BF2S Forums Should we require an IQ test to breed??

People often forget two things about evolution:

1. It takes a long time.  Make that a really fucking long time.
2. Fitness is environment-specific.  There is no such thing as universal fitness.

So all these arguments about the merits of social Darwinism are, unfortunately, invalid.  I say unfortunately because supposedly my IQ is 142, and I would like a harem of sweet bitches from around teh globe to call my own...  bah.  As much as I would like it to be otherwise, IQ doesn't mean jack except how good you are at IQ tests.

CameronPoe wrote:

Maybe a better method would be to allow everybody to breed but if a particular child doesn't meet specific intelligence standards by the age of 10 then we give it a lethal injection. Sound good? Thought not. It's about a good a plan as the one being proposed here.

Agree with CP here - conceptually a good debate topic though.

Lets say there's an IQ breed test so either:

"Unfit" parents are not strapped with the responsibility of raising a child, which means less strain on social welfare,

or, what I think the poll is aimed at:

Our society becomes telepathic because we have become a superior race through selective breeding.

Dealing with the breeding issue takes care of the future...but what about the people already around...Genocide of the less intelligent?  Ready to take that step too??

puckmercury wrote:

I'm not saying eliminate those in existence or that come to be, just an active preventative step.  I wasn't even necessarily suggesting active invasive sterilization.  And Spumantiii, that's exactly what I'm afraid of.  Unintelligent people breed faster and are constituting a larger percentage of the populous.  That trend is one of the reasons I wanted to enter the debate.  I am NOT trying to create a master race.  I am trying to see what others believe what active responsibility we should have toward our own collective mind.

Ok Puck - I'm seeing some clarification needed to understand what you are actually saying:

How is the "Active preventative step" different from selective breeding/master race?

Are you arguing IQ is genetic or via upbringing?

"Breed faster and larger percentage of population" - What is the downside?  Why is it desirable to be a smarter society?

Are you saying a smarter society will have less problems?

The following is what I think you are getting at, which is why I'm asking for clarification - Are you saying a smarter society will have less societal drag (less welfare folks, etc)?

Thanks in advance.

Pug wrote:

Ok Puck - I'm seeing some clarification needed to understand what you are actually saying:

How is the "Active preventative step" different from selective breeding/master race?

Are you arguing IQ is genetic or via upbringing?

"Breed faster and larger percentage of population" - What is the downside?  Why is it desirable to be a smarter society?

Are you saying a smarter society will have less problems?

The following is what I think you are getting at, which is why I'm asking for clarification - Are you saying a smarter society will have less societal drag (less welfare folks, etc)?

Thanks in advance.

I didn't say, active preventative step, I said active responsibility.  I suppose I see the term "Master Race" as more selective than merely wanting smart people.  I am not trying to suggest color/creed/beliefs or whatnot.

I think it is both.  Intelligence is generally a product of intelligent parents.  Yes, of course, there are exceptions to the rule to both sides of that.  Furthermore, intelligent people are more likely to bring up children in an intelligent manner.  So, whether it is nature or nurture, intelligence begets intelligence generally speaking.

It is desireable as I think that would help alleviate a number of the issues we face today with society and even politics.

Absolutely.  No, I don't think problems will go away, yes I realize this doesn't address intelligence without morality.  That is ultimately an issue of nurture overall and I don't purport to have a solution to that.

That's more or less the gist of what I'm saying, yes.  Any more questions? 

Geniusman - that belief is and always has been a choice.  Not that birth control is really something the church actively cares about anymore.  In fact, I believe they are or have considered recently repealing that.  I was actually baptised and raised Catholic.  But it is a choice to have or not have sex.  If a gun is to your head and you are told to do something or die, you still have a choice, one is just not particularly appealing.  I'm not addressing that at all.  I agree that it's your business what happens in your bedroom.  However, if a product of that business affects or contributes to issues within society at large, that product becomes by business, albeit entirely outside my control.  I understand about what you are saying about being on the other side.  But one, this is a debate and not active legislation.  Two, I think it is just responsible citizenship on anyone's part.  Again, these are all opinions.  Were I in a position to affect policy, I would certainly be more careful in my opinions and their application.

Thanks - respect that.

My Pop says you can make a living with your back or your brain.  Pick one, both are needed.

I guess I'm the same way.

I would have to say that while an I.Q. test might not be what we necessarily need,
We also shouldn't just "take the good with the bad."
Why should we start killing people at random as opposed to killing those that give least to our race as a whole?
And to put it quite frankly, who wants to keep all the ignorant, stupid people around that aren't contributing much more than a warm body?
I mean, strength is something that can be trained into a person, Intelligence and good Common sense, just plain can't.
Think of it like this;
You've just escaped a plane crash, and need to take what you can from the crash site to survive before it all burns up, and you can't go back to get more stuff.
"take the good with the bad" Is about like carrying too many things at once, and then deciding that you should just leave things behind at random, instead of taking the things that are most important to survival/rescue.

defending the "homeland" - check
security on high alert - check
wars on multiple fronts - check
declaring war on terror (aka the endlessly respawning target) - check
our leader ignoring the constitution - check
torturing - check
holding suspects for months/years without trial or evidence - check

now people want eugenics? sweet!

all we need now is for our fuhrer to adopt it so we can REALLY get this fourth reich bumping.

I agree with the IQ test...there are too many dumb hillbillies out their...no offence...it would be kind of hard to enforce though

I think it's a good idea as long as the pass score isn't set too high because -

...since it has been scientifically proven that people with an IQ of over 165 have far too many badly fitting teeth and whacky hair, the chances of them getting turned on enough to procreate with each other would be slim. Mind you, if they did get down to it at least the leather elbow patches would help prevent carpet burn.

Do you people honestly think the government should control who HAS KIDS or are you just saying "Hmmm, ya off the top of my head it sounds like a good idea"?

If you honestly believe that, I think your a little disturbed, no offense

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-09-13 18:03:43)

aardfrith wrote:

I'd say get rid of the criminals first.  The only thing they do for society is cost money.  Instead of prisons, have public executions.  Any offence that would ordinarily result in a prison term (taking the person out of society for a period) we can quite happily execute them publicly, in a way that will prove to be a deterrent to other would-be wrong-doers.  I think most people would agree that the current penal system isn't enough of a deterrent to many people, so why not?  Plus you'd save a fuck-load of money that's spent keeping these people incarcerated.

And before any smart alec asks, yes, I did steal this idea from ST:TNG - the episode in which Wesley Crusher kicked a football at a greenhouse and almost bought the lethal injection.

Death isn't a particularly effective deterrent...as evidenced by the high murder rate in this country despite death being applied to a range of crimes...

And as for the topic at hand, IQ tests are enormously unreliable as a useful measure of anything other than how well someone takes that particular IQ test. I recall seeing a WWII-era test that was supposed to evaluate a recruit's aptitude for the officer corps that asked about badminton rules and art history knowledge. Those topics obviously have nothing to do with combat qualification, but the psychologists tasked with creating the test felt those areas of knowledge common to individuals.

Any one of us here could write an IQ test that would place most other people on the bottom of the scale regardless of education. All you have to do is select topics and scoring criteria that are obscure relative to the population tested.

No IQ tests are a bad idea. Why? A lot of people with a high IQ are total pieces of sh*t and therefore should not be allowed to procreate. Besides (I'm sure this has already been mentioned before here but I'm still feeling a little hazy and not in the mood to read it all - just woke up), Two seemingly unintelligent people can still spawn a child with a high IQ and vice versa. If anything, attitude should be a far more important factor in procreation than intelligence.