 OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
 8755 Posts
|
Wednesday, September 12, 2012 11:16:32 AM
Old Ollie, money isn't a genetic trait.
No, but IQ is, and IQ has been directly linked to income which is a significant factor in the size of family you can support. When you give money to people with low income and low IQs, you are subsidizing their reproduction --> Idiocracy. |
|
 Dragonace
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
162 Posts
|
Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:08:15 AM
Sadly those that are the most fit aren't always the smartest, hence why we have thousands of dumb redneck families with 10+ kids. |
|
 xelous
Male, 18-29, Western US
2535 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:45:58 PM
...Then we will breed a race of super-smart super-bored children that will have all the intelligence of Stephen Hawking and the same mobility as they will be glued to the computer screen. |
|
xelous
Male, 18-29, Western US
2535 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:40:03 PM
@Tekinette
On to your plan of sexing up all the female I-A-B'ers and I gotta say, brilliant!
F-ing brilliant even. |
|
 Draculya
Male, 30-39, Asia
6362 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:30:48 PM
I have to admit it, I missed it the first time I read it. |
|
 Tekinette
Male, 18-29, Europe
255 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:43:40 PM
Smart people tend to have less kids than morons so yeah... Luckily on iab we're all super smart, let's breed you guys, there's probably 1 female for 100 guys so we'll have to work some kind of system.. hmm... I'll look into this and contact you guys when the plan is ready k ? |
|
 BlankTom
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
6533 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:35:47 PM
"Then explain trailer trash."
it's called natural SELECTION. And have you seen the selection they have in those trailer parks? yikes. |
|
 VirtualParty
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
794 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:07:22 PM
Old Ollie, money isn't a genetic trait. |
|
 LordJim
Male, 50-59, Europe
2418 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 3:18:40 PM
TKD_Master
You come to my family with selective sterilisation in mind and I will shoot you in the face. I don't don't even have a gun, but expect to be shot in the face.
|
|
LordJim
Male, 50-59, Europe
2418 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 3:12:23 PM
OldOllie.
I'm guessing Idiocracy befeore I click.
Yes. I was right. That wasn't actually a documentary.
Who gets to choose who breeds?
|
|
OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8755 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:37:48 PM
@OldOllie: Welcome to Costco, I love you.
Love ya, too, patches, but we don't have Costco here, just Walmart. |
|
 madduck
Female, 40-49, Europe
2871 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:22:04 PM
Plus it seems that some of you believe that selection leads to improvements- often it really doesn't. Pandas for a start.... |
|
madduck
Female, 40-49, Europe
2871 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:20:43 PM
TKDmaster- oh yes it does. Natural selection is alive and working just fine thank you. Cannot find source at presentbut try here andhere |
|
 Langer
Male, 18-29, Europe
308 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:50:41 PM
Non-aggression pact - I don't hate, steal from, kill you & vice versa, that's (in theory anyway) how society works, i.e. human rights
This is why we need selective sterilization.
careful now, how should said parameters be chosen: strength? intelligence? wealth? how about religion? you probably want to make sure that you yourself are white listed so your own genes stay within the pool, as does everyone else
 |
|
 patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5290 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:47:49 PM
@OldOllie: Welcome to Costco, I love you. |
|
 TKD_Master
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
4827 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:13:46 PM
Natural Selection no longer applies to human beings. As a society, we typically support our weaker humans, giving them the chance/ability to reproduce. This is why we need selective sterilization. |
|
OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8755 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:56:41 AM
OldOllie, on the other hand, seems to have no problem with checking his sympathy.
Darwin is often blamed for eugenics, but he clearly and specifically opposed it from the start.
Darwin's disapproval of eugenics is totally irrelevant to the phenomenon of dysgenics. By ensuring the survival of those who would not survive on their own, humans have essentially repealed the law of natural selection as applies to their own species. If you want to know where that leads, just click here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ |
|
LordJim
Male, 50-59, Europe
2418 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:52:53 AM
OldOllie, on the other hand, seems to have no problem with checking his sympathy.
Darwin is often blamed for eugenics, but he clearly and specifically opposed it from the start. |
|
LordJim
Male, 50-59, Europe
2418 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:46:59 AM
DuckBoy87
Darwin recognised that complex human societies were kinda sidestepping the whole 'survival of the fittest' side of things, but also recognised that caring for the less able was one of our greatest virtues.
' Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; '
|
|
OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8755 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:34:42 AM
Then explain trailer trash.
Same explanation as ghetto trash: welfare. |
|
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5290 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:22:36 AM
@Duckboy:
-------------
can't read
------------- |
|
 DuckBoy87
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
2096 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:21:25 AM
@patchgrabber:
-------the joke----->
------your head----- |
|
 Squidbush
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
497 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:19:31 AM
"Then explain trailer trash."
With out any natural predators or any kind of real environmental dangers, the fittest are soon outnumbered by those who simply procreate the most often. |
|
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5290 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:09:56 AM
@Duckboy: Because natural selection doesn't exactly apply to humans the way it does in nature now that technology has allowed just about everyone (excluding developing countries) to reach the age where they can pass on their genes. We still evolve, but natural selection doesn't quite have the same meaning for us. |
|
DuckBoy87
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
2096 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:54:43 AM
"Fittest will reproduce more often"
Then explain trailer trash. |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}