Eugenics

[westsidebud]

fvkasm2x wrote:
Should we be stopping the uneducated from producing more gas station attendants?

why do you assume under educated work in gas stations?

[fvkasm2x]

i think your german flag in your avatar speaks volumes

Ahh yes, because people of German heritage cannot raise philosophical or ethical questions... lest they be labeled racist or a Nazi. I bet if you saw a black guy running down the road, you would assume he just stole something? Stereotype much?

fvkasm2x wrote:
Should we be stopping the uneducated from producing more gas station attendants?

why do you assume under educated work in gas stations?

Because most people with degrees prefer to get jobs that pay more and challenge their abilities? When people spend 10's of thousands of dollars and YEARS of their lives to become more knowledgeable, they usually don't settle for the bare minimum. I could have used any low paying job... that was the first that popped into my mind.

[JonyDarko]

No I do not work at a gas station, but I "like most of you" frequent them often. The people who work there are no different then anyone else and absolutely no one has the right to decide if someone else can have children or even live.

Calling you an idiot was not an insult, it was merely an observation.

[steven lloyd]

Should we be stopping the uneducated from producing more gas station attendants?

A controversial topic indeed. But my question is - if we stop the uneducated from producing more gas station attendants, who are we going to hire to become gas station attedants?



Personally, I am more concerned about stopping the uneducated from producing more BC Liberal voters.

[fvkasm2x]

No I do not work at a gas station, but I "like most of you" frequent them often. The people who work there are no different then anyone else and absolutely no one has the right to decide if someone else can have children or even live.

Calling you an idiot was not an insult, it was merely an observation.

And the point of the people in favor of eugenics would argue differently, which is the basis for the discussion. As said, I wasn't stating an opinion on the matter, I was asking a question. There was no reason for any sort of name calling, regardless of how you label the "insult."

It is a fair assumption to say say that the vast majority of gas station attendants over the age of say... 21, didn't graduate from a post secondary education. The fact that they have limited work skills (let's face it, pumping gas isn't rocket science) could suggest they have lower intelligence than a great % of the population. At the very least, they lack the drive and/or focus to gain meaningful employment.

Thus, if a person actually works at a gas station as a fully grown adult because they can't get a better job... it stands to reason that they ARE different than many other people, contrary to your statement. Is it not logical to assume, the child of a 30 year old pump jockey will have lower social and/or financial expectations than the child of a 30 year old CEO ?


Steven L. - I would assume high school kids and management types... lol

[quietlywatching84]

If nature has decided that say deaf people, manic depressives are at the moment a good mix, who are we to judge? Is it possible, they have an advantage that maybe we don't which is allowing them to reproduce successfully?

A very good point. But don't we already "play God" in the sense that we have surgeries, medicine, etc... to prolong life? These "weaker" people would have died at a young age naturally, but because of our advances in medicine and technology, we are not allowing nature to take its course. We are already the judges... by saying everyone must live as long as possible, even when it isn't God's will, nature's intent (or what have you).

Very well, but where do you draw the line? Culling us back to say our population numbers when we invented farming would leave us rather sparse. Why not everybody who doesn't have 20/20?

What about Beethoven, he was deaf. Maybe Stephen Hawking should be considered dead weight. I could produce an extensive list of people with challenges.

[Mr Danksworth]

People don't set out to have defectives, it just happens. They do have in-etero tests that can give an indication of certain defects. There is a reason why the births of people with down syndrome are going down...

[I Think]

Kinda reminds me of a bumper sticker

"If your parents didn't have any children,
you won't have any either"

[westsidebud]

no one has the right to decide if some one gets born or not except the parents.and i would not have brought up the german thing if you hadnt brought up himmlers play book lol.and about the black person you brought that up not me .once we head down the road of making designer humans it will be like we we made the first atomic bomb.and i quote --- i have become death,the destroyer of worlds

[fvkasm2x]

Very well, but where do you draw the line? Culling us back to say our population numbers when we invented farming would leave us rather sparse. Why not everybody who doesn't have 20/20?

What about Beethoven, he was deaf. Maybe Stephen Hawking should be considered dead weight. I could produce an extensive list of people with challenges.

Very good points. I would probably be culled, since I wear glasses and I am fairly short for a guy... lol

I suppose the counter argument would be, the costs would be fewer than the gains. For every one productive person you cull, you would get rid of dozens that would be a drain on the economy, medical system, etc....

Of course, you would never know how many people would be productive... since the move to prevent reproduction would result in no ability to use hindsight. "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet."

I guess the argument is much like the one for the Death Penalty. Is the practice a good thing? Killing just 1 innocent man ruins the whole premise, even if you kill 100 guilty ones...

[mrj222]

There is a recent article in Maclean's magazine that gives the stats for education and children in parents. The less education a parent has, the more children they have. The better educated people are, the fewer children they have.

Awesome to know that the movie idiocracy was right. Coming soon to a town near you buttfsckers restaurant.

[mtnman1]

There is a recent article in Maclean's magazine that gives the stats for education and children in parents. The less education a parent has, the more children they have. The better educated people are, the fewer children they have.

Yeah, the better educated ones figured out what caused the problem and put a stop to it sooner.

[westsidebud]

Very good points. I would probably be culled, since I wear glasses and I am fairly short for a guy... lol

yes you would be at the head of the line

[fvkasm2x]

Going through my old private messages and found this beauty of a topic from almost 8 years ago!

Figured I'd engage the discussion again, since it's been so long and there's bound to be new ideas and discussion.

Please discuss!

[fvkasm2x]

Awesome to know that the movie idiocracy was right. Coming soon to a town near you buttfsckers restaurant.

:skyisfalling:

I doubt (hopefully) we'd ever get to be that stupid as a collective, but it's an interesting thought.

In his book, “The Intelligence Paradox: Why the Intelligent Choice Isn’t Always the Smart One,” Kanazawa suggests that for every 15 IQ points a woman possesses, her maternal urge drops by 25 percent. He claims the smarter a woman is, the less likely it is that she will want to have kids.

So if the herd started to be sterilized based on IQ or other means of measuring intelligence, birth rates would obviously plummet. Population growth would shrink, which would obviously have huge impacts in many avenues... but without as many mouths to feed, without as much use of resources and more pollution... would the Earth thrive or would mankind die off?