Population and environmentalism.

[Brain Candy]

What contributions have YOU made?

Maybe we should retroactively abort YOU for having this inane idea?

Who I am does not matter. I presented a few issues and suggested they are important along with a few possible solutions to them, this is not because i personally stand to gain from them outside of their beneficial effects on society as a whole.

Hitler and Stalin had above average IQ's.

Get it yet?

I never claimed smart and capable people were incapable of cruelty, but at the same time people increasingly getting dumber within a society would eventually crush and destroy any civilisation. Why? Because they lack capababilities of smarter people to not only take care of themselves, but also tend to be more creative and forward thinking.

I doubt it. You are fighting for a solution that is worse than the disease for a problem that does not exist.

I am fighting for discussion for rational solutions to problems that do exist. We can argue about specifics, butpopulation is growing to unpresendented levels and more dumb then smart people are breeding. Even though growth rates may decrease, the population will still be rising indefinetly, unless we do something about it or hit a huge disaster.

We could have a huge, worldwide education program which would decrease population growth, but that would both be incredibly costly and their is no guarantee that it will be effective or we will be even wanted in most places. Also it does not take into consideration that intelligence stem from genetics as well as environment.

Canada specifically would benefit from stricter immigration laws, but just encouraging smarter and healthier people to breed more is a good idea in any situation.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Brain Candy

[Brain Candy]

White Doors asked a very good question 'What problem?"

Whats the problem here? That people have kids or that poor people have kids? If the problem is about overpopulation whats this horsebollocks about 'contributing to society'?

Would it be okay to have kids and increase the worlds population as long as there is 'contributing' happening?

Since smart people appear to breed less, I think these are connected and you cant really talk about one without the other.

I dont think the population increasing indefinately is a good idea no matter what IQ you are or background you are from. But at the same time, given that smart people tend to have smart children, if we are going to implement population control it would be a good idea to work from the "ground up".

Then you endorsed Olegs point that the foxes were running the hen-house...except you endorsed it on the grounds of his assertion that the genetic inferiors were somehow running the hen-house of the genetic superiors and thats wrong for some reason or other.

I think he put it fairly well. The transition from rigid definitions of class wasn't a bad idea, but sometimes I think the capitalist system makes people rise to the top who shouldnt be there, and with dishonest intentions once they get there. But I wouldnt claim that earlier societies were immune to this. Also I might have been slightly joking.

I think your argument isn't about overpopulation at all - but about genetics. People on welfare are inferior to those not on welfare so they should not be allowed to breed prodigiously because that will effect the quality of the gene pool.

I won't even go into the fundemental inhumanity of the state denying folks the joy of having and raising children - be they poor or not.

The arguement is about both things, but I wouldn't personally want a state that simply denied people the right to have children in general... but wouldnt it be allright to limit the amount of children less capable are aloud? Especially if they currently require government assistance? Immigration would probably need to be limited first in our specific case.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Brain Candy

[Brain Candy]

We could have a huge, worldwide education program which would decrease population growth, but that would both be incredibly costly and their is no guarantee that it will be effective or we will be even wanted in most places. Also it does not take into consideration that intelligence stem from genetics as well as environment.

I forgot something else here. Even if such a program was implemented and became hugely successful, we could only assume that along with our breeding habits we most likely bring in our consumption habits, so population problems are reduced but consumption problems multiply. D'oh!

[iForgot]

Brain Candy, been spending a bit too much time at Corrupt, I see? Trust me, I've been where you are - they will brainwash you and ruin your life. Stay away from there...

Edited April 9, 2008 by iForgot

[Peter F]

... smart people appear to breed less...

Do they indeed? How do you figure that?

...I think these are connected and you cant really talk about one without the other.

I dont think the population increasing indefinately is a good idea no matter what IQ you are or background you are from. But at the same time, given that smart people tend to have smart children, if we are going to implement population control it would be a good idea to work from the "ground up".

The arguement is about both things, but I wouldn't personally want a state that simply denied people the right to have children in general... but wouldnt it be allright to limit the amount of children less capable are aloud? Especially if they currently require government assistance?

So, if I have this right, you are saying that there are two seperate problems: population control having to do with the amount of people on the planet) and Intelligence of the people on the planet in that there are too many dumb people. That these two problems can be dealt with by smart people controlling the breeding of dumb people.

... smart people appear to breed less...

and in reply to White Doors point that there are some dumb rich people you said

Yes, that is why I think IQ and health are the better measures then money.

Why is health creeping in there now? Perhaps health should be an indication of intelligence? Healthy people are smarter than unhealthy people? The Smart people should rate everyone on thier health and thier IQ to determine Smartness and thus who gets breeding rights and who doesn't.

The end result of this would be a world where dumb people wouldnt have many children because the smart people would not let them, and smart people wouldn't have much children because they wouldn't anyways because they're smart.

Of course, this would require some sort of UN Agency (or something) wich would determine the Ideal Population of the Earth (UNIPOTE) and then 'Breeding Licenses' could be issued to Catagory B people when the worlds population replacement rate falls into the negatives....no. wait...that would work only for maintaining the worlds population level. It would be counter productive to maintaining the world population intelligence level. Since Catagory A people don't breed much, the only variable is the breeding of Catagory B people. Any breeding of Catagory B people is a diluting of the gene pool. DOH!

Catagory B people really can't be allowed to breed at all...unless perhaps they breed with Catagory A people.

In fact, now that I consider it, Catagory B males could only be allowed to breed with Catagory A females. Catagory B females could only be allowed to breed with Catagory A males. (of course Catagory A people can couple amongst themselves all they want and should be encouraged to do so)

Such sexual mixing of Catagory A's and B's would be no guarantee that any resulting offspring would be measured as Catagory A therefore a disinterested committee of geneticists or somthing like that, would be required to approve such couplings. Naturally such committe members would be Catagory A people because they're smarter and would know best.

...and thats just off the top of my head. I'm sure smart people can figure out a better way of making sure dumb people don't breed.

Wich gets me to thinking about the supposed problem of increasing dumbness in the world.

Why are people on welfare dumb? Are they dumb or are they smart? I can understand that taxpayers don't like thier taxes going to people for nothing. But that really has nothing to do with dumb or smart, that has to do with wasting government resources. Its really got nothing to do with dumb or smart at all.

There's nothing dumb about being on welfare. Actually its kinda smart to be on welfare. On welfare I get X$ for doing nothing. Not on welfare I get X$ for doing something. Usually the something I do to get X$ bores me to tears and subjects me to the arbitrary whims and insults of somebody supervising me (X$ is no big Captain of Industry income by the way), whereas getting X$ for doing nothing allows me to do whatever should happen to please me (read books, surf the net, breed with my significant other etc).

Why is working for X$ considered smarter than not working for X$?

If I gain more liesure time with no decrease in my income is that better than less leisure time for the same income?

If a person works like a sled dog to get an acceptable inome and another gets the same income for far less work - and Smarter is the label that must be assigned to one of the two, who would be labeled smarter?

Smart people breed less and Dumb people breed more. Eventually the Smart people will dissappear and everybody will be dumb.

Smart people, if they were truly smart, would breed more to avoid this...like dumb people. In fact, they'd breed so prodigiously that it would be the dumb people who would dissappear. But the smart people don't seem to understand that because they breed far less.

It would seem that the 'dumb' people are actually the 'smart' people since they are the ones breeding more.

[Brain Candy]

Brain Candy, been spending a bit too much time at Corrupt, I see? Trust me, I've been where you are - they will brainwash you and ruin your life. Stay away from there...

I like some of their ideas and have been a fan for a while, ruin my life? How? They got interesting ideas and articles there, also I dont sense they are dogmatic about any of it.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Brain Candy

[Brain Candy]

Do they indeed? How do you figure that?

see this previously posted link:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...00a7829cb454ccf

Smart people breed less and Dumb people breed more. Eventually the Smart people will dissappear and everybody will be dumb.

Smart people, if they were truly smart, would breed more to avoid this...like dumb people. In fact, they'd breed so prodigiously that it would be the dumb people who would dissappear. But the smart people don't seem to understand that because they breed far less.

It would seem that the 'dumb' people are actually the 'smart' people since they are the ones breeding more.

Keep in mind when I say smart, I mean IQ (which is by no means 100% accurate but its the best thing we got).

I dont know why intelligent people are breeding slower now, possibly because alot of them put their careers in front of having and raising children now. I also dont know why dumber people are breeding excessively, maybe because they have so many safety nets. It doesnt really matter, what matters is its going to be a slowly worsening problem.

Health is another factor, medicine is a blessing but will also allow diseases and other problems related to genetics to pass on. I think this will be a problem but probably not as big, lets put it as a none issue for now.

As far as welfare recipients, I cant find a study that suggests they actually have high IQ's, can you help me? Even if they did, to be on welfare is to suggest that you are, at the present time, having a hard time supporting yourself. How could having a child in such a situation possibly be anything but bad? For anyone including the tax payers?

Edited April 9, 2008 by Brain Candy

[Brain Candy]

“Food prices are going up,” he tells his interviewer, Sir Trevor McDonald. “Everyone thinks it’s to do with not enough food, but it’s really that demand is too great – too many people. Basically, it’s a little embarrassing for everybody. No one quite knows how to handle it. Nobody wants their family life to be interfered with by the government.”

Prince Philip on population.

Note the comments made by the reporter:

Whether Philip, who has four children with the Queen and eight grandchildren, is contemplating a Chinese-style one-child policy for Britain or other, more radical ideas, remains unknown

Accuse the man of not following his own advice -probably decades before he realized their could be a problem- and suggest he is looking for radical solutions when he hasn't said anything to that effect, but avoid commenting on whether he is actually right or wrong.