Posted in Blog Archive

Posted by abeodbart January 24, 2012 at 10:07 am

A fun article at poses an interesting question; “What happens if we all become twice as smart?”

This is not a strange thought since human IQ has been steadily rising since measurements began. This is called the Flynn effect and social scientists are not sure what caused it, though improved nutrition, education and social complexity in the media age are all pinned as being factors in the increase.

Interestingly, not as much would change as you think, says Richard Haier, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine. Although we would be able to learn faster and remember more (since our IQ’s would effectively be equivalent to that of rare crazy genius Isaac Newton) society is unlikely to suddenly turn into a futuristics utopia of like minded pacifists.

We would certainly be healthier, probably more physically attractive and less superstitious as these all correlate with increased intelligence, but the same personal defects (arrogance, anti-social behaviour, selfishness, etc.) would plague a civilisation of geniuses like they do today. Some of us would be able to devise brilliant new technological solutions to complex problems we face today, but similarly, those with nefarious purposes would be able to turn great new inventions towards destructive new ways of profit at the cost of others, or if we are really unlucky, new and apocalyptic weapons of war.

Certainly an entertaining thought. Be sure to read the article and post in the comments what you would think is most likely to change when we all have an average IQ of 200.

January 24, 2012 at 10:16 am
Scott says:

Great article… I love the part that says “We would certainly be healthier, probably more physically attractive and less superstitious as these all correlate with increased intelligence”.

So is that then saying, those who believe in superstitious things are not that intelligent, and since we don’t have twice the IQ we do now, do they have half the IQ we have now?

Interesting article, so it means all these High IQ aliens have the same problems we do, which is not really comforting to know.

January 24, 2012 at 10:16 am
Colin Swan says:

Hmmm, I am sceptical. If human IQ has been steadily rising since measurements began how come more and more of us spend our free time in front of a TV watching each other build, buy, sell, decorate and clean a house.

January 24, 2012 at 10:17 am
Ian says:

Call me pedantic, but I thought an IQ of 100 represented the average IQ for a demographic or area, therefore making an avergae IQ of 200 impossible to achieve?

January 24, 2012 at 10:20 am

It isn’t surprising that nothing will change much as most people spend as much time contemplating their navel as they can manage.
More intelligent people, are capable of & will therefore tend to do more navel gazing.

In creased Intelligence correlates with being more physically attractive; really?
I find that hard to believe, because I’ve got an IQ of 183 & I look like a bulldog chewing a wasp!

January 24, 2012 at 10:24 am
Ben says:

Pedantry first: Having an IQ of two hundred wouldn’t mean you were twice as smart, it would mean you were ten standard deviations above the mean score on an IQ test. If everyone became twice as intelligent, the average IQ – by definition – would still be 100.

On the more interesting points, I think the world would become a less violent place, at least on large scales. Whilst the reasons for wars and conflict are myriad, the justifications for them that are given to the public are often rely on peoples ignorance, something that would hopefully not wash were people more intelligent.

Of course maybe those in charge would simple be intelligent enough to concoct better lies.

January 24, 2012 at 10:26 am
Steve says:

But Derren would we be any happier? Ignorance is bliss, it’s worked for me…

January 24, 2012 at 10:26 am
Russell Jones says:

Intelligence correlates with physical attractiveness? I give you this vs the late lamented Anthony Howard.

January 24, 2012 at 10:39 am
Margaret Pearce says:

Interesting thought – thanks for this. However the article you refer to isn’t there – probably been moved by the originators. Such is life on twitter & blogs…regards, Margaret

Msg from Abeo: There was a typo in the link, fixed now :)

January 24, 2012 at 10:44 am

…there’ll be a lot more people in Mensa, for a start…

January 24, 2012 at 10:57 am
Alan says:

Well if we were twice as smart surely we would be able to cast off religion. I wonder how much we would have advanced as a species without religion?

January 24, 2012 at 11:00 am
Galen says:

If we consider that 99% of wars thus far have been fought over religion and/or resources, being twice as intelligent (globally) would certainly go a long way to curb the notion that the history of humankind is the history of war. Organised religion would likely fizzle out or evolve into something else and we would discover new ways to produce food, energy and make jewelery. There would really be little to fight about if we were all a bit brighter with a more shared understanding of the world

January 24, 2012 at 11:02 am
Kyle says:

There would still be the same division between upper and lower level of integence. It just means the person that cleans the toilet will be better at maths. Also intelegence should’nt be confused with ignorance it’s relative what you learn not your ability to understand.

January 24, 2012 at 11:03 am
Garrett says:

The IQ scale always reminds me of the Kelvin versus Celsius temperature scales in physics. Although in everyday language we have a tendency to think that 20 deg C is twice as hot as 10 deg C, the reality is that the temperature has only risen by about 3%, i.e. from 283 Kelvin to 293 Kelvin. So unless one defines an absolute scale of IQ, then it seems misleading to say that in increase from 100 to 200 IQ points is the same as becoming twice as intelligent.

January 24, 2012 at 11:23 am
Ash A says:

What’s a ‘nefarious’? Sounds like a wicked smart word :O

January 24, 2012 at 11:29 am
Mike says:

Garrett: “The IQ scale always reminds me of the Kelvin versus Celsius temperature scales in physics”


Intelligence is hardly a linear scale – it describes a great range of behaviours and abilities.

January 24, 2012 at 11:32 am
Andy says:

If everyone became more intelligent, that includes bad people and toe rags.
Life would become more stressful as cyber criminals, burglars and thieves would find more clever ways of making money out of honest people. Sounds like a pain in the jacksy!

January 24, 2012 at 11:43 am
JIM says:

If arrogance and anti-social behaviors are correlated to what nowadays brilliant minds are (5-10% of the population), when the average IQ would double, those arrogant and anti-social characters would probably still apply to the top 5-10% of the IQ population. Can’t see why and how the average human would be “infected” by that plague of personal defects. Interesting article.

January 24, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Chrissi says:

We’d probably all be chronically depressed. Sure I remember hearing how more intelligent people have a greater likelihood of depression – probably because you have a better understanding of how unfair life is. I’ve often longed to be ignorant and therefore blissful……..!

January 24, 2012 at 1:14 pm
roz says:

if we were twice as smart, we’d still do stupid shit like voting fer newt gingrich.

January 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm
nik says:

@kyle spot on with the ignorance comment, I’m pretty intelligent, I have a degree in maths and psychology, and I clean the streets, or whatever work I can do. (Respect to my dad, first thing he told his doctor colleagues when I got a job cleaning streets down in Brighton, not to take the piss, just a basic healthy pride).

But yes ignorance, avoidance, people’s intelligence is massive in comparison to the demands of their situation most of the time. “I’m such a forgetful person”, “It doesn’t matter”, “I can do it tomorrow”, everyone knows areas of life where effort will make things better, (but also different), intelligence doesn’t seem to stop people avoiding them.

We need an I.Q. test for guts, peoples ability to stand up and be counted, and then similar linear growth 😀

January 24, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Harry Futile says:

What about Bobby Fischer? Gaining intelligence (whatever that is) means more demons, as well as angels.
Imagine an evil Derren Brown! 😮

January 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Catharina says:

First thank you for linking to all these articles in your tweets and blogs, I love reading about science (and basically new stuff).
Second on this intelligence aspects I think we seem to mainly use it to make are lives comfortable (writing from a warm house, in a cozy bed with a warming blanket). Yes, we are thinking more about nature nowadays, but still only to the extent of still having comfort. I would wish being more intelligent would make us a little less top-of-the-food-chain prone, but I think its going to be the opposite. We dont seem to really graps the fact tha we share our world with other creatures. Also our intelligence has made us healthier and able to live longer which creates another problem: when there isnt enough room for us, or if we manages to never dies, who stays and who goes? The natural selection was there for a reason I think. To keep us in check. Maybe its nonsence to you all (not entierly sure myself) or maybe you dont find the thoughts original enough, but its my thought concerning the matter.

Love from cold and sunny Sweden:)

January 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Berber Anna says:

Catharina: Nature is all about balance. If humanity keeps getting more prolific, it will eventually reach the point where there’s not enough resources to support it, and it will shrink dramatically. Happens to any species that grows to plague size. Natural selection never kept any species in check, though — we’re selected for survival and reproduction, so natural selection will cause a species to grow if at all possible. We’ve evolved our intelligence as a survival strategy, and it’s functioning very well (maybe too well).

Small side note though — it’s not Derren himself who posts these articles most of the time, it’s the blog staff (Abeo, Dupin and Exeo). Unless they’re all Derren’s alter egos, of course. 😛

January 24, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Dee B says:

I doubt if even problems like famine and drought would be solved. Ugly as it is, the third world being so poor is what helps the first world stay rich. For third world countries to solve their own problems, they need access to education, which can be blocked. Even if someone outside the third world were to theoretically solve the bigger world problems, someone who has a financial motivation would block it. Trade embargos etc.

Smart rich people know that the carrying capacity of the earth is too small for everyone to be rich, so for them to stay rich others have to suffer. Smart rich people have enough power to make sure that the world as it is, stays as it is, otherwise their world comes crashing down.

re: increasing IQ. Better nutrition = taller ppl, why not increased reasoning, too?

January 24, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Shaun Banks says:

Obviously Einstein was a gorgeous atheletic chap and Issac Newton did not write more papers on religion than science.

Nuclear weapons, the greatest threat to mankind, was not developed by religious fanatics but by scientits with high IQ’s for power weilding governments which ,in some cases, also include people with with high IQ’s.

How can IQ tests determine morality. If the person is a very intelligent evil sod how could any test determine that. Intelligence is encompassing of every human quality. Is it better to live in a volatile technological world that could self distruct at any moment or to live a more simple balanced life.

We may have evolved our intelligence as a survival strategy but why have our morals remained so primative and a threat to the survival of all of mankind?

January 24, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Graeme says:

If human IQ is “steadily rising”… why am I STILL surrounded by idiots?

January 24, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Mark says:

Derren will gain more followers.

That’s my only answer because I negatively look upon IQ as being an accurate test of intelligence. Even if mine was 200 now I’d still say that. But if people were generally smarter they’d start to follow more intellectual and interesting people rather than lady gaga, britney spears and whatnot.

January 24, 2012 at 8:54 pm
mango says:

Increased intelligence alone may have little positive effect on human society. What I believe is truly needed, is an increased level of compassion and independent thinking. The current state of affairs is that the vast majority of us have a tendency toward a more sheeplike mentality, accepting things as truth without question, regardless of IQ level, and giving little thought to any suffering or harm, environmental or otherwise, that may be behind consumer products available for purchase. Few of us genuinely make the connection between bacon and bloody murder, even fewer of us seem capable of understanding the effect bread consumption plays on our physiological well-being. People flock for their vaccinations and medication trusting blindly in an industry that may not be what you think.

January 24, 2012 at 9:41 pm

Just addons my voice to the choir of wiseguys here. The IQ-scale is not actually a linear measurement of intelligence in any real way. So, “twice” the intelligence is far less than getting everyone to the level of a current day IQ of 200. 200 puts someone way out there, far out of reach of normal intelligence – you have to wonder if, it that level, IQ even means anything …

January 24, 2012 at 9:58 pm
nick says:

@ Dee B. Exploitation is my biggest ethical dilemma. I am aware of how I exploit, (directly and indirectly), aware that I have a choice, and aware wealth and greed substitute meaning. I think your thinking is good, but whatever the game, working out what matters and giving it your best shot is always the most logical thing to do.

One of my sisters best life experiences was building a school in South Africa. She said the people were so full of life, one of the many locals a young woman apparently decided now she could build anything herself. All that excitement, community, effort and willingness.

Struggle, success, comfort, laziness, “I want to break free”

How far is a person prepared to extend their self, before turning away?
We have all answered that question, but ask it again!

January 24, 2012 at 10:26 pm
nick says:

@Catharina 7 billion people is a disaster, what can we do, how can we all do it, the amount of natural life is going to decline over the next 1 2 300 years … we will carry on killing each other, and we will carry on being lazy when we are ahead … or maybe not. We rightly or wrongly think it is correct to indulge ourselves to excessive degrees, even at the cost of our own life, I like that you question things.

Choose a small but achievable vision that helps everyone do more to help, try your best, reassess, also I would recommend What Will It Take?: A Deeper Approach to Nature Conservation, Iain Scott. All the funds go to charitable works and is quite insightful.

January 25, 2012 at 2:52 am
KnoxonK says:

I think the definition they use for IQ is a bit too narrow.
Isn’t there also some kind of emotional IQ? A higher emotional IQ may influence society in ways they didn’t think about.
But even in this narrow definition it is a quite interesting thought what could happen…@Chrissi may be right and people would probably all be chronically depressed. And what these depressions may cause in our society is also difficult to tell. Ask yourself what would happen if nearly everybody would need a therapy?
Today there are already enough people who have some sort of burn out syndrome.
But it is also possible that enough of our social problems would be solved so that life wouldn’t be so unfair anymore…who knows?

January 25, 2012 at 9:30 am
Tony says:

>> We would certainly be healthier, probably more physically attractive and less superstitious as these all correlate with increased intelligence,<<

If we were all twice as intelligent, then less people would fall for the correlation = causation fallacy.

January 25, 2012 at 11:29 am
Shaun Banks says:

@mango I agree with everything you say except the bacon.

Vegetarianism is a privilege of living in a wealthy western society as most third world countries do not have the choice & they eat what ever they can. Until the world food issues are resolved & people are not starving then selective menus are not an option.

if we all went vegetarian then the number of livestock on the planet would fall to dramatically and perhaps some animals, including pigs, would only be seen at tourist attractions like zoos. The cost of feeding & maintaining the existing numbers of live stock would not be viable. More animals with shorter life spans or far less with longer life spans?

I don’t want animals to suffer but what are the options – GM crops?

Best solution would be to reduce the population

January 25, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Taiwo Adeyemi says:

Interesting article, however, even though I agree that as people become more intelligent they no longer accept the presentation of truth offered by books such as the bible and by organised religion, I notice that the article does not talk about the fact that as people become more intelligent they may also be able to apply that same reasoning to life and it’s mysteries and ascertain the Truth of Reality for themselves. The Atheist becomes the seeker of Truth and subsequently finds that Truth. (sent from my iPhone while at work..)

January 25, 2012 at 6:38 pm
nick says:

@ S Banks, best option would be to reduce the world population, failing that we could all think a little bit, and stop making excuses :P.

If we all went vegetarian, tried our best to help thy neighbour, seriously endeavoured to end all unnecessary suffering, did our best, it wouldn’t work.

I mean it would, but it seems like fantasy, and then when you do do anything real its hard work, oh well nothing we didn’t already know, also interesting that intelligent people get more depressed more often,

@Chrissi, yes and lowering the I.Q. is a valid (if expensive and temporary)solution, the alternative is to face what you know.

January 25, 2012 at 9:15 pm
mango says:

@shaun: GM crops is certainly no solution. The solution is to plant more fruit yielding trees. per square meter, nothing produces more food. Sure, there may be isolated cases of races with little other choice, but you are really only talking inuit.. for 3rd world countries meat is still considered a luxury. But I am really addressing readers of this blog, who do have a choice, but fail to see the reason to change, or struggle to find reasons why the change might not always be the right one. a more realistic GRADUAL changeover to vegetarian would likely see an abolition of zoos more-so than pigs in zoos. contrary to popular myth, there is plenty of room on this planet for 7 billion people, just not the way the current infrastructure is. I would say more, but for the character limit..

January 26, 2012 at 10:06 am
nick says:

In regards to overpopulation, my last comment is not very useful, this website offers a better analysis,

Population Matters seeks an optimal balance, offering the best quality of life, not the greatest quantity of possessions. This implies modest but reasonably comfortable standards of living free from hunger or insecurity, which enables fulfillment without increasing physical consumption. Only non-physical things — like quality of relationships, intelligence, education, knowledge, skills, health, arts, spiritual growth, respect, fun — can increase indefinitely in a physically finite world

January 27, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Shaun Banks says:

@Mango: In many countries for millions of people choice is not always an option when it comes to food because extreme poverty dictates that the necessity for food completely out weighs any ethics regarding the foods source. Survival shows no manners at the dinner table. So until we can solve world poverty vegetarianism has it’s work cut out.

7 Billion is too many people unless you are the tax man. There are not infinite resources on this planet and perhaps if things we extremely different we could all live in piece and harmony but unfortunately it is going to take a very very very long time before that happens and by then how big will the population be and how much irreversible damage to the earth will have being caused.

Also how much fruit can a man eat?

January 27, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Shaun Banks says:

@Nick I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately by the time than mankind (and womenkind) learns to appreciate life that way it will have done so much irreversible damage. It is important to address the worlds population issue now as the current nature of mankind is intent over indulging on it’s material desires. It is clearly not responsible enough to be allowed to keep on growing at the rate it is. The future is not just for us it is for all the generations to come. Until the leaders of the world loose their hunger for power and people stop worshipping materialism we have a very long way to go.

Joy is not in things it is in us.

January 28, 2012 at 8:12 pm
meandering sums says:

can’t help but to think about this in terms of the math of a sphere. if you double the diameter of sphere, the surface area is quadrupled, and it’s volume is octupled.

January 30, 2012 at 3:04 pm
alan says:

what caused it
Even guitar playing can cause the fingers of the active hand to permanently extend, though exercise.
Is the mind more than just glorified muscle?
What happens if we all become twice as smart?
Isn’t the question: How smart must we be? In order to realise that to become even smarter we have to be here.
Hence: The meaning of life is life itself, ensuring the continuity of the species.

January 30, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Amanda says:

“We would certainly be healthier, probably more physically attractive and less superstitious as these all correlate with increased intelligence…” – I’m not that smart, healthy, certainly butt ugly and not superstitious at all. It’s like people with a lower IQ have no value at all. Sounds like like eugenics. Scary.

January 31, 2012 at 8:49 pm
mango says:

@Shaun. Agreed that there may not always be an immediate choice for many. So I suppose I am really addressing the few who do have a choice. Here. The presence of those unable to choose, is not a reason for those that can choose, to continue eating animal flesh. Veganism is part of the solution toward solving world poverty. Weight for weight growing vegetable crops is far more land efficient than raising livestock. In order to raise 1kg of flesh, up to 5kgs and more of vegetable fodder is needed. Fruit yields are even more efficient. How much fruit can one eat? My diet consists solely of fruit. Please don’t dismiss the idea as nonsense. Most people are nonblissfully unaware of the detrimental effects the standard western diet. Cooked food is denatured and carries far reaching consequences.

February 1, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Jk says:

I suppose it would all be based on what problems / solutions are caused by a high IQ and which are caused by a higher IQ in relation to their peers

February 1, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Shaun Banks says:

@Mango said: “The presence of those unable to choose, is not a reason for those that can choose, to continue eating animal flesh.”

That is a good point but I would still argue that eventually there would be significantly less livestock living on the planet if everyone in the West went veggie and that would be a negative impact on animal life. Should we except this massive drop in living animal numbers to spare the few remaining animals from suffering?

“Weight for weight growing vegetable crops is far more land efficient than raising livestock” Weight for weight you get more nutrition out of animals than fruit without excess sugar!

February 1, 2012 at 8:47 pm
mango says:

@Shaun: Significantly less livestock. Agreed. But currently there are significantly more than there once were. The numbers are really irrelevant. It is about quality of life. Instead of being concentrated all in one spot and suffering for it, there will be less with more space. This is not a bad thing, and certainly not a reason to support livestock farming. Would you rather live on an overpopulated planet, or one where there was plenty of room for everyone? I doubt that while making the choice, you would be thinking “oh what about all those other people..?” population figures will take care of themselves.

February 1, 2012 at 8:54 pm
mango says:

@Shaun: “weight for weight you get more nutrition out of animals than fruit without excess sugar!” – Actually, that is really misleading and untruthful. Fruit is very nutritious, and comes void of many of the negative issues associated with cooked meat eating. The sugar in fruit bares no real connection with the white refined stuff that people are hooked on. It is life giving, and cleansing. There are many trained and fit examples of vegan athletes out there that are proof enough that meat is unnecessary, some of them with high percentage fruit in their diets. It is difficult to accept this as true maybe, because all our upbringing has lead us away from such ideas, removing our abilities to think objectively. The genuine proof of the pudding is in the eating.

February 2, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Shaun Banks says:

@Mango: Don’t get me wrong I do know that vegans can be healthy as I have a few friends and relatives that are vegans and they are still alive – only joking. I think the main issues we disagree on regarding nutrition is subject to conflicting scientific evidence. Personally, I prefer meat, fruit and vegatables etc as I have paid attention to my well being in relation to my diet for sometime and these food types serve me best. I think the biggest problems exist in unatural food products like processed high salt, sugar and fat foods etc.

The bottom line with all foods, regardless of how healthy they are, is that they are all rendered lethal if you over eat or do not exercise enough. The human body is extremely resilliant to all kinds of food types particularly if you exercise regularly.

February 2, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Shaun Banks says:

@Mango: As I have said before I think 7 billion is way to many people already.

With regards to less livestock with more space, this is fine in principle but who and how are they going to be protected from their natural predators. Farmers spend a great deal of time and money protecting livestock from predators. If we are not going to eat them then there are plenty of other animals that will and the methods they use will result in far more suffering than humans inflict. Foxes are particularly ruthless. Do we set the livestock free back into their natural environment (where ever that is) and leave them to fend for themselves or do we provide a safe haven like a safari park for them?

February 3, 2012 at 2:29 am
mango says:

@Shaun: precisely why I think this is NOT actually a diet issue. If you admit a vegan diet can be healthy, but choose not to follow it out of preference, then you are making a choice which is supporting untold suffering of animals reared to satisfy that choice. Not only are those animals suffering, (freedoms restricted, and untimely murdered) but they are eating food, or using land, which could be far more efficiently used in feeding humans. Your freedom of choice, without regard to consequence, is depriving the freedom of others. albeit not others of the same species as you. Any research into this should show just how intense and unjust the lives of these animals are. Commercial livestock farming is also slowly destroying the environment with it’s reliance on unnatural monocrop farming.

February 3, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Shaun Banks says:

@Mango said “then you are making a choice which is supporting untold suffering of animals reared to satisfy that choice”

Your assumptions regarding my ethics in relation to meat are a bit on the extreme side as I choose carefully where I purchase my meat products, ensuring that the animals have had as descent a live as possible. I am fully aware of the technics used in slaughter houses and I find most of them relatively humane in comparison to the deaths they would face living in the wild when hunted by their predators or when they die through disease. There are no vets in the wild only predators and disease.

If we were to remove all animals from harm how many humans would suffer through disease and other medical conditions

February 3, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Shaun Banks says:

@Mango: I do not agree with animal experimentation but I except it as a necessary means of survival for the humane race and to reduce the suffering of millions of human beings.

Disease has on many occasions wiped out millions of people on this planet and the population of 7 billion exists mainly subject to our management of the animal and plant world.

What will people eat when there is bad weather, disease, insect infestation, swarms of locusts etc that wipe out many of the crops grown to feed 7 billion people. Starvation is an horribly painful way to die. Unfortunately some animals have had to suffer to create solutions to these problems to save millions of lives.

Nature has its own plans and they do not always have much concern for the human race.

February 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm
mango says:

@Shaun: You are mislead believing that the suffering animals may face in a wild natural environment has any comparison to the hardships faced while kept in human captivity. You’re only comparing the final moments faced with death, and refusing to see the rest of the animals life. The comparison is really about a lifetime of freedom, (with a potential for murder by nature), to a definite shortened lifespan in captivity, offspring systematically removed after birth and more, and an assured slaughterhouse trip that will be far more terrifying and agonisingly prolonged than any theoretical animal chase, followed by an unavoidable brutal murder. Ask yourself the same question. Would you rather live a safe life in captivity and be sent off for slaughter at 18, or choose freedom and it’s risks?

February 5, 2012 at 1:03 am
Phil O says:

I know what you meant but by definition average IQ can’t increase. Just average intelligence.

February 6, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Beth x says:

If humans were twice as intelligent I wouldn’t be stuck with a bunch of imbeciles in my class who shouldn’t be allowed to use scissors. In fact, with the rate of smoking, drinking and drug use in pregnancy, it would seem that most of the next generation will become far more stupid than before seen. The information age will become null and void and the age of never moving forward shall begin.

And this is coming from a fifteen year old.


February 6, 2012 at 8:49 pm
mango says:

@Shaun, my assumption is that most meat eaters are basically unaware of the suffering livestock animals must endure. I think this is a very very fair assumption, and I stand by my words. If we were talking of a serial killer who treated his victims somewhat nicer than one who didn’t, we are still talking bloody murder, regardless. I also understand, more than assume, that most people are unaware of the true causes of disease. “The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything.” is a quote that few people have heard, and even fewer are able to understand., regardless of intellect, beliefs are formed at an early age, and rarely, if ever, questioned further. Medicinal science is not the answer to DIS-ease, which is never really removed, only suppressed.

February 7, 2012 at 11:39 am
Shaun Banks says:

@Mango said: “You are mislead believing that the suffering animals may face in a wild natural environment has any comparison to the hardships faced while kept in human captivity” I am not. I am fully aware of how the french made pate by nailing the ducks feet to wood floors and then force feeding them until their liver expands and how veal is made and so on, all of which I find repugnant and inhumane. I do know that suffering can be kept to minimum if it is all done correctly.

February 7, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Shaun Banks says:

@Mango Said: Ask yourself the same question. Would you rather live a safe life in captivity and be sent off for slaughter at 18, or choose freedom and it’s risks?

I do not have to make that choice because humans are the top of the food chain, otherwise I would potentially be someones lunch and that is not really freedom.

Very few of the animals we are talking about would survive in the wild because of the cross breeding that has taken place to maximise their potential meat capacity and therefore most would have to be destroyed.

I would love to live in a more balanced world than we do and I think in time our consideration for animal welfare will hopefully improve. If this does happen then it will be the work of mankind and not nature as nature is ruthless when it comes to survival.

February 8, 2012 at 10:07 am
Shaun Banks says:

@Mango: I think we should call an end to our discussion and say that we agree to disagree. I think we have hijacked this blog. It was very intersting speaking to you and you argued well for your point of view, most of which I gree with in principle

Beat Regards


March 5, 2012 at 6:11 am
Correct says:

Nothing would change. IQ is relative. If everyone’s IQ is increased, the relative intelligence would not change. Thus the world would be the same. The dumb people would still be dumber than the smart people. The evil people would be able to find new ways to be evil, but the twice as efficient law would be able to stop them. Absolutely nothing would change relative to the society. The only thing that would go up is the technology, since technology is, in a sense, absolute.


New and exclusive items

FEATURED Infamous Brochure

Infamous Brochure