate of about 1.14%. Assuming similar numbers across the galaxy, he didn’t do anything except cause suffering. He’s a very poorly written villain.
I guess to stay on topic, they would have looked at population growth, and determined that his plan was moronic, and fought him.
GraniteM@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Isaac Asimov, a very intelligent person, wrote a lengthy essay to the effect that he had no idea what intelligence was. He talked about how society would generally consider him more intelligent than the nearly illiterate man who repaired his car, and yet whenever something went wrong with his car he would go to his mechanic and listen to his advice as if it was being handed down from the mountaintop by Moses himself, because Isaac Asimov knew fuck all about car repair. He talked about how he thought that supposedly objective IQ tests were generally a series of gates designed by people already considered intelligent to keep themselves in power, and that they totally disregarded huge swaths of indispensable human knowledge and talent. Isaac Asimov, who has been published in literally every section of the Dewey Decimal System, concluded that he had no firm idea as to what exactly “intelligence” even was.
In short, how could one even define “the dumbest 50%”?
And that’s why Thanos should have made everybody half as large as they once were.
deweydecibel@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Modern psychology supports this, too.
ButtholeSpiders@startrek.website 1 year ago
I agree, I took a few IQ tests and scored high and initially it made me wonder is if everyone else was as concerned as I was watching our species being driven into early graves for yearly profit projections.
Suffice to say, most people I met who scored high lacked the foresight to even think we might be screwed. Which led me to a swift conclusion that your IQ doesn’t mean jack squat, it was a biased system that was simply a biased form of dick measuring.
Perhaps I’m disillusioned, but the best summary of our species is that old video of a chimpanzee in a zoo pissing in its mouth.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
snort “modern psychology” calls pseudoscience on someone? That’s my laugh if the day. Thank you!
Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 1 year ago
I love the entire story, then your very solid and succinct answer
soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
The dumbest 50% is everyone but me.
Kahlenar@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Ahhhh the GOAT. Seriously, as a smart kid everything else about me was ignored. Something wrong at school? You CAN do it, so just do it. D&D breaks up mental stats, but there’s even more out there. Int, Wis, Cha to start. Then there’s motivation, happiness, and empathy, and more. The mind is super complex and an int score of 18 being all that matters is like the saying “this hammer solves my nail problem, it will surely solve my window problem.”
kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Lol dude is asking for scientific way to define “dumbness” in a world with infinity stones and flying people
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 1 year ago
Thanos selected the 50% luckiest people. That’s good for everyone!
Larry Niven enters the chat
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Love the tag.
and good Asimov story thanks
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I really appreciate Asimov’s thoughts. Ethical hat off for a second - I would suggest removing the most destructive 50%. If someone is truly stupid they might just as well be harmless. However, removing the swathe of the population that engage in violence, greed, etc. would be a far better use of the finger snap than some metric of stupidity.
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I would characterise that as “ethical hat on”.
FaeDrifter@midwest.social 1 year ago
Multiverse Thanos where he tries to wipe out the 50% most destructive, but snaps himself out of existence first because even by trying he made himself the most destructive person in the universe.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Good questions from Asimov. But just like with car repair, he didn’t know this subject. It has been a field of study for a while, and researchers have worked directly on this core problem defining general intelligence distinct from specific knowledge.
This Veritassium video is a balanced overview of the topic: youtu.be/FkKPsLxgpuY?si=iY7QBEQK1DkzNhxI
Needless to say, no, the IQ test is not a conspiracy by people who are good at number sequence problems to keep themselves in charge of the world.
bouh@lemmy.world 1 year ago
IQ of someone is not stable: it changes depending on how much you train to do it or the mental/psychological state you are in when you pass it. Thus it is not a sound scale to measure anything.
The fact that it is merely a ranking of people further push it in the realm of straight bullshit.
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
Even with the classic definition of intelligence it’s just useless - not predictive or indicative of anything.
A student without the skills to learn isn’t going to learn much regardless of whether they’re intelligent.
bouh@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The definition for intelligence changed over the last 2 centuries because we keep discovering how an animal can fit the definition, and intelligence was used to separate humans from animals. Now it’s even worse because people are trying to separate AI from humans.
I like the concept laid out by Delany: in a novel he describe 3 levels of intelligence based on the understanding of various point of views, but it’s not a ranking.
The first stage is simplex: people don’t understand the science of the world, so everything is kind of magical but this concept of magic make the world hold itself and they can grasp everything and use everything with this conception of magic.
Second stage is complex: people have an understanding of science and they can explain many things, but not everything. And when they can’t explain something, they can’t cope with it, because they don’t have the conceptual tools for it. Thus they will either deny this thing existence of plug it into their existing concepts by ignoring the feature that can’t fit.
Third and last stage is multiplex : people can accept that there are theories different than the ones they know, ideas also. Point of views can shape the way you see the world, and even the scientific theories you have to explain the world can be seen as a point of view on the world, so changing this point of view can bring a new or different understanding of a phenomenon or thing or person. These points of view all coexist at the same time, none of them is more true than the other. Like the concept of magic, this allows to grasp, use or accept even the ununderstandable and the unknown, but with a better ability to understand than the simplex stage.
I like this model. But it’s more a model for open-mindedness than intelligence. But maybe that’s the thing.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So Thanos could eat them more easily?
Willy@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
sorry to stop the circlejerk, but this is dumb. an intelligent person could learn to repair the car more easily and have more insight than a moron. intelligence exists and we all experience it everyday. the wais-r is a relatively good test, but no there is never going to be a perfect way to measure intelligence. you can say intelligence is just what the test measures which is really pretty non biased, but that’s reducing things too much. y’all know morons and people that are crazy fucking smart. experience in different subjects is distributed, but the ability to gain experience quickly is the biggest difference.
MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Holy cow. However intelligence is defined, you’re smarter than I am. That would have been a really short film.
…and I’m just realizing that universe would look pretty much exactly like those little kid Marvel Adventures shows…
bleistift2@feddit.de 11 months ago
Do you happen to know where Asimov published this opinion and what its title was?