GOOD FOR MANKIND? What’s good for mankind? What’s good for mankind? Just the opp

GOOD FOR MANKIND?

What’s good for mankind? What’s good for mankind? Just the opposite of what we do for the commercial short term good: exterminate everyone in every civlization under 106. That’s what’s good for mankind. And it isn’t even open to possible criticism. Because it’s very hard to imagine any meaningful problems remain if we do that. We can do mankind even better, and take it up to 112 or 115, at which point the young and old are fully employable in productive capacity from birth to death. Or up to 125 where mysticism is no longer in demand. You know we will be able to engineer super-humans fairly soon. But it doesn’t help if a minority of super humans (>135) are held down by a plurality of ordinary humans, (>90) and a dearth of subhumans (<90). Now. I’m not recommending that we do what’s objectively good for mankind. I’m simply saying live and let live. But that means, those of us who WANT to live without the burdens of the dead weight of sub-humans and near-humans, have a choice of separating and living and let live – or we have a choice of exterminating, letting us live and others not. Or we have a choice of being overwhelmed by the subhumans. … Now, I”m perfectly happy being accused of casting people as subhuman as long as people are happy casting people as equal. When all the evidence is that the opposite is true.