ProfessorW Posted June 24, 2014 Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 If anyone has read Issac Asimov's Foundation books, I see Taravangian's thoughts and the Diagram to be like psychohistory. It predicts how populations react, but is not exact enough to get down to the individual level. That's how the Diagram is mostly right, but there are so many variables that even with his super-high sterile intelligence he cannot totally predict events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggai Posted June 24, 2014 Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 If anyone has read Issac Asimov's Foundation books, I see Taravangian's thoughts and the Diagram to be like psychohistory. It predicts how populations react, but is not exact enough to get down to the individual level. That's how the Diagram is mostly right, but there are so many variables that even with his super-high sterile intelligence he cannot totally predict events. Exactly. Even psychohistory required the Second Foundation to keep it working. Unfortunately, Mr. T has no Second Foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pathfinder Posted June 24, 2014 Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 This is a slight digression, but there is a rather big flaw in his potential law. If it was put into place, then wouldn't HE, on the days of less than average intelligence, be required to commit suicide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggai Posted June 24, 2014 Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 This is a slight digression, but there is a rather big flaw in his potential law. If it was put into place, then wouldn't HE, on the days of less than average intelligence, be required to commit suicide? It would only happen once, because otherwise everyone would end up below average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalbusker Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Who is more valuable to society; a man of moral character who eschewed higher education in favor of service in law enforcement or a woman who's research has led to sustainable energy, but who kidnaps children that remind her of her deceased baby? If there are going to be exterminations going on, it should at least be done on an individual basis. For the record, I don't actually think Taravangian's intelligence-based sterilization and/or euthanasia program would be a good thing, either in the sense of being morally justifiable or being a net benefit to society (barring some kind of Diagram-level genius twist that I'm not smart enough to comprehend, but I think we can rule that out on the day in question). I suppose I should have mentioned that in my post, but I didn't want to risk derailing the thread into a euthanasia debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyman Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 This is a slight digression, but there is a rather big flaw in his potential law. If it was put into place, then wouldn't HE, on the days of less than average intelligence, be required to commit suicide? Nah, his intellectual status isn't permanent. While I am very dubious of the morality of that law (duh), if such a thing were to be passed, I would consider it perfectly logical for him to carve out an exception for himself because his potential when he's brilliant outweighs the costs when he isn't. It's a scary kind of logic, but at least its self-consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pathfinder Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) Nah, his intellectual status isn't permanent. While I am very dubious of the morality of that law (duh), if such a thing were to be passed, I would consider it perfectly logical for him to carve out an exception for himself because his potential when he's brilliant outweighs the costs when he isn't. It's a scary kind of logic, but at least its self-consistent. But the very fact that he has to place an exception to the rule is inconsistent. In fact the more I think about it, the more functional problems arise with the law. If we look at it from a purely logical standpoint of which it is presented, then it states any who are not of a certain intellectual level must commit suicide. Taken purely at that and that alone, then children from birth to a certain age level should be killed immediately out of hand. Only child prodigies that somehow escaped the ax to a certain age would be able to demonstrate the mental acumen required. The entire law would require numerous exceptions and further amendments to be feasible at all. edit: so in that, i believe that supports the supposition that Mr.T was not at his highest level of intelligence when he came to that conclusion Edited June 25, 2014 by Pathfinder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksiel Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 He wouldn't have need to make an exception, because he was above average intelligence when he thought of that. The law would have made all people on that day below average IQ to commit suicide and it would've been a one-time thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pathfinder Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 He wouldn't have need to make an exception, because he was above average intelligence when he thought of that. The law would have made all people on that day below average IQ to commit suicide and it would've been a one-time thing. " He’d drafted a law requiring that all people of less than average intellect be required to commit suicide for the good of the city. It had seemed reasonable. He had considered they might resist, but thought that the brilliance of the argument would sway them." The quote indicated does not state that all people of less than average intellect be required to commit suicide for the good of the city on such and such date. There is nothing in that statement that indicates to me that it is a one time event. And even if it was, lets say I give you that, that still results in your entire adolescent population being eliminated. Again I am taking the quote literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksiel Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 " He’d drafted a law requiring that all people of less than average intellect be required to commit suicide for the good of the city. It had seemed reasonable. He had considered they might resist, but thought that the brilliance of the argument would sway them." The quote indicated does not state that all people of less than average intellect be required to commit suicide for the good of the city on such and such date. There is nothing in that statement that indicates to me that it is a one time event. And even if it was, lets say I give you that, that still results in your entire adolescent population being eliminated. Again I am taking the quote literally. It doesn't say it would be done on daily/monthly basis either. The wording is for a one-time event, so far as I understand it. Continuously having half of Kharbranth citizens to commit suicide would lead to T having noone to rule over soon enough. He may have lacked the empathy to get what was wrong with his law, but he wasn't an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moogle Posted June 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 The quote indicated does not state that all people of less than average intellect be required to commit suicide for the good of the city on such and such date. There is nothing in that statement that indicates to me that it is a one time event. And even if it was, lets say I give you that, that still results in your entire adolescent population being eliminated. Again I am taking the quote literally. Adolescents are measured differently on IQ tests, aren't they? So only adolescents that are on less intelligent than their peers would be knocked off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pathfinder Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 It doesn't say it would be done on daily/monthly basis either. The wording is for a one-time event, so far as I understand it. Continuously having half of Kharbranth citizens to commit suicide would lead to T having noone to rule over soon enough. He may have lacked the empathy to get what was wrong with his law, but he wasn't an idiot. Then I am happy to agree to disagree, because I interpret that statement as ongoing. My point being that he was not intelligent enough at the time to fully comprehend all the intricacies of the law he thought would be perfectly logical to enact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyman Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) Come on folks. Let's be real. At his smartest, Taragavinian may not have understood why people (even very smart people in no danger) would have objected to his law, but there would certainly be some very practical constraints on its application, for the good of the city if nothing else. Among other things: (1) Children would almost certainly be exempt until an age when their intelligence could reasonably be assumed to have stabilized. (2) It would be essentially a one-time thing for every person. Once you passed the cut, you would be reasonably safe until you hit some form of dementia. (3) The cut-off level would have to be set low enough to keep up a sensible birth rate. If he didn't include any of these things, than he really wasn't that smart, was he? If so, that is telling in its own right. But I suspect it was a one-time thing, either for the entire city, or possibly for each individual in the city. Also, it would be a very odd law that didn't allow mitigating circumstances that would reasonably expected to go away, like sickness. And his own exception would fit in with these constraints just fine. After all, he knows he will have smart days in the future, and that will work for the good of the world. Edit: Incidentally, I hate coming up with these scenarios. I like logic and would prefer that people uphold it in even in odd cases like this, but as I'm no sociopath, the idea of the law he proposed makes my stomach hurt. I'm not arguing this because I think it's a good idea. I'm just saying: don't let those emotions force you to make the wrong decision about the logic. The logic is sound, but it is based of a false premise, so there is no need to refute it. Edited June 25, 2014 by happyman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts