fixing animals
- Thread starter JoeVice
- Start date
i agree that there should be inteligence testing with a certain minimum inteligence requirement for being allowed to reproduce
my personal observation (from people that personnally know me) is that a random parent of a randomly given age, is a lot dumber than a random child-less person of the same age
we need the reverse to be true in order for society to function
Ignoring the point that natural selection is not gone, (rather it's criteria have changed, as they have throughout the history of the earth) why would we need to recreate it?
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
If stupid people weren't able to reproduce, we wouldn't even have a problem to discuss
But seriously though, my point was that many people would support a similar policy up to the point at which it became clear that they're the stupid ones about whom we've been discussing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you suddenly discovered that you're stupid based upon the authoritative standard, you would quickly withdraw your support or petition to have the standard changed until it no longer infringed upon your "rights."
No, this has nothing to do with why it hasn't happened. Regardless of how many people might support such a policy, the governments of most industrialized nations are established in such a way that makes it nearly impossible violate human rights on such a massive scale. Additionally, very few political powers would want anything to do with such a practice because it's a form of eugenics, making it comparable to what Hitler was trying to do.
While I would certainly support a "parenting license" policy, simply attempting to select who is allowed to produce offspring would not work in an industrialized society. First of all, higher intelligence generally coorelates with prolonged child bearing as societies most productive people are too busy to have children and take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Unfortunately however, on the other end of the spectrum, those who we perceive as "less qualified" for reproduction are those same individuals who are also less qualified for higher education, more skilled labor and other functions that generally delay reproduction. Additionally, they are also generally less well educated about birth control and since lower intelligence coorelates stronger with greater religiousness, they are also more likely to perceive birth control as sinful even if they do have some degree of familiarity with it.
Perhaps, but coorelation does not imply causation. I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that having children is what makes these people dumber, but this is likely not the case. As a mentioned above, this is probably due to the same factors (higher education, skilled labor) that prolong reproduction in the first place, consequently giving the less intelligent, less educated, and less skilled a reproductive advantage
If stupid people weren't able to reproduce, we wouldn't even have a problem to discuss
But seriously though, my point was that many people would support a similar policy up to the point at which it became clear that they're the stupid ones about whom we've been discussing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you suddenly discovered that you're stupid based upon the authoritative standard, you would quickly withdraw your support or petition to have the standard changed until it no longer infringed upon your "rights."
No, this has nothing to do with why it hasn't happened. Regardless of how many people might support such a policy, the governments of most industrialized nations are established in such a way that makes it nearly impossible violate human rights on such a massive scale. Additionally, very few political powers would want anything to do with such a practice because it's a form of eugenics, making it comparable to what Hitler was trying to do.
While I would certainly support a "parenting license" policy, simply attempting to select who is allowed to produce offspring would not work in an industrialized society. First of all, higher intelligence generally coorelates with prolonged child bearing as societies most productive people are too busy to have children and take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Unfortunately however, on the other end of the spectrum, those who we perceive as "less qualified" for reproduction are those same individuals who are also less qualified for higher education, more skilled labor and other functions that generally delay reproduction. Additionally, they are also generally less well educated about birth control and since lower intelligence coorelates stronger with greater religiousness, they are also more likely to perceive birth control as sinful even if they do have some degree of familiarity with it.
Perhaps, but coorelation does not imply causation. I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that having children is what makes these people dumber, but this is likely not the case. As a mentioned above, this is probably due to the same factors (higher education, skilled labor) that prolong reproduction in the first place, consequently giving the less intelligent, less educated, and less skilled a reproductive advantage
so, if everyone were tested on whether or not they had good parenting skills, then the ones who did the worst on the test, the ones who would clearly make the worst parents, still have the unalienable "right" to have kids? what the fucking hell is that? the "parenting licsense" thing is something that really truly seems to actually be neccassary in United States
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
Eliminating the "right" of certain people to reproduce would be nearly impossible, because you would first have to subject everyone to a standardized test and you would have to figure out how to enforce some type of penalty for those who didn't pass, such as mandatory sterilization. In this case, how do you enforce this upon those who simply refuse to undergo the procedure, yet also refuse to use protection or stop having sex? This is just not possible in a society that views its "rights" the way that the Americans and Europeans of today do. Furthermore, any attempt to implement such a system would certainly come at the cost of Hitleresque comparisons and strong opposition as a result. Even if you could just take those people's children away and put them in foster care and orphanages, there would still be no practical way to stop them from simply having more kids without imprisoning them and quanantining them from members of the opposite sex.
Additionally, with all the surplus children floating around after their removal from their natural parents, it would be virtually impossible to find homes for all, or even most of them, particularly as those who are qualified to have their own children would more than likely want to raise their own offspring, rather than waste their resources on children who they know is already genetically predisposed to failure.
maybe i wasn't articulating properly
America sucks, i thought of a way to make america better (sort of)
people who reproduce (usually) have the right to raise their own kids, my observation was that the people who actually reproduce, are visibly the least capable of raising children
so i thought of people having to have a licsense to raise children like the licsense neccassary to drive a car
in "Plato's Republic" Plato talks about a system where the people who actually want to raise children will first have to be trained and pass a test to make sure they're capable of the job, then having every baby removed from their birthparents at birth, so that absolutely no one is actualy raising their own genetic offspring
yeah, i know it's not feasable
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
initially i thought along those same lines however the fact is that we need stupid people in order to perform menial jobs. I mean an intelligent and talented person shouldn't have to waste his life picking oranges should he? so let a less endowed person do that instead. frankly we need a higher percentage of 'stupid' people than we need of intelligent people. of course the problem is that the stupid create all sorts of problems for the intelligent but hey you know that saying "can't live with em can't live without em"
my idea was to have American children become more inteligent up to the point that the avwerage American becomes at least as smart as the average person of any other country
right now America has no national standard, so that each state, each county, each school districtrict has completely different cirriculums, if there were a "parenting licsensing" system, it would be easier to implement a National Cirriculum for the nation called the United States of America
actually
this looks like some of the posts i've seen in in the threads about "the immigration problem"
supposedly America actually needs the illegals in order to function, because supposedly the illegals getting up and actually doing those specific jobs that the people here legally are supposedly rufusing to do themselves
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
i think the question should be "why would we not want to have our kids be so smart?" how the fucking hell could america's kids becoming smarter really become a bad thing?
what i mean is, if my plans were implemented, how could the children becoming smarter, in and of itself, actually be detrimental?
forbidden fruit
...is always best
The unfortunate thing is, 'intelligent' people will usually seek fulfilling careers that will most likely make huge demands of their time. They'll also want to return to the workforce as soon as possible, because saying "googoogaga" 24/7 won't exactly challenge their minds overly.
Thus, in many cases, leaving a young child to be raised in childcare with 'nightly visits' with the parents.
So what would the criteria be for issuing some sort of breeders license?
Surely it couldn't just be based on intelligence, because I'm sure there are a lot of stupid people out there with good values who place a high priority of instilling these values in their children, & who actually raise their kids... not just dump them in childcare til they're ready to deal with them.
Thus, in many cases, leaving a young child to be raised in childcare with 'nightly visits' with the parents.
So what would the criteria be for issuing some sort of breeders license?
Surely it couldn't just be based on intelligence, because I'm sure there are a lot of stupid people out there with good values who place a high priority of instilling these values in their children, & who actually raise their kids... not just dump them in childcare til they're ready to deal with them.
this is exactly the kind of think Plato was talking about in his "Republic", in his ideal world, the only people "raising" children would be those specific people who actually wanted "to be saying googoogaga 24/7, after they proved they were adeguate for that job
There should be a test at 16. Pass it and you can do what you want. Fail it, and into the ovens with ye.
i'm agreeing with the mandatory testing thing, but, i wanted it to be a "parenting licsence" type test, (they have "breeders licsences" for people that want to breed dogs, so why not a breeders licsence for breeding people?) i would endorse a "parenting licsence" type thing as being neccassary in order to "raise" kids, but those that fail the test should merely be sterilized instead of being killed, or maybe have a system set up where the people that fail the parenting test have their kids placed with relatives or some sort of foster care
