To agree that stupid people are breeding more than smart ones

[Holamum]

I read this article and the comments. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22002530

It is not unrealistic that the human race will be extinct one day, especially since the sun is probably finite.

There was a comment on that page that refers to Mike Judge's film Indiocracy - suggesting the problem is that stupid people are breeding more than intelligent people because smart people are more responsible. The film is a comedy but the commentator says 'it's bang on the money on what's happening at the moment'.

I actually found myself agreeing. Most of the intelligent people I know have as many children as they can afford (which is one or two maximum).

AIBU to think this?

Perhaps OP.

Replace stupid/ smart with irresponsible / responsible and that is what has happened in my extended family. (But none of us are wealthy. I think the correlation wouldn't apply to those from well off backgrounds as money brings more choice, so Cameron and Blair for example have larger than average families.)

So my armchair prediction is that our family descendants will as a group be crazier and more likely to be on 2030's Jeremy Kyle show.

I think that the next generation of successful girls may opt out of motherhood entirely.

Thirty years ago when I was doing my teacher training I remember being taught/told that women with higher IQ now ( the 80's) had more chance of a better education and therefore more choices. These women were more likely to pursue careers and were less likely to have children or if they did so only one or maybe two. We were told that the over the years the IQ's in our classrooms would generally become lower. A huge generalisation and of course intelligence takes so many different forms.

Like all ideas that seem obvious it is:

a. horseshit,

b. not borne out by the evidence,

c. only ever advanced by people who understand neither of genetics nor statistics.

The actual statistics are that wealth and status are the best predictors of family size, and when controlled for those factors the correlation between family size and IQ vanishes into statistical meaninglessness.

And a 'marching morons' effect would only actually work in a closed, endogamous, genetically isolated community. (SOUND FX: DISTANT STRAINS OF 'DUELLING BANJOS') In the real world, IQs have been steadily rising since they began being measured. Google the Flynn effect.

Now can we drop this bloody idiotic meme? Please? I've only skimmed the thread and I already feel stupider.

IQ measures - as someone said there are many forms of intelligence.

Come on this is a lighthearted thread. Stop taking yourselves so seriously! Interesting thoughts OP and you might well be right

I don't believe that IQ is fixed. It may well be that these low income people who have kids at 15 never had any decent opportunities to develop.

As far leaving it to your late 30s/ early 40s to have kids, that surely is stupid. The risks of having a child with a major special need increases drastically. There is also a risk of an early menopause. Having your children in your 20s is the perfect age if you want healthy kids. Unfortunately the perfect age for having kids is also the perfect age for building a career.

Maybe the OP's theory is like Newtonian physics - it works in the middle bit we (everyday folk in this case) think of as reality but not at the more extreme ends of experience.

Expect us OP, we are breeding and there is nothing you an do to stop us...

Soon you will be overrun and forced to submit to your mediocre overlords...

No more classical music, no more books - just pot noodles and chlamydia.

Watch 'Don't Panic - The Truth About Population' on YouTube.

Eye opening and allays many fears about the bigger picture, which is, regardless of smarts, can we feed fifty bazillion people in the year 3000?

Idiocracy is a great film though and should feature on the other thread about a funny go to film. But should be taken as seriously as Gattaca.

Survival of the fittest correlates to the most adaptable not the highest IQ.

It's also not about the number of children you push out (beyond the obvious one) but how well you pass on your genes to the great-grandchildren's generation.

The middle-classes generally are better set up to dodge any military draft or to emigrate if it all kicks off, + leave some inheritance for the next generation so are more likely to continue their family line past one or two pub fights.

The problem with this argument is that people are equating unintelligent with poor.

There are plenty of intelligent people in India/Africa/China but are too poor to contribute anything with their intelligence - it will go to waste.

Poverty makes intelligence useless.

The fact remains that the poorest are having too many children globally because contraception isn't widely available.

bochead I've met some idiotic middle class people. (And I've seen that Phil and Kirsty on TV.) I don't find your post reassuring in the least!

YABU In fact, I live in Mexico and have not yet figured out how the poor manage to feed themselves and their families on the infinitesimally small minimum wage here, and I am supposed to be the intelligent one here, getting high scores on IQ tests (we were coached) and having a good head for exams.

It is actually often intelligent to have lots of children. They are entertaining, loving and the extended family is the only way of surviving at the bottom of the heap here and yes, if you get to be old, it is much better to have more children who can help out.

I always worry about the intelligence of people who believe in intelligence tests, by the way and cannot see inate intelligence in people, being only capable of seeing intelligence in someone who have passed all the exams and got all the right papers.

I haven't RTFT, but hasn't eugenics been done already?

I assumed Donna Dishwasher was being sarcastic. But perhaps, in spite of my one child, I was just being stupid.

DarlingGrace wtf?

Why did you share those highly offensive views.

Without even a comment..just chuck em in?

Very sensitive.

I agree with reallytired. I know some people have fertility problems anyway, but ones caused by people waiting too long isnt the most intelligent move.

I am not sure what good "intelligence" have brought us exactly, aside from terrifying weapons, speedy information and travel, high pollution levels and medical science go help us with longevity against all odds so we can enjoy our dirty air and water a bit longer.

This species is on self destruct, and we will really need the concept "survival of the fittest" soon, and I hope I intelligence is outweighed by common sense.

"The actual statistics are that wealth and status are the best predictors of family size, and when controlled for those factors the correlation between family size and IQ vanishes into statistical meaninglessness"

Actually UK demographic stats show larger than average families at both extremes of the wealth and status spectrum, it's those in the middle who have the fewest kids.

IMO there is a real issue with affording children on "squeezed middle" incomes.

Whether that means everyone gets thicker is another matter, intelligence tends to return to the mean.

I only have one, so am clearly cleverer than wot anyone who has more than two is. Of course, I did lose 4, so maybe that just makes me more careless. And if I hadn't had expensive medical intervention, I wouldn't have one, so maybe that makes me greedier than most people and more selfish, using up the country's resources in this way? And if we were looking at Darwin's theory of evolution and survival of the fittest, I'd be dead and buried. My husband's family line would be ended and we'd die out way before the sun. But that aside, I'm clearly superior .

Wow georgesdino. Even more sensitive than the OP. I 'waited' til I was 30. I did it for the reason that before then I wasn't in a stable relationship and I didn't have any money. I made an intelligent decision to work til I had enough money to have a family. The stable relationship was a fairly important factor for me too. But according to you, waiting wasn't an intelligent move? By the way, I was a recurrent miscarrier and it started when I was 21, ended when I was 38 with one live birth inbetween. Regardless, your comment is not only insensitive, it's unintelligent and you are probably better than that in RL (one would hope).

I think you know you are being contentious OP and the comment about the Clintons made me chuckle. Can't think of a better way to disprove your own point. Entertained me whilst I ate my porridge this morning though.

Oh Brave New World.........I think Huxley might have the answer :)

badasahatter - 30 isnt old so wouldnt of been talking of people like yourself

It could have been interesting if some people hadn't brought up eugenics being a good idea.

From donna's past history i do NOT think she was being ironic in saying that.