Are the stupidest people most likely to reproduce ?

answer to the OP...yes.

but they aren't likely to survive as long, so...

i think it's a natural countermeasure of sorts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

fellow, stop being so dramatic, population issues rank very, very, very low on the US's problem chart.

The fact is that the average amount of children in the US, rounded, is 2 per family, somewhere around 2.5 ish i believe.

That means that population growth is pretty good, we arent exploding, but we arent going to see major problems.

The fact is, it's not a problem for the US.

Fellow, China has over a billion people, the US has 350 million people spread of a slightly smaller land area. We have no problems with population control

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would say yes

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You see, an intelligent individual would use the much hackneyed phrase 'lol' only in parody and would certainly have used 'conceited' over 'self important'.

Nice to have a few gumbies on board at Sci.

 

The "smartest" people I know are child-free. By choice.

 

is this a trick question?

 

PHILISTINE! I used double entendre on myself. Try to imagine if you could bend your dick up your ass, it's easy if you try really hard.

 

Double entendre ay? Hmm interesting.
So, you're from a big family too ay Nietzsche?

 

Interesting thread, although I predict the inevitable Pronatalist to add his input fairly soon.

There's a correlation between lack of education and high birth rate that can be seen all over the globe. After all, low education levels are indicative of lower economic prosperity, which in turn (a bit paradoxically, one might say) is a sure indicator of a high birth rate.

A correlation also exists between organised religion in a country and its birth rate, which in my opinion is fairly obvious. The point being, the less educated a population, the more likely it is that it will respond to religious dogma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox

 

All of that's true. It's been studied and researched gazillions of times. But just remember, correlation does not mean causation.

I've never liked seeing that kind of thing posted ...mainly because it's usually used to denigrate religions in some way or form. And just to set everyone straight on this study (as well as other similar ones), the correlation between less education and "religious dogma" is misleading ....it should say or mean or imply that the less educated are more likely to respond to MANY different things! Scams, dogma, racism, political dogma, ...., and the list goes on. So it not JUST religions, so please don't use it to unjustly denigrate religions of the world.

I'm not especially religious, but those who make fun of religions, or accuse it of bad things, y'all would do well to reemmber that religions have been the basis for many, if not all, of our greater ideals of human rights, laws, government, charity, ..., etc.

Baron Max

 

Nasty one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Oh, what's that on the ground? Is it my entrails? Well, just step over them and never mind."

 

To the op title, the answer is no. The correct answer is those of the worst socioeconomic status will reproduce more. The reason is because their chance of personal and offspring survival is diminished; therefore, more children equals a statistically greater chance that their genetics will persist another generation (however long that may be).

 

I agree. However, I feel it's reasonable to suggest that in the aforementioned demographic-economic paradox, lack of wealth is merely a confounding factor. Poorer countries almost always have inferior education systems, which in turn produce populations who are ignorant of effective contraception. A correlation, I hasten to emphasize, has also been observed between levels of female literacy and birth rate. I'll allow you to draw your own conclusions from that.

Nevertheless, I still feel that religion has a large part to play...

I implied no such thing: I only discussed the tendency of religious texts to encourage their followers to have lots of children.
You mentioned dogma twice in your list of things the 'less-educated' are more likely to respond to, yet oddly you refuse to accept religious dogma as falling under that category as well? Seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

This is irrelavent to the discussion. After all, your sweeping statements about religion hold no water: they are impossible to validate or deny. We are only talking about religion's effect on one thing: population growth.

 

People should have more babies, they're fun to fling at the windshield of passing cars.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

these are fertility rates by country. your post is assumptive and doesn't take variables into account. asian countries are the least fertile

for instance, china with it's large population was not necessarily a dumb strategy but a smart one as well. it depends if you have an agenda/plan or your large population is just a result of ignorance. can't do much with a small population as much as a larger one anyways or at least it does provide an advantage when other variables are in place as you have a large workforce and military force.

this is another example that lacks understanding of variables or perspective. it's not just about numbers, it's about what those numbers represent. a thousand retards are not and advantage or better than five geniuses. neither are five retards better than a thousand geniuses. china encouraged thier population to reproduce at higher rates for farming communities and this is the result. however, the positive aspect is most chinese are smart or of slightly above average intelligence.

america is a perfect example of backward evolutionary policies and they are paying for it in poor education and less quality population. it doesn't matter if america has a less population than china if they keep getting dumber and dumber? get it? lol.

as well, the handing out welfare to the undeserving just encourages the less deserving or able to reproduce more. the affirmative action policies, the dumbing down of society in general, lax or uneven social and judicial laws (some get a slap on wrist for worst offenses while others spend years in prison etc) even if the more intelligent individuals in a society reproduce, the fact that the degenerate or less intelligent reproduce at much higher rates and supported by government and society to do so will end in a population with foregone conclusions. it's simple in this regard.

still, even if a society was not reproducing at drastic rates but the bulk of your population (whether employed or not) will not compete as well with a population with more intelligent people. it will depend on how well the intelligent (elite?) can train or keep their population in control or mold them for an agenda.