Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once we allow the government to step in and tell certain people they cannot have children because of IQ, what is to stop the government from stepping in and making decisions for us in other parts of our lives? Remember the movie Gattica? Do you really want this world to be based on genetic superiority?
In this era highly intelligent people opt to have no children or at most ONE kid. They erroneously think the world is overpopulated. Hence we see that the Europeans and the Japanese are under reproducing and on their way to extinction. OTOH, people from the 3rd world have more kids.
Intelligence is inherited and it would be nice if smart people had more kids. In the same manner one cannot prevent the people with low IQ to have kids. Difficult problem that resolved itself by natural selection in the old days. But, we do not have natural selection anymore.
The same goes for poor people who can barely afford to feed themselves. How is brining a child into the mix going to make things better? Here's what I say: offer everyone age 21+ $10,000 to be sterilized. The poor and low IQ people will take the money because they usually think very short term and not long term.
People with high IQs are very skeptical about things. They ask questions like "how will this affect me and the world around me?" When you start asking too many questions, children seem like an illogical thing to have.
Look, I think JFK was an exceptionally bright and gifted man for his family and time.
However, what his father and mother did to his sister Rosemary is the epitome if the dem-progressive success and money seeking mentality. But JFK was not a coward like most of them are, one would like to believe.
Even from the very beginning, Margaret Sanger and the PP folks have specifically targeted minorities and others whom they considered to be "undesirables."
"The Question of race betterment is one of immediate concern, and I am glad to say that the United States Government has already taken certain steps to control the equality of our population through the drastic immigration laws.
There is a quota restriction by which only so many people from each country are allowed to enter our shores each month. It is the latest method adopted by our government to solve the population problem. Most people are convinced that this policy is right, and agree that we should slow down on the number as well as the kind of immigrants coming here.
But while we close our gates to the co-called “undesirables†from other countries, we make no attempt to discourage or cut down the rapid multiplication of the unfit and undesirable at home."
It's no secret that minorities other than Asians are disproportionately on public assistance benefits. PP's goal always has been to target such persons to achieve "race betterment," as Sanger puts it.
Nah. Sanger herself was Roman Catholic, of Irish descent, & a woman. The child of a large family, her mother died of stress & likely too many children, born too close together. Which motivated Sanger to do something about that. She became an assistant & then a nurse (not a prestige occupation @ the time) & worked in the tenements - teeming with immigrants from Europe, Northern & Eastern mostly, & then Southern Europe. She wanted families & women to have more control over the spacing of births, which she was convinced was sapping the health & lives of women especially - but impacting entire families & neighborhoods, & society @ large.
She never worried much about the well-to-do - they could simply schedule vacations to Europe or wherever, & take care of births or abortions - as the case may be - @ their convenience. She was concerned for the women in working class families, which were scrabbling to work & improve the lives of their children. Planned Parenthood is located in/near inner cities because that's where the people she wanted to serve mostly lived.
Yah, the West & the US elites @ the time were concerned about immigration from Europe. & the same elites took up the notion of eugenics, to protect the sanctity & God-given pinnacle of success of the Caucasian race, & etc. Excellent rhetoric, if mostly observed in the breach in the slave-holding young US (& everywhere else slavery was practiced in the World, to be sure).
Sanger worked & worked @ developing safe effective birth control. She spoke everywhere, to anyone - fundraised, wrote & published newsletters, fliers, bulletins, books. She recruited the best minds she could find, professionalized birth control by involving the medical profession, & spearheaded the search & funding & development of oral BC pills. She revolutionized BC, & she won that war back in the 1950s. She was personally opposed to abortion, by the way - she always felt that once conceived, the fetus should be carried to term & adopted out, if the mother/parents didn't want the child.
This last sentence kind of negates the rest of your post, doesn't it? Did you add it ironically?
Actually we don't need many menial laborers now, and with continued automation fewer will be necessary in the future, even if it was ethical to expect low-IQ people to do the hard work for us, which it isn't.
I did. A lot of people feel that way about low IQ people, though they can't admit it. They, the low IQ, are "Deplorables" after all, right?
I feel IQ is overrated in most of life's circumstances. Even plainly retarded people can make a go of it. One I know has worked for a moving company for 40+ years. He pulls his own weight, minds his p's and q's and has earned the respect and affection of his coworkers and the company's customers. Another somewhat slow fellow runs his own diner, manages a payroll and has done it well as long as I've known him. His place is successful and has a good reputation. It is the pride of his life. Price Chopper, the local super market chain, employs many people whose lack of intelligence is plainly a handicap but it doesn't prevent them from doing their job and earning a living.
There are, however, areas of life where intelligence does matter greatly. The learned professions for example. Doctors, engineers and lawyers (where intelligence takes a backseat to less desirable qualities) obviously are callings best performed by the smart among us.
Alas, running a country also requires a high degree of intelligence. And the very highest of education. That's the contradiction of democracy.
No one would argue that we should all be allowed to perform electrical work. It's something that requires special knowledge and failure to do it right can result in death, damage and destruction. Yet, we assume that all should be allowed to choose our rulers. We entrust ourselves with making a decision that, if it turns out poorly, can do more harm than the worst electrician could ever do.
Winston Churchill had only backhanded praise for democracy and I think he would not even have offered that had he lived another 70 years. The examples of democracy gone awry well outnumber those where it's worked out well.
Throughout most of the United States, an IQ of below 70 is the threshold at which a person is considered mentally incompetent. Persons with an IQ under 70 are held to different legal standards and are not punished at the same level as a person with a higher IQ. In cases of the death penalty, for example, a person with a proven IQ of 70 or lower is usually considered exempt from execution.
This leads to an obvious question: if we have already set the legal standard that people with an IQ of 70 or below are mentally incompetent, should we allow them to have children? If we allow them to have children, aren't we condemning their children to a life of poor parental care, which inevitably leads to multiple issues, not only for the child but also for society? After all, who will raise their children if the parent can't?
If you don't agree with the idea that low IQ people should be prohibited from having children, then explain how allowing them to have children is workable for society.
And for perspective, 2 percent of the US population, 6.5 million people, have an IQ of 70 or below.
When we see parents like Mama June and Barbara Ann Bregoli, yes I really do think so. In reality though, it will never happen, so sadly we will see society continue to degrade. Again, the movie Idiocracy which was supposed to be a comedy is slowly becoming more like a documentary.
Winston Churchill had only backhanded praise for democracy and I think he would not even have offered that had he lived another 70 years. The examples of democracy gone awry well outnumber those where it's worked out well.
He was a child of the elites. His mother was a US socialite & an accomplished woman in her own right. His father was nobility, with a long tradition of service. & Winston firmly believed in the British Empire & worked very hard to keep it going. His life is interesting, but he burned a lot of bridges along the way - so many that even after he was instrumental in leading UK through WWII & the darkest days thereof, he was repudiated @ the polls.
He was a remarkable person - & he strove mightily. However, empires - as human artifacts - have lifetimes, & the British Empire's time was up.
Nah. Sanger herself was Roman Catholic, of Irish descent, & a woman. The child of a large family, her mother died of stress & likely too many children, born too close together. Which motivated Sanger to do something about that. She became an assistant & then a nurse (not a prestige occupation @ the time) & worked in the tenements - teeming with immigrants from Europe, Northern & Eastern mostly, & then Southern Europe. She wanted families & women to have more control over the spacing of births, which she was convinced was sapping the health & lives of women especially - but impacting entire families & neighborhoods, & society @ large.
She never worried much about the well-to-do - they could simply schedule vacations to Europe or wherever, & take care of births or abortions - as the case may be - @ their convenience. She was concerned for the women in working class families, which were scrabbling to work & improve the lives of their children. Planned Parenthood is located in/near inner cities because that's where the people she wanted to serve mostly lived.
Yah, the West & the US elites @ the time were concerned about immigration from Europe. & the same elites took up the notion of eugenics, to protect the sanctity & God-given pinnacle of success of the Caucasian race, & etc. Excellent rhetoric, if mostly observed in the breach in the slave-holding young US (& everywhere else slavery was practiced in the World, to be sure).
Sanger worked & worked @ developing safe effective birth control. She spoke everywhere, to anyone - fundraised, wrote & published newsletters, fliers, bulletins, books. She recruited the best minds she could find, professionalized birth control by involving the medical profession, & spearheaded the search & funding & development of oral BC pills. She revolutionized BC, & she won that war back in the 1950s. She was personally opposed to abortion, by the way - she always felt that once conceived, the fetus should be carried to term & adopted out, if the mother/parents didn't want the child.
He was a child of the elites. His mother was a US socialite & an accomplished woman in her own right. His father was nobility, with a long tradition of service. & Winston firmly believed in the British Empire & worked very hard to keep it going. His life is interesting, but he burned a lot of bridges along the way - so many that even after he was instrumental in leading UK through WWII & the darkest days thereof, he was repudiated @ the polls.
He was a remarkable person - & he strove mightily. However, empires - as human artifacts - have lifetimes, & the British Empire's time was up.
All true, but irrelevant to the topic. IMO, he is the most important man of the 20th Century and among the greatest historical figures of all time.
To me his observation that democracy was worse than any form of government except all the others tried would not have been made by him had he lived longer. Failed democracies exist on every continent. Successful authoritarian systems are less common but the most successful exceed in some ways even the best democracies.
I'm just reading my remarks and realize they have little to do with the topic, too. I guess the question of democracy is related to the capacity of a country's people to govern themselves (and the best indication of this is how they govern their personal lives) which, many feel is related to their IQ (which is much less related to how they govern their own lives). It's a paradox and invites digressions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A beacon of hope
Sanger and PP have always had eugenics-based population control goals.
