Do idiots breed more?

Nevyn

It would appear that most people who go to college/3rd level have some career plans. So settling down and having children gets put off.
Many never get arround to having kids, or are to career driven or even if they
do settle like thier lifestyle with out kids that they dont wish to have any.

Those with out any goals dream or ambitions are more likely to have children
earlier late teens to very early twenties.

None of the poeple I went to college with have had kids yet,
very few of those in my extended family of my generatior with in 5 years of me either way have kids. Do are only starting now.
My children have no cousins from either side of the family
and that may well be the case for at least 5 years to come.
Very few of my friends have children either.

There is a deffinte divide between those wait and want the best for thier
off spring and those children which are still had and left out on the street
for the most part of the day.

Pigman II

There's also another divide which is the divide between those who want the best for their offspring and those who want the best for their offspring BUT would rather spend their life pleasing themself and just avoiding the bother ... ie 'people like me'.

If I had a kid I'd make sure it'd want for nothing. But at the same time I'm not going to ever to deliberately do anything (beyond the obvious of course!) to put that theory to the test. That's why it just blows my mind when I hear people (ie women) talking about things like 'planned pregnancies' and 'trying to have a baby'.

Nevyn

There are a lot of couples out there that put of having kids uintil they are in their late 20s or mid 30s and then have trouble getting pregnant.
Women are at thier most fertile from 18 to 25 and then it is a downward slope.

AdMMM

Being a so called "intelligent" person these days means you go against human nature. It is in our human nature to want children, yet "intelligent" people put off having children for a number of culture imposed reasons. Expenditure is one of these reasons, if you have a child you will be spending more money every month. Your career is another one of these reasons, 2000years a go a woman wouldnt say no to having a child because it would destroy her career, nowadays however it is common practice for women to persue careers instead of having a family.

"un-intelligent" people on the other hand don't let these reasons get in their way. They probably don't have a career to start with, because they are un-intelligent of course, probably just a FAS job as a cleaner.

The reason why I reffered to unintelligent and intelligent groups with inverted commas was to outline my scepticism of it being "unintelligent" and "intelligent" people. It would probably be described as rich people and poor people with the poor people breeding like theres no tomorrow as they see children as their path to an easy old age, whereas richer, more career orientated people see children as a dent on their disposable income and potential career wreckers!

iguana

I went out with a guy 5/6 years ago who had a baby. He used to act sometimes like having a kid gave him special powers. Whenever we disagreed on things he felt he automatically won by the power of being a dad. His favourite quote was "How can I be immature? I'm a dad!"

When he got his ex pregnant they weren't using any contraception. They'd initially used condoms, then she went on the pill, she'd stopped as they made her fat and they didn't think beyond that. So in actual fact, the fact that he was a dad was just proof that he had (at least) once been very immature.

He used to think of her getting pregnant as an accident and that they'd been very unlucky. And no matter how many times I explained to him that it wasn't an accident it was carelessness (I wasn't being nasty I was just trying to explain why I was confident I would not be having his baby thanks to the wonders of the pill-condom combo) he just didn't get it. He'd learned the theory from school, his parents and friends but it just would not sink in.

So yeah, I think that there is a definite connection between idiocy and unwanted pregnancy!

That said he had nothing on the 22yo I'd dated for a week and a half the year before who thought that a girl could get pregnant if she gave a blow-job and swallowed.

simu

Well, from what I've seen, those who are unemployed or work in less prestigious jobs may have kids a bit earlier but they don't have more kids - the typical family size for all groups seems to be 3 or so nowadays. It's just that the better educated get around to it later. This is just an observation, though. We'd need stats to discuss this properly.

djmarkus

so is the irish population growing as a whole? well if 2 people have 3 kids that that says yes, but it depends on the rate people are dying

Victor

simu wrote:

Well, from what I've seen, those who are unemployed or work in less prestigious jobs may have kids a bit earlier but they don't have more kids - the typical family size for all groups seems to be 3 or so nowadays. It's just that the better educated get around to it later. This is just an observation, though. We'd need stats to discuss this properly.

If this continues for more generations there would be more in "unemployed or work in less prestigious jobs" genetic / social group, although in practice you do get cross-bredding.

Assuming:

Group A has 3 children per family after 20 years
Group B has 3 children per family after 30 years

Year	Group A		Group B

1800	 10,000 	10,000 
1810		
1820	 15,000 	
1830			15,000 
1840	 22,500 	
1850		
1860	 33,750 	22,500 
1870		
1880	 50,625 	
1890		 	33,750 
1900	 75,938 	
1910		
1920	 113,906 	50,625 
1930		
1940	 170,859 	
1950		 	75,938 
1960	 256,289 	
1970		
1980	 384,434 	113,906

simu

Well, you could also factor in that these people have shorter lives. So the life cycle is shorter, essentially. And of course, reality is far murkier - there is "intermarriage", stupid parents produce smart kids and vice versa, society is changing constantly and many more factors.

kasintahan

seamus wrote:

Actually this is something I've though of before. It's essentially natural selection kicking itself in the foot - that is, for thousands of years, it was the most intelligent and strongest who survived, but slowly, intelligence and success has caused those who have it to breed less, allowing the weaker and less intelligent to procreate more.

Is it really though?

I mean it wasn't the "working class" who invented atomic weapons.
It wasn't the working class who invented the B52 or VX.

The intelligentsia are a far greater threat to mamalia than are the so called skangers. Mother nature appears to be defending herself from those who seek to usurp her.

Victor

No, shorter lives are largely irrelevant (although having grandparents does improve infant survival, etc.).

Assuming group A lives for 50 years and Group B for 70 years.

Of course death, disease, pestilence, disaster and war are great at keeping populations down.

djmarkus

Do immigrants factor any in this?(Wohoo my 500th post)

iguana

simu wrote:

Well, you could also factor in that these people have shorter lives. So the life cycle is shorter, essentially. And of course, reality is far murkier - there is "intermarriage", stupid parents produce smart kids and vice versa, society is changing constantly and many more factors.

Well in the UK and US young children now have a lower life expectancy than their parents (on average), due to obesity. I think that over the next 20-30 years or so this will have an impact on the population as a whole, unless of course it is rectified.

Plus that obesity, excess alcohol and smoking, all have negative effects on fertlity. For the most part those in the non-idiot category are less likely to be obese and generally tend to quit cigarettes and alcohol when choosing to have a baby. They are also more likely to breast feed and feed their children a healthy diet.

The "idiots" may be having more children but those children are the ones who have a much lower life expectancy rate and decreased fertlity. Whereas for healthy children with a healthy diet life expectancy is still increasing, though it is down on average.

rsynnott

iguana wrote:

Well in the UK and US young children now have a lower life expectancy than their parents (on average), due to obesity. I think that over the next 20-30 years or so this will have an impact on the population as a whole, unless of course it is rectified.

Which it won't be. And I suspect the situation here is now the same.

Also: "Homosexuality is god's way of insuring that the truly gifted aren't burdened with children. ~Sam Austin"

KnowItAll

rsynnott wrote:

Also: "Homosexuality is god's way of insuring that the truly gifted aren't burdened with children. ~Sam Austin"

Homosexuality is natures way of keeping the bad genes away from the good genes.

Victor

Whats a good gene and a bad gene. So far Darwin has only really proved that variety is the best.

If "gay genes" (if they exist) are "bad genes" why do they still exist? One hypothesis is that the children of siblings of gay people benefit from having extra support.

amp

KnowItAll wrote:

Homosexuality is natures way of keeping the bad genes away from the good genes.

How do you explain your own retarded redneck genes then?












Batter up

nesf

KnowItAll wrote:

Homosexuality is natures way of keeping the bad genes away from the good genes.

I think you are a living example of a refutation to that remark.

rsynnott

nesf wrote:

I think you are a living example of a refutation to that remark.

Now, now, we don't know; he/she/it may be gay. (Prob'ly not if it's an it tho)

catholicireland

Also: "Homosexuality is god's way of insuring that the truly gifted aren't burdened with children. ~Sam Austin

I taught you dont believe in god.?

amp

catholicireland wrote:

I taught you dont believe in god.?

You don't understand the concept of a quote? In fact don't bother replying. You're banned under the stupidity clause.

Thread not performing well. Locked.