[Quacnar]

The astronomical increase in the world population over the recent centuries will inevitably lead to a population so great that it wouldn't be able to fit onto the land of the Earth. The governments of countries have recognized this as an issue (China comes to mind for me personally) and have implemented different systems to control the growth of the population. The system in China is inadequate as it leads to parents puting their (female) children up for adoption in hopes of producing a male. My personal belief is that there must be a way to prevent part of the population from reproducing. The question then becomes who shouldn't be able to reproduce? It is only logical for those who are lesser in society to be sterilized (Tests should be administered to all of those who aren't sterilized at age 15). Tests should be administered to gauge the natural mental and physical abilities of every human worldwide. Only the elite should be allowed to continue the population. It is basically allowing natural selection for the overly protected Homo sapien. This system will allow a more intelligent and physically fit world and a control of population. Eliminating someone's "right" to have children is controversial, but it provides many solutions to the World's major problems

http://www.census-charts.com/Population/im...000-stacked.png
http://www3.selu.edu/turtlecove/lessonsont..._4_graph_lg.jpg

[Toasty]

While the results of such a system could potentially be very advantageous (people who aren't sterilized won't always fall in love with someone else who isn't sterilized), there's obviously a lot of things wrong with it on the morals front.

I'd be against it, despite the fact that it'd be nice to have fewer stupid people in the world.

[My Best Wishes]

Is that a copy and paste or your actual opinion?

[Quacnar]

watch, on May 6 2009, 02:58 AM, said:

Is that a copy and paste or your actual opinion?

It's my actual opinion.... If it was someone else's (not Wind Dude) I would have said so. Adoption could be allowed....

[My Best Wishes]

Go bite the kerb Coz, I'll be out in a second.

[Saturos S.]

killercoz, on May 6 2009, 08:41 AM, said:

The astronomical increase in the world population over the recent centuries will inevitably lead to a population so great that it wouldn't be able to fit onto the land of the Earth. The governments of countries have recognized this as an issue (China comes to mind for me personally) and have implemented different systems to control the growth of the population. The system in China is inadequate as it leads to parents puting their (female) children up for adoption in hopes of producing a male. My personal belief is that there must be a way to prevent part of the population from reproducing. The question then becomes who shouldn't be able to reproduce? It is only logical for those who are lesser in society to be sterilized (Tests should be administered to all of those who aren't sterilized at age 15). Tests should be administered to gauge the natural mental and physical abilities of every human worldwide. Only the elite should be allowed to continue the population. It is basically allowing natural selection for the overly protected Homo sapien. This system will allow a more intelligent and physically fit world and a control of population. Eliminating someone's "right" to have children is controversial, but it provides many solutions to the World's major problems

http://www.census-charts.com/Population/im...000-stacked.png
http://www3.selu.edu/turtlecove/lessonsont..._4_graph_lg.jpg

I find it odd that you can look down on a minority like that, whilst you so strongly support the gay minority.

Your view is way too radical and the policy you suggest can't actively be pursued unless the government has total control. Let's say 1984'ish manners of control. I, for one, don't like putting that kind of power into any government. So yeah, the world population is still growing, but based on ecological phenomenoms, it'll balance itself out (the so-called S-curve). If it doesn't balance, then we'll have to be original with the surface of the earth.

Also, there's no guarantee that smart parents will get smart children and more importantly vice versa that dumb people will get dumb children.

[My Best Wishes]

I think what we're also missing is another great war or sickness to wipe out some people. Personally I don't see a issue with the population number, probably because I'm in a western country.
You're views are way too extreme and I still think you're just trying to get a rise out of people.

[Drizzy Drake]

Coz you are on some other shit right now. Go have a drink, and actually think about what you`re saying. And you say the "lessers" should have to be sterilized, well I know a handfull of people who had terrible parents and are at the top of their class.

[Caael]

Get rid of Health and Safety and let the problem solve itself. Natural Selection barely exists anymore, time to bring it back.

[TheEnglishman]

Personally I think we should just put all the chavs on the moon.

[Quacnar]

You're all acting like this is some ridiculous notion. Do you really think that population will balance itself out? In a world where there is so much funding in the medical fields that people will live to a rather old age. Something must be done to prevent the population from growing in its current fashion. And although its not necessarily true that those who are intelligent will have intelligent children, there are much greater odds. And its not about having the best parents skidz, its about having the best children. Anyone in the society can adopt and therefore be a parent. Oh, if youre just posting to tell me I'm evil or I'm doing this to piss people off just don't post.

[Ironsight]

Randomized Mass Excecutions.

[Caael]

I still think taking safety lables off everything will just let the problem solve itself, and give us a lot of extremely entertaining darwin awards.

[Legolastom]

I think the upper classes will want as much people as possible to farm and exploit.

[Split Infinity]

killercoz, on May 7 2009, 05:29 AM, said:

And although its not necessarily true that those who are intelligent will have intelligent children, there are much greater odds.

evidence plx

[Quacnar]

Split Infinity, on May 6 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

evidence plx

Its gentics, people with intelligent genes will pass on those genes to their children

[Drizzy Drake]

killercoz, on May 6 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

You're all acting like this is some ridiculous notion. Do you really think that population will balance itself out? In a world where there is so much funding in the medical fields that people will live to a rather old age. Something must be done to prevent the population from growing in its current fashion. And although its not necessarily true that those who are intelligent will have intelligent children, there are much greater odds. And its not about having the best parents skidz, its about having the best children. Anyone in the society can adopt and therefore be a parent. Oh, if youre just posting to tell me I'm evil or I'm doing this to piss people off just don't post.

FAIL! Posted becuase you're finna catch an ass whooping with that kind of talk. You have no way of telling what level of intelligence a person's child will be before they're born.

[Quacnar]

Drizzy Drake, on May 6 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

FAIL! Posted becuase you're finna catch an ass whooping with that kind of talk. You have no way of telling what level of intelligence a person's child will be before they're born.

There is chance involved in the process, but do you honestly believe that less intelligent people will create a more intelligent child than intelligent people will? It could happen in one trial, but overall, more intelligent people will reproduce mentally superior people. These children will also have to take the sterilization test, and eventually, as generations pass, stupidity will be weeded out.

[Ironsight]

Stupidity isn't genetic, it's a behavior.

[Golden Legacy]

Regret, on May 6 2009, 09:41 PM, said:

Stupidity isn't genetic, it's a behavior.

About time we were in full agreement on something.

[Quacnar]

Nature vs. Nurture. They are both factors, and intelligence is genetic.

[Drizzy Drake]

FAIL, what about all the bratty spoiled fucking kids in Hollywood? Their parents are smart and successfull and they are stupid ignorant little fucks.

[Toasty]

Drizzy Drake, on May 6 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

FAIL! Posted becuase you're finna catch an ass whooping with that kind of talk. You have no way of telling what level of intelligence a person's child will be before they're born.

First off Skidz, quit saying FAIL all the time. It makes you look retarded.

Two parents who have high IQ's are more likely to produce a child with a high IQ than two parents with low IQ's. Asking Coz to "prove it" is like asking someone to prove that the earth is round. Like he said before, it's genetics.

I'll agree that you can't possibly be able to tell with 100% how smart a kid will be when they're born (after all, medical science isn't quite that advanced, and I'm a firm believer that a person's intelligence lies 50% with the genes and 50% with their attitude, habits, and environment). However, intelligence is a trait, just as blond hair or blue eyes are. How do you think humanity could possibly have bred so many different kinds of dogs if genetics wasn't true? There's a lot of dog breeds out there who are known for their intelligence, and guess what? They were bred to be like that by breeding the smartest dogs in the litter.


All that said, that point was just something that was bugging me. I'm in full agreement with your stance on this subject.

[Saturos S.]

killercoz, on May 6 2009, 09:29 PM, said:

You're all acting like this is some ridiculous notion. Do you really think that population will balance itself out? In a world where there is so much funding in the medical fields that people will live to a rather old age. Something must be done to prevent the population from growing in its current fashion. And although its not necessarily true that those who are intelligent will have intelligent children, there are much greater odds. And its not about having the best parents skidz, its about having the best children. Anyone in the society can adopt and therefore be a parent. Oh, if youre just posting to tell me I'm evil or I'm doing this to piss people off just don't post.

Well, in all fairness, the policy you're suggesting is ridiculous.

Statistics with humans show that the children of academics have more gene-disorders than normal people. Largely due to the fact that they get babies at an older age because of work, study etc.. How older a person is when the baby is made, the bigger the chance is of gene related disorders like Down-syndrome or Turner-syndrome.

Once again, you people are leaving way too many factors out of the picture.

Toasty, on May 7 2009, 05:04 AM, said:

First off Skidz, quit saying FAIL all the time. It makes you look retarded.

Two parents who have high IQ's are more likely to produce a child with a high IQ than two parents with low IQ's. Asking Coz to "prove it" is like asking someone to prove that the earth is round. Like he said before, it's genetics.

It's quite easy to prove. Just do an IQ test over say 5000 parents, then test the IQ of their children and see if there is any relation. If there is, it's likely to be genetic rather than smarter people being able to raise their children better. Though the only way you'll be able to prove it, is to pinpoint the 'intelligence' gene and prove that all smart people have it.

[My Best Wishes]

Who would oversee these tests and sterilisations Coz? The government? The governments that can't even keep our financial system in order?

[Quacnar]

Well obviously those who are younger when reproducing have a lesser chance of producing a child with less disorders, but forcing people to populate at a certain time is much worse than my plan. Anyways if a child is produced that has a disorder, it will be sterilized when the time comes.

Relating my proposal to the economic crisis is comparing apples to oranges. This would have to be a policy implemented worldwide to function, and would be run by a team of leaders.

[Mallick]

Sorry, Coz, but America has a strict policy against letting gays be politicians.


Better luck next time.

[Split Infinity]

I still can't understand this notion you have of some ultimate intelligence gene...

Back to the point, did you ever stop to think how blatantly demeaning such a society would be? Those who were sterilised would almost certainly be viewed as inferior by others in what would effectively be new-age racism.

Who is to say which genetic traits are desirable? For example, would acceptable blood types be limited to O, the universal donors? We have mental disorders like Asperger's and autism which hamper social interaction and result in abnormally focused interests, yet are present in some of our greatest scientific and political minds. Different genders are proficient in different fields of intelligence; would these tests produce an imbalance between the two? And even more importantly, exactly how smart is 'smart'? There's no way humanity could ever come up with a fair protocol for this kind of system.

[Toasty]

@PDM:lolwut

@Split: It's not an "ultimate intelligence" gene. Some people's minds are geared for learning and soaking up information (the "intelligent" minds), and some aren't. Whether your mind is like that or not depends on your genes.

That's not to say that someone who has a hard time learning can't be smart though. It also depends a lot on your attitude.

killercoz, on May 7 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

Well obviously those who are younger when reproducing have a lesser chance of producing a child with less disorders, but forcing people to populate at a certain time is much worse than my plan. Anyways if a child is produced that has a disorder, it will be sterilized when the time comes.

Relating my proposal to the economic crisis is comparing apples to oranges. This would have to be a policy implemented worldwide to function, and would be run by a team of leaders.

What you're suggesting could then potentially lead to under-population, or worse. If older people are the smarter ones, and therefore the only ones allowed to produce, and their children get sterilized, then you're effectively preventing any further reproduction as the people who would be more likely to produce children without defects would already be sterilized.

But that assumption also relies fairly heavily on the rate at which older couples produce children with genetic defects.


As for the world leader thing, no person or group, elected or otherwise, should be given power like that. It only leads to corruption. Even with all the checks and balances in the United States government, it's somehow still gotten corrupted.



Anyway, in theory, the idea is great. It could potentially lead to a much better world. However, in reality, it's a pretty horrible idea, and it wouldn't turn out well in the slightest. Not to mention that it's morally wrong to sterilize someone without their consent.

[Saturos S.]

killercoz, on May 8 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

Well obviously those who are younger when reproducing have a lesser chance of producing a child with less disorders, but forcing people to populate at a certain time is much worse than my plan. Anyways if a child is produced that has a disorder, it will be sterilized when the time comes.

Relating my proposal to the economic crisis is comparing apples to oranges. This would have to be a policy implemented worldwide to function, and would be run by a team of leaders.

Good thing I didn't say anything like that. I was merely pointing out that their a way more factors in 'passing on your intelligence' that you're currently considering.

And Toasty, the idea is horrible even in theory. Because even if everyone in the world has obtained that certain level of smartness, you need a decent amount of "dumb" people to keep the world going. I don't see anyone with a doctarate wanting to be a garbage man or a butcher, but those people are needed.

[Toasty]

You have a point there, and I was going to address the whole "the world still needs people to do this and that" issue, but I didn't want my post to get too long.

Besides, in a world of smart people, all of those "demeaning" tasks would be automated by robots. =P

And on a serious note, that last statement isn't entirely impossible. Infact, it is very possible, and robots are already replacing humans in industrial applications. Have been for years, tbh.


But the whole point, is that many of the problems that could be solved by having "stupid" people around could also be solved through inventions by "intelligent" people. The theory is that the world would be a better place because of the whole selection thing.

But really, it wouldn't. Mostly because it could only work in a best case scenario which is nigh impossible to obtain for logical and social reasons.

[My Best Wishes]

What about people like this in your perfect world Coz? Under you plan he shouldn't be alive, yet has already achieved more then most of us will with our life.

Anyone else thinking Gattaca and Brave New World with this topic??

[Split Infinity]

Am I ever...

Toasty, on May 8 2009, 02:33 PM, said:

@Split: It's not an "ultimate intelligence" gene. Some people's minds are geared for learning and soaking up information (the "intelligent" minds), and some aren't. Whether your mind is like that or not depends on your genes.

I wouldn't say genes are a deciding factor; you have to consider things like upbringing, access to education, self-ambition, lifestyle decisions, etc. People aren't born geniuses, just with potential.

[Mallick]

I think we should merge this topic with the swine flu topic.

[Toasty]

Split Infinity, on May 8 2009, 12:33 AM, said:

Am I ever...
I wouldn't say genes are a deciding factor; you have to consider things like upbringing, access to education, self-ambition, lifestyle decisions, etc. People aren't born geniuses, just with potential.

That's my point. Some people have the potential to learn more than others. They understand things better.

[Split Infinity]

And my point is that they could just as well wind up janitors.

[Toasty]

That's why I say that 50% depends on their attitude and environment.

Some people have more potential than other people. But that potential is only an advantage if they act on it, or have an opportunity to do so.

[Split Infinity]

Yeah, kinda like you ending up Chri I kid, I kid. <3

Even that potential isn't always apparent at 15, though. We've all heard those stories about people born into low-class families who went on to become high-profile celebrities, scientists, and more recently, President.

More often than not, the priveleged children go on to become faceless entities like lawyers, executives, business owners; which are necessary, yes, but they don't exactly advance society. They just keep the system running.

[Drizzy Drake]

Split and Toasty, though you guys may be in disagreement about some things, can ya`ll both agree that mass nuetering people is the dumbest idea ever and Coz is fucking retarded?

EDIT- Split!

[Split Infinity]

Huh?

[Caael]

I'm just gonna go ahead and say every child has the potential to be intelligent; every human does, it's just the environment they're brought up in which deicdes whether or not they utitilise it.

[Laharl]

well the only real occupation for children with brain damage is priesthood

[Mallick]

Laharl, on May 9 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

well the only real occupation for children with brain damage is priesthood

There's a whole field for the poor bastards. It's called politics.

Ask Koz, he knows all about them.