| Absolutely! | 56% | 56% - 116 | ||||
| No way, free love, man ... | 35% | 35% - 74 | ||||
| What's an IQ test? | 7% | 7% - 16 | ||||
| Total: 206 | ||||||
i sorta agree and that line.....made me think then laugh...i like it. put it in yo SIGpuckmercury wrote:
So yeah, welcome to our gene ool. You'll notice there's no "P" in it, please keep it that way.
Heheh, I like your thinking - +1Naughty_Om wrote:
i sorta agree and that line.....made me think then laugh...i like it. put it in yo SIGpuckmercury wrote:
So yeah, welcome to our gene ool. You'll notice there's no "P" in it, please keep it that way.
And see I thought about that before I posted it and almost put in a disclaimer that I wasn't trying to be Hitler-esque, but didn't want to open the debate here that was raging the in offensive names thread. Given your handle, you seem at a particular disposition to be sensitive obviously. I guess I certainly understand that POV, but I just see stupider people doing more asinine things at higher levels of control than should be happening. Because it ultimately is true that more intelligent people have fewer kids. I just struggle with watching such a trend. Please understand I mean no racial connotations in this.Kung Jew wrote:
Gotta disagree here. I vote 'no' because I believe prerequisites for reproduction sounds too much like trying to make a better race. We have to take the bad with the good, stupid with the smart, etc...
This topic has a bazillion branching topics that spawn in my thoughts as I'm typing this. Aryan races, Genetic research, moral ethics in cloning....
Interesting...
Replies? Thoughts?
KJ
Yeah, if you can test that - you get a Nobel Prize. Reminds me of the Farside "Midvale School for the Gifted" cartoon with the kid trying to push on the pull door ...KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
Not an IQ test, too many smart mpeople have no common sense. Lets do a common sense test or both.
Last edited by puckmercury (2006-06-19 08:21:34)
That's just it, there's too many bad, stupid, evil, etc. people in the gene pool at the moment. The planet is over populated (generally by old people who cost more to keep than not) and something needs to be done about it. While rounding up all the people over 65 (or whatever the pension age is in your country) and bombing them would be distasteful to many, I think it's the way forward.Kung Jew wrote:
Gotta disagree here. I vote 'no' because I believe prerequisites for reproduction sounds too much like trying to make a better race. We have to take the bad with the good, stupid with the smart, etc...
Didn't they do that movie already? Logan's Run I think ... ;-)aardfrith wrote:
While rounding up all the people over 65 (or whatever the pension age is in your country) and bombing them would be distasteful to many, I think it's the way forward.
Last edited by puckmercury (2006-06-19 08:30:31)
in the movie soylent green. anyone who is about to die, or over the age of 80 was turned into food in order to feed the overpopulated cities.......puckmercury wrote:
Didn't they do that movie already? Logan's Run I think ... ;-)aardfrith wrote:
While rounding up all the people over 65 (or whatever the pension age is in your country) and bombing them would be distasteful to many, I think it's the way forward.
That's much more humane than my solution of avoiding world wars (and the subsequent baby boom) which leads to a large population all retiring at the same time 50 years later.aardfrith wrote:
While rounding up all the people over 65 (or whatever the pension age is in your country) and bombing them would be distasteful to many, I think it's the way forward.
Wait, why does a world war always equate to a baby boom. Ooooh, you're talking about the "sex" aren't you ... /amusedUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
That's much more humane than my solution of avoiding world wars (and the subsequent baby boom) which leads to a large population all retiring at the same time 50 years later.aardfrith wrote:
While rounding up all the people over 65 (or whatever the pension age is in your country) and bombing them would be distasteful to many, I think it's the way forward.
Surely common sense would precede the entire scenario: 'should I leave this pan of chip fat on the heat and close the door while I play battlefield?'KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
The reason I say common sense is that this has to be instilled into the next generation early in life. It is more a way of thinking and any real knowledge and it seems to be that it is not something you can teach an adult. Unfortunatly it is something that is passed on generation to generation. I see it is subsections of my own family. My father did a great job teaching common sense but his brother did not. My father has 6 kids all going through college and working to achieve something, my uncle has 4 that can't seem to get on their feet at all. It is all about the process of decision making. "You are standing in the hallway and the room adjacent to you is on fire, the door is closed. Do you open the door?" Thought proccess, is anyone else in the house, do I have something to use to grab the door knob ot keep from burning myself, did I call 911 yet? All questions you would hope one would consider before opening the door but not all things considered in the heat of the moment (no pun intended).
Something like thatpuckmercury wrote:
Wait, why does a world war always equate to a baby boom. Ooooh, you're talking about the "sex" aren't you ... /amusedUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
That's much more humane than my solution of avoiding world wars (and the subsequent baby boom) which leads to a large population all retiring at the same time 50 years later.aardfrith wrote:
While rounding up all the people over 65 (or whatever the pension age is in your country) and bombing them would be distasteful to many, I think it's the way forward.
I think we can dispense with the IQ tests and allow nature to decide who is 'fit' to procreate. IQ is not hereditary anyhow and only consitutes one particular type of intelligence, of which there are several.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Surely common sense would precede the entire scenario: 'should I leave this pan of chip fat on the heat and close the door while I play battlefield?'KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
The reason I say common sense is that this has to be instilled into the next generation early in life. It is more a way of thinking and any real knowledge and it seems to be that it is not something you can teach an adult. Unfortunatly it is something that is passed on generation to generation. I see it is subsections of my own family. My father did a great job teaching common sense but his brother did not. My father has 6 kids all going through college and working to achieve something, my uncle has 4 that can't seem to get on their feet at all. It is all about the process of decision making. "You are standing in the hallway and the room adjacent to you is on fire, the door is closed. Do you open the door?" Thought proccess, is anyone else in the house, do I have something to use to grab the door knob ot keep from burning myself, did I call 911 yet? All questions you would hope one would consider before opening the door but not all things considered in the heat of the moment (no pun intended).
I was using IQ test in more of a generic way than the actual recognized IQ test I suppose. However, intelligence absolutely is hereditary, make no mistake. As with any trait they can come up on their own accord, or don't appear when they should. There are no real concrete rules in genetics, mutations are always possible.CameronPoe wrote:
I think we can dispense with the IQ tests and allow nature to decide who is 'fit' to procreate. IQ is not hereditary anyhow and only consitutes one particular type of intelligence, of which there are several.
Last edited by puckmercury (2006-06-19 08:42:34)
It could be argued that Nature is what causes the problems to begin with. Nature drives young kids to want to have sex, not to procreate, but it does happen. 14 or 15 year old gets knocked up not yet prepared to raise a child, child has to be very lucky to get a good education along the way, grandparents or someone capable steps into guide the growth of the child. If no one is there to pick up the pieces then nature has failed us again and we have another well fare case.CameronPoe wrote:
I think we can dispense with the IQ tests and allow nature to decide who is 'fit' to procreate. IQ is not hereditary anyhow and only consitutes one particular type of intelligence, of which there are several.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Surely common sense would precede the entire scenario: 'should I leave this pan of chip fat on the heat and close the door while I play battlefield?'KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
The reason I say common sense is that this has to be instilled into the next generation early in life. It is more a way of thinking and any real knowledge and it seems to be that it is not something you can teach an adult. Unfortunatly it is something that is passed on generation to generation. I see it is subsections of my own family. My father did a great job teaching common sense but his brother did not. My father has 6 kids all going through college and working to achieve something, my uncle has 4 that can't seem to get on their feet at all. It is all about the process of decision making. "You are standing in the hallway and the room adjacent to you is on fire, the door is closed. Do you open the door?" Thought proccess, is anyone else in the house, do I have something to use to grab the door knob ot keep from burning myself, did I call 911 yet? All questions you would hope one would consider before opening the door but not all things considered in the heat of the moment (no pun intended).
Offense - none given, none taken.puckmercury wrote:
And see I thought about that before I posted it and almost put in a disclaimer that I wasn't trying to be Hitler-esque, but didn't want to open the debate here that was raging the in offensive names thread. Given your handle, you seem at a particular disposition to be sensitive obviously. I guess I certainly understand that POV, but I just see stupider people doing more asinine things at higher levels of control than should be happening. Because it ultimately is true that more intelligent people have fewer kids. I just struggle with watching such a trend. Please understand I mean no racial connotations in this.
Yeah, if you can test that - you get a Nobel Prize. Reminds me of the Farside "Midvale School for the Gifted" cartoon with the kid trying to push on the pull door ...
Ignorance I can solve, stupidity I can only ignore.
Not saying that we should restrict breeding, becaus I did not vote, But think of it this way. Nature and Nurture. Yes idiots can have very inteligent children, however, becuase the parents are lacking the child had a higher chance of not achieving their potential and is more likely to endup being a leach. Take the constant arguement that if you are poor your children will be stuck in the same cycle. It is not the childs fault. It is the parents fault for giving up hope and letting the cycle continue. Yes there are alot of success stories about people rsing up from the ashes but there are twice as many stories about feel sorry for me because...... The only way to raise the standard of living is to raise the expectation of everyone and try to find a way to motivate people to stick to it. Maybe a minimum income level, or some other restriction that forces people to prove they are ready to have children and that they have the determination to raise them properly.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
wtf has it gotta do w/ reproduction? its not like their children are gonna be retarded (unless they marry w/ family members that is...) Look at einstein, smartest man in the world and he couldnt make a cup of cofffee. he couldnt do daily things since he was always thinking about physics and science all the time.
