Do idiots breed more?

Karl Hungus · 19-08-2005 1:33pm #1

Honestly, it does seem that the more intelligent couple of society would have one or two children, whereas young Anto McSkang gets a new addition to his 17 brothers and sisters a year?

Is there a correlation between intelligence levels and how many sprogletts a family will squeeze out?
Just a silly little observation, nothing serious here.

aidan_walsh · 19-08-2005 1:36pm

Karl Hungus wrote:

Is there a correlation between intelligence levels and how many sprogletts a family will squeeze out?

To answer your question with a question, how easy is it to bed a blond?

For a lot of these people, sex is probably the most mentally challenging thing they will ever have to do, aside from keeping upright.

AB03 · 19-08-2005 1:36pm

Of course there is. Education, which in turn leads onto proper prevention.

grimloch · 19-08-2005 1:38pm

Is there a correlation between intelligence levels and how many sprogletts a family will squeeze out?

Hmmmm, yes.

AB03 · 19-08-2005 1:38pm

Rather than have a feckin thread about skangers and non skangers or whatever the hell you want to call them, why dont we have a thread about the social problems that cause these people to be 'skangers'!?!

Karl Hungus · 19-08-2005 1:39pm

AB03 wrote:

Rather than have a feckin thread about skangers and non skangers or whatever the hell you want to call them, why dont we have a thread about the social problems that cause these people to be 'skangers'!?!

What will that achieve? Are we in a position of authority to do anything about these social problems?

RE*AC*TOR · 19-08-2005 1:40pm

"Trailer parks all over America filling up with little miracles. Thunk, thunk, thunk. Look at all my little miracles. Filling up my trailer like a sardine can. Look at them.

"You know what would be a little miracle? If I could remember your daddy's name. I guess I'll have to call you Trucker Jr. That's all I remember about your daddy was his fuzzy little pot belly riding on top of me shooting his caffeine ridden semen into my belly to produce my little water head miracle baby child. Thunk. There's your brother, Pizza Delivery Boy Jr., thunk here's your other brother, thunk here's your other brother, Will Work For Food Jr."

aidan_walsh · 19-08-2005 1:41pm

AB03 wrote:

Rather than have a feckin thread about skangers and non skangers or whatever the hell you want to call them, why dont we have a thread about the social problems that cause these people to be 'skangers'!?!

Because this is more fun?

Nah, seriously though. Even if you did try, don't put it on AH, because it WILL descend into one of those (these?) threads.

Pigman II · 19-08-2005 1:43pm

Didn't Harvey Danger have a lyric about 'only stupid people are breeding'.

I don't think it's intelligence tho. I think it's a class/community thing. In certain families daughters aren't exactly discouraged from getting preggers. In others children are warned from an early age 'don't you come home pregrant!' or 'don't have some young one knocking at my door'. Obviously in many cases the people recieving this treatment and advise will act appropriately.

I mean seriously (and I'm talking to the guys here) if you could go through life 100% sure you'd never pick up an STD and 100% immune from any responsibility that a so-called 'bundle of joy' would bring then how many kids do you reckon you'd have yourself right now?

AB03 · 19-08-2005 1:46pm

Im not going to try for that exact reason.
Reason : Beautiful quote, ya beat me to it!

*PHUNK!*

Well Karl, what the hell is the point in denegrating the social underclass further by giving them abuse? Its not going to change anything either, but I suppose you find it fun to do so am I right?

Stevee · 19-08-2005 1:46pm

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

"Trailer parks all over America filling up with little miracles. Thunk, thunk, thunk. Look at all my little miracles. Filling up my trailer like a sardine can. Look at them.

"You know what would be a little miracle? If I could remember your daddy's name. I guess I'll have to call you Trucker Jr. That's all I remember about your daddy was his fuzzy little pot belly riding on top of me shooting his caffeine ridden semen into my belly to produce my little water head miracle baby child. Thunk. There's your brother, Pizza Delivery Boy Jr., thunk here's your other brother, thunk here's your other brother, Will Work For Food Jr."

Hicks was a legend. As far as Skangers go. I alwaysthought that they were a genetic dead end like shy people. Need to think about this one

meditraitor · 19-08-2005 1:46pm

Because the more intelligent and conscientious are refraining from procreation, while the less intelligent and conscientious are highly prolific, there is a decline to the genetic component of intelligence, close to 2 IQ points per generation in America. This began when birth control became widely available, accelerated around the 1950s, and will continue until the trend is reversed or until our intelligence falls below the level capable of sustaining civilization, which will be roughly 200 years when the average IQ in America falls below 85. This downward trend is called "dysgenics."

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/pages/ten_minutes.htm

Sarky · 19-08-2005 1:50pm

200 years!? But I want to riding around the wastelands on a motorcycle with a katana and shotgun strapped to my back NOW!

Pigman II · 19-08-2005 1:52pm

Isn't this the seconary benefit of warfare tho? To thin out the ranks of those who would proceed to pollute the genepool further.

Dizzyblabla · 19-08-2005 1:53pm

I thought it might have to do with money and providing for your kids...
I know personally I'd like to have 2, that way I will be able to give them all the classes and lessons (violin, ballet, piano, singing, drama) that they want to do, I won't have to think too hard about letting them go on school trips and I know that they will be comfortable.
The more kids a disadvantaged family has, the more money, and the better chance of getting a bigger house they have.. well, I think anyway? maybe they're all a little smarter than what we think?

meditraitor · 19-08-2005 1:53pm

Sarky wrote:

200 years!? But I want to riding around the wastelands on a motorcycle with a katana and shotgun strapped to my back NOW!

Motorbikes are dangerous dude!!! Anny way were are you going to fit your urangotang, you will need a pickup truck.. with missile launchers on the back,,,

Karl Hungus · 19-08-2005 1:56pm

AB03 wrote:

Well Karl, what the hell is the point in denegrating the social underclass further by giving them abuse? Its not going to change anything either, but I suppose you find it fun to do so am I right?

Giving them abuse? Yeah, I'm sure the whole "Social Underclass" is reading boards right now. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, don't read too much into a silly little thread on After Hours.

Beruthiel · 19-08-2005 1:57pm

Sarky wrote:

200 years!? But I want to riding around the wastelands on a motorcycle with a katana and shotgun strapped to my back NOW!

move to Oz
I'm sure there's enough empty outback for you to do that

aidan_walsh · 19-08-2005 1:58pm

Andrew Maxwell wrote:

In Ireland, the rate of teenage pregnancy is growing.

The overall population growth in the EU is declining, whereas the life expectancy is growing. At some stage, there will be fewer people in Europe entering the workforce than there is retiring from it, which means that there will be fewer people paying taxes, and thus a smaller amount being paid out in retirement by the governments.

What this means, is that while the rest of Europe wil lbe floundering trying to survive, Ireland will be spared. Why? Because we've got slags.

.

Sarky · 19-08-2005 2:01pm

Beruthiel wrote:

move to Oz
I'm sure there's enough empty outback for you to do that

No zombies though.

RE*AC*TOR · 19-08-2005 2:02pm

Kangaroos > Zombies

seamus · 19-08-2005 2:03pm

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.

That said, it could also be seen as the natural order doing what it does best, and levelling the playing field. Once a species becomes much more successful than the rest, the natural order is unbalanced. So if the human race is to decline and be reduced, it's purely because natural order has taken control.

What's strange though is that it's generally accepted that the average IQ in the UK and here increases by a few points every ten years. So is the decline in the US due to social or educational differences, or because the prosperousness of Europe is a few years behind that in the US due to WWII?

RE*AC*TOR · 19-08-2005 2:04pm

A similar arguement is the improvement in medicines and therapies - thus keeping people with genetic disorders etc alive longer - able to procreate. No longer survival of the fittest.

seamus · 19-08-2005 2:05pm

I'm going to move this to Humanities. Stop with the spammy crap, and/or abusive posts. It's a real and interesting topic.

meditraitor · 19-08-2005 2:07pm

edit. as it has been moved to Humanities,,, was spammy reply, sorry, sarky's fault

pickarooney · 19-08-2005 2:16pm

seamus wrote:

What's strange though is that it's generally accepted that the average IQ in the UK and here increases by a few points every ten years. So is the decline in the US due to social or educational differences, or because the prosperousness of Europe is a few years behind that in the US due to WWII?

It's probably just that people are getting better at doing IQ tests - those things don't really measure anything significant.

meditraitor · 19-08-2005 2:22pm

.Despite glib dismissals of the importance of IQ tests, they are a actually an excellent measure of what ordinary people think of as intelligence. More importantly, your intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, isn't just something you learn or develop by getting a good education, but is instead very much a product of your genetics – IQ is about 70% heritable. This means that most of the variance in IQ scores found in the general population is attributable to genetic differences between individuals within that population.

The IQ can be broken down into a number of smaller factors (usually "verbal" vs. "visuo-spatial" or "mathematical") but these factors all correlate to a strong degree. That is, someone who excels at music is also likely to be good at seemingly unrelated mental disciplines such as linguistics or cryptography. This intercorrelation of mental abilities is called "g," or the general factor of intelligence. The general factor is present in virtually every aspect of what we think of as intelligence, including memorization, reasoning, and reflexes. It is this general factor, g, which IQ tests attempt to measure; the most accurate test of g is Ravens Progressive Matrices, which corresponds to the g factor at around 80%.

IQ correlates positively with income, height, myopia, and brain size. IQ correlates negatively with fertility, criminality, welfare dependency, and child abuse. (These correlations are powerful – your IQ better predicts your adult Socio-Economic Status than the SES under which you are born. It correlates at over 40% with brain size, and even around 20% with height.)

Intelligence is not the only heritable psychometric trait; most psychologists have agreed to a 5-factor model of personality which measures Openness to experience, Extroversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.

Conscientiousness refers to responsibility, the ability to control impulses, and attention to detail; it is about 40-50% heritable. Like IQ, Conscientiousness correlates positively with income, and negatively with fertility, criminality, and welfare dependency.

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/pages/ten_minutes.htm

Sarky · 19-08-2005 2:35pm

edit. as it has been moved to Humanities,,, was spammy reply, sorry, sarky's fault

Hey, it was fair game in AH!

Anyway, I kind of had a point. Meditrator's quotes suggest that if populations keep growing the way they do, our civilisations in general will suffer, as people just won't be smart enough to keep it going. Assuming that's true (and I'd point to the possible resurgance of religious "faith>facts" thinking in the US and some of the frankly downright stupid moves made in the name of political correctness as evidence that it could be true), won't humanity be taking a big step backwards, like another dark ages?

aidan_walsh · 19-08-2005 2:39pm

Sarky wrote:

won't humanity be taking a big step backwards, like another dark ages?

Perhaps, but in that time will the "survival of the fittest" not reemerge out of necessity? As we have it today, people don't need to be smart if machines or other people can be smart on their behalf.

Mangler · 19-08-2005 2:49pm

Karl Hungus wrote:

Honestly, it does seem that the more intelligent couple of society would have one or two children, whereas young Anto McSkang gets a new addition to his 17 brothers and sisters a year?

Is there a correlation between intelligence levels and how many sprogletts a family will squeeze out?
Just a silly little observation, nothing serious here.

Intelligent people are stressed, stress leads to tiredness and not getting the leg over as often, Anto McThicko doesnt give a toss about anything so he has no worries, as long as he has his smoke and a few beers in the fridge the world is at one, its a fact of life that people who anylize everything rather than just getting on with it are stressed out to the max. them's the breaks !

Dar · 19-08-2005 3:08pm

In Ireland, the rate of teenage pregnancy is growing.

The overall population growth in the EU is declining, whereas the life expectancy is growing. At some stage, there will be fewer people in Europe entering the workforce than there is retiring from it, which means that there will be fewer people paying taxes, and thus a smaller amount being paid out in retirement by the governments.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we take population growth as inversely proportional to intelligence, then:

a) Intelligence increases, population growth decreases. We won't have enough people to sustain our economy.

or b) Population growth increases, intelligence decreases, in which case we don't have enough minds to sustain our economy.

Personally I think the only possible solution is forced breeding of people with high IQs, and farbeit from me to refuse my civic duty

.

Nevyn · 19-08-2005 4:32pm

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 · 19-08-2005 4:57pm

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 · 19-08-2005 5:02pm

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 · 19-08-2005 10:24pm

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 · 20-08-2005 12:18am

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 · 20-08-2005 12:35am

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 · 20-08-2005 12:41am

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 · 20-08-2005 12:45am

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 · 20-08-2005 1:00am

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 · 20-08-2005 1:07am

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 · 20-08-2005 1:37am

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 · 20-08-2005 1:42am

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

iguana · 20-08-2005 3:57pm

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 · 20-08-2005 5:15pm

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 · 25-08-2005 11:38pm

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 · 25-08-2005 11:46pm

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 · 26-08-2005 1:16am

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 · 26-08-2005 7:05am

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 · 26-08-2005 2:08pm

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 · 26-08-2005 2:12pm

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.?

Do idiots breed more?

Comments