Err America files Chapter 11

[Orton's Arm]

I'd love to know where you got all THAT from.  Sounds like you're pretty hung up on reproduction.  Funny about conservatives, they really have issues with that.  I wonder why?

My points are as follows:

 

1. People who are more intelligent tend to have fewer children than those who are less intelligent. See: Tracking Exceptional Human Capital, D. Lubinski et al., Research Article, Tracking Exceptional Human Capital Over Two Decades

David Lubinski, Camilla P. Benbow, Rose Mary Webb, and April Bleske-Rechek

 

2. This is a problem, because intelligence is determined by genetics:

Adult IQ correlations full siblings reared together, r = +.49

full siblings reared apart, r = +.47

unrelated persons reared together (adoption), r = -.01

 

"By adulthood, all of the IQ correlation between biologically related persons is genetic." - Statistics and quote from Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. P. 178

 

3. Based on the scientific evidence of points 1 and 2, this nation's genetic potential for intelligence is decreasing. This is a problem, and the present political climate makes it impossible for the problem to be solved. Just as liberals assume every war is Vietnam, they also assume every effort to improve a nation's gene pool will involve gas chambers. The fact of the matter is that some wars are necessary and appropriate, as are certain efforts to improve the gene pool.

-Schools where our children can learn and not have to worry about getting shot up

I favor this also, which is why I prefer a parent-choice education model to the present bureaucrat choice model.

-Equal access to doctors and medical treatment for the middle class and poor as well as the rich

If you want there to be universal access, the health care system needs to become far more efficient. How to go about making it so is a complex topic for another thread.

-Good roads and decent public transportation to use as an alternative, to keep money in our pockets and reduce pollutants and dependence on oil

I agree the U.S. needs to be building an alternative to the fossil fuel-based, internal combustion transportation system we have now. Corruption and pork barrel politics make this hard for the government to implement, and our current system of property taxation and high cost of capital makes it hard for, say, private rail companies to provide an alternative. Both underlying problems need to be fixed.

-Peace

Few people are so foolish as to welcome war for its own sake. But there are times when fighting a just war is less bad than letting things continue as they are. I'm not saying Iraq was one of those times, but neither am I prepared to embrace universal pacifism.

-Fair and equitable taxation so that the middle class isn't groaning under the burden of taxation whilst the rich take advantage of loopholes and the corporations pillage.

I'm not happy about the current tax structure, but there's only so much you can do to make it equitable. If you tax corporations too heavily, they'll simply relocate overseas. Rich people are also capable of relocating themselves--or at least a significant portion of their wealth--elsewhere. The desire to make the current tax system more fair must be tempered by a realization of what's actually possible.

-Improvements in third-world countries so that others, like most of us, can go to bed at night not having to worry about whether they will eat tomorrow

I agree we should be doing far more to help Third World countries. If we give them a fish, we feed them for a day. If we teach them how to fish, the world's oceans will become even more overfished than they are already. But if we help these nations to lower their birthrates, they will find it far easier to climb out of poverty.

-More cordial relations with the parts of the world that want the same things we do, so that the renegades are truly isolated and thus can be destroyed.

More cordial relations with the rest of the world would clearly help the U.S. But if the U.S. has the opportunity to undertake an act of justice, she must take advantage of it. Even if it means we stand alone. For instance, the eugenics program I favor would be an act of justice to the next generation, because it would give children the genetic potential for greatness. The fact that such a program would disturb, say, Canada, is less important than the fact that the program will increase the number of people with the potential to be great inventors, computer programmers, and scientists.

[PastaJoe]

I'd love to know where you got all THAT from.  Sounds like you're pretty hung up on reproduction.  Funny about conservatives, they really have issues with that.  I wonder why?

804399[/snapback]

 

I find it funny how easy it is to push conservative's buttons. Despite having control of the federal gov't for the past 6 years, they're still always complaining about something. They don't even want people to question their majority decisions, let alone oppose them. They're not happy unless they're upset at someone else; yet another reason for the popularity of conservative piss and moan radio.

[kegtapr]

I find it funny how easy it is to push conservative's buttons.  Despite having control of the federal gov't for the past 6 years, they're still always complaining about something.  They don't even want people to question their majority decisions, let alone oppose them.  They're not happy unless they're upset at someone else; yet another reason for the popularity of conservative piss and moan radio.

805872[/snapback]

 

One of these days you people will learn that liberals and conservatives are exactly the same when it comes to this. But until then, preach on brother.

[GG]

It's worse than that, KD.  Modern liberals have pushed for, and often achieved, the following:

- Women to spend as much time in educational institutions and the workplace as possible, even if this means they're too busy to have kids.  Part of the reason these women have to work so hard is to pay for:

- Social programs which encourage welfare recipients to have as many children as possible.

 

804013[/snapback]

 

Silly, me. And here I thought that women were in the workforce so they could afford Prada & Fendi and not hear bitching from their husbands.

 

OTOH, I wonder what scientific wonder you will cite that proves that women's active participation in the economy is worse than simply contributing a womb.

[Orton's Arm]

Silly, me.  And here I thought that women were in the workforce so they could afford Prada & Fendi and not hear bitching from their husbands.

 

OTOH, I wonder what scientific wonder you will cite that proves that women's active participation in the economy is worse than simply contributing a womb.

806408[/snapback]

A woman in the workforce creates wealth. A mother creates new people. People are more important than wealth, which is why the contribution of an intelligent mother is larger than the childless working woman's.

[GG]

A woman in the workforce creates wealth.  A mother creates new people.  People are more important than wealth, which is why the contribution of an intelligent mother is larger than the childless working woman's.

806436[/snapback]

 

Is that why societies with relatively low birth rates are wealthier than societies with high birth rates?

 

Or are you saying that a woman is worthless unless she births a son, who will enter the productive work force?

[Orton's Arm]

Is that why societies with relatively low birth rates are wealthier than societies with high birth rates? 

 

Or are you saying that a woman is worthless unless she births a son, who will enter the productive work force?

806461[/snapback]

There are two separate factors at work here:

1. The world is becoming increasingly overpopulated, especially in the Third World. Too high a birthrate is a major reason why Third World nations are poor.

2. Despite this, highly intelligent women should have as many children as circumstances permit. Their children are the ones who will be discovering alternative energy sources, cures for diseases, more ecologically friendly farming methods, and the other things this world needs to be better off.

 

A woman of below average intelligence should have few if any children, to help with the overpopulation problem. A highly intelligent woman should have as many children as possible, because the next generation absolutely needs to have a large population of smart people to solve the many problems it will face.

[Bungee Jumper]

There are two separate factors at work here:

1. The world is becoming increasingly overpopulated, especially in the Third World.  Too high a birthrate is a major reason why Third World nations are poor.

2. Despite this, highly intelligent women should have as many children as circumstances permit.  Their children are the ones who will be discovering alternative energy sources, cures for diseases, more ecologically friendly farming methods, and the other things this world needs to be better off. 

 

A woman of below average intelligence should have few if any children, to help with the overpopulation problem.  A highly intelligent woman should have as many children as possible, because the next generation absolutely needs to have a large population of smart people to solve the many problems it will face.

806498[/snapback]

 

You've got a lot of brothers and sisters, don't you?

[Chilly]

You've got a lot of brothers and sisters, don't you?

806501[/snapback]

 

[GG]

There are two separate factors at work here:

1. The world is becoming increasingly overpopulated, especially in the Third World.  Too high a birthrate is a major reason why Third World nations are poor.

2. Despite this, highly intelligent women should have as many children as circumstances permit.  Their children are the ones who will be discovering alternative energy sources, cures for diseases, more ecologically friendly farming methods, and the other things this world needs to be better off. 

 

A woman of below average intelligence should have few if any children, to help with the overpopulation problem.  A highly intelligent woman should have as many children as possible, because the next generation absolutely needs to have a large population of smart people to solve the many problems it will face.

806498[/snapback]

 

Let me see if I can get you a larger entrenching tool, to help out.

 

Are you saying that all women in the Third World are stupid, because they keep having a lot of kids? If not, wouldn't the laws probability dictate that out of the bountiful litters that the Third World child farms produce, there would be someone who is smart?

 

Or are you saying that Third Worlders are incapable of being smart because their mothers have too many babies?

 

Then how are women supposed to find out if they're above average intelligence if they're not allowed to participate in social institutions that discern these types of things?

 

And how does First World generate all its wealth with a much lower birth rate and the general disdain of the modern woman for the kitchen and the bedroom?

[Chef Jim]

I'd love to know where you got all THAT from.  Sounds like you're pretty hung up on reproduction.  Funny about conservatives, they really have issues with that.  I wonder why?

 

Not being a liberal, how would you know what we want?  How about

 

804399[/snapback]

 

It's amazing the hypocracy that comes from almost every one of your posts. It's like winter in Buffalo. We know it's always going to come, we're just not sure how bad it's going to be.

[Orton's Arm]

Let me see if I can get you a larger entrenching tool, to help out.

 

Are you saying that all women in the Third World are stupid, because they keep having a lot of kids?  If not, wouldn't the laws probability dictate that out of the bountiful litters that the Third World child farms produce, there would be someone who is smart? 

 

Or are you saying that Third Worlders are incapable of being smart because their mothers have too many babies? 

 

Then how are women supposed to find out if they're above average intelligence if they're not allowed to participate in social institutions that discern these types of things?

 

And how does First World generate all its wealth with a much lower birth rate and the general disdain of the modern woman for the kitchen and the bedroom?

806514[/snapback]

You have misunderstood my point.

 

It was once the case that both Western and Third World nations had high birthrates. Then vaccines for most childhood diseases were introduced into Western nations. These nations waited a while--30 years if memory serves--then proceeded to dramatically lower their birthrates. Later, the same vaccines were introduced into Third World nations. These nations waited 30 years, 40, 50, and kept waiting, but did not reduce their birthrates to anything approaching Western levels. The result is a Third World population explosion.

 

Even if every citizen of every industrialized nation were to be transported to Mars, it wouldn't buy the Third World very much extra time with which to lower its birthrate. At some point, probably fairly soon, there will be too many mouths to feed and not enough food with which to feed them. The only way this can possibly be avoided is if Third World nations dramatically reduce their birthrates.

 

You mention that the Third World's population explosion must have produced a number of smart people. This is certainly true. But many of those people have moved here to take advantage of programming jobs in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. This relocation of people is a relocation of wealth; out of Third World nations and into the U.S. But now countries like India are doing a better job of creating opportunities for programmers to be successful without emigrating. It's possible the U.S. will be less active in, um, acquiring other nations' human wealth in the future than it's been in the past.

 

Instead of siphoning off the best and brightest from other nations, I suggest we put more effort into developing our own pool of talent. This involves a greater emphasis on education for the gifted, but more than that, it's making sure the gifted are born in the first place.

[GG]

It's amazing the hypocracy that comes from almost every one of your posts.  It's like winter in Buffalo.  We know it's always going to come, we're just not sure how bad it's going to be.

806538[/snapback]

 

Or whether it will decide to show up before or after winter.

[Ramius]

You have misunderstood my point.

 

It was once the case that both Western and Third World nations had high birthrates.  Then vaccines for most childhood diseases were introduced into Western nations.  These nations waited a while--30 years if memory serves--then proceeded to dramatically lower their birthrates.  Later, the same vaccines were introduced into Third World nations.  These nations waited 30 years, 40, 50, and kept waiting, but did not reduce their birthrates to anything approaching Western levels.  The result is a Third World population explosion.

 

Even if every citizen of every industrialized nation were to be transported to Mars, it wouldn't buy the Third World very much extra time with which to lower its birthrate.  At some point, probably fairly soon, there will be too many mouths to feed and not enough food with which to feed them.  The only way this can possibly be avoided is if Third World nations dramatically reduce their birthrates.

 

You mention that the Third World's population explosion must have produced a number of smart people.  This is certainly true.  But many of those people have moved here to take advantage of programming jobs in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.  This relocation of people is a relocation of wealth; out of Third World nations and into the U.S.  But now countries like India are doing a better job of creating opportunities for programmers to be successful without emigrating.  It's possible the U.S. will be less active in, um, acquiring other nations' human wealth in the future than it's been in the past. 

 

Instead of siphoning off the best and brightest from other nations, I suggest we put more effort into developing our own pool of talent.  This involves a greater emphasis on education for the gifted, but more than that, it's making sure the gifted are born in the first place.

806539[/snapback]

 

I think most of us DO understand your point, Herr Holcomb.

[GG]

You have misunderstood my point.

 

806539[/snapback]

 

I did? I just asked some questions, which apparently went unanswered.

[Orton's Arm]

I did?  I just asked some questions, which apparently went unanswered.

806552[/snapback]

Your first and second question had to do with whether I thought all Third World women were stupid. I responded by writing about intelligent computer programmers moving from the Third World to the U.S. I personally know very smart people who immigrated here from Third World nations.

 

I know you are less than willing to impute anything less than a sinister motivation to my beliefs. But please believe me when I tell you that my concern for the Third World population explosion doesn't stem from any misguided belief about Third World people all being stupid. My fear is that unless present trends are altered, there will be a global famine. My concern about you is that you seem far less interested in discussing the possibility of this famine, or how it might be avoided, than you are in questioning my motives.

 

Suppose the very worst about me if you like. If it makes you happy, envision me living in a house with bright red swastika flags draped everywhere, and a gas chamber in the back yard, just in case. This image is far from the truth, but if you choose to embrace it, fine. But once you're done feeling whatever emotions this image might inspire, I'll ask you to come back to reality a little bit. Does the rapidly growing population of the Third World concern you? In the future, how do you envision all these extra people might be fed?

 

I at least am trying to answer these tough questions, and in ways that don't involve disease or famine. The single greatest act of kindness which the U.S. could possibly extend to the Third World would be for us to help lower its birth rate. For suggesting this act of kindness, people have been subtly (or in the case of Ramius, not so subtly) implying I'm a Nazi. The fact I have to deal with such accusations clearly demonstrates that the warped state of the present political climate is the biggest single obstacle to eliminating the long-term certainty of massive disease and famine.

[Bungee Jumper]

You have misunderstood my point.

 

It was once the case that both Western and Third World nations had high birthrates.  Then vaccines for most childhood diseases were introduced into Western nations.  These nations waited a while--30 years if memory serves--then proceeded to dramatically lower their birthrates.  Later, the same vaccines were introduced into Third World nations.  These nations waited 30 years, 40, 50, and kept waiting, but did not reduce their birthrates to anything approaching Western levels.  The result is a Third World population explosion.

 

Even if every citizen of every industrialized nation were to be transported to Mars, it wouldn't buy the Third World very much extra time with which to lower its birthrate.  At some point, probably fairly soon, there will be too many mouths to feed and not enough food with which to feed them.  The only way this can possibly be avoided is if Third World nations dramatically reduce their birthrates.

 

You mention that the Third World's population explosion must have produced a number of smart people.  This is certainly true.  But many of those people have moved here to take advantage of programming jobs in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.  This relocation of people is a relocation of wealth; out of Third World nations and into the U.S.  But now countries like India are doing a better job of creating opportunities for programmers to be successful without emigrating.  It's possible the U.S. will be less active in, um, acquiring other nations' human wealth in the future than it's been in the past. 

 

Instead of siphoning off the best and brightest from other nations, I suggest we put more effort into developing our own pool of talent.  This involves a greater emphasis on education for the gifted, but more than that, it's making sure the gifted are born in the first place.

806539[/snapback]

 

One of the things I got from this is that the tech boom is directly attributable to Third World vaccination programs...

[GG]

Suppose the very worst about me if you like.  If it makes you happy, envision me living in a house with bright red swastika flags draped everywhere, and a gas chamber in the back yard, just in case.  This image is far from the truth, but if you choose to embrace it, fine.  But once you're done feeling whatever emotions this image might inspire, I'll ask you to come back to reality a little bit.  Does the rapidly growing population of the Third World concern you?  In the future, how do you envision all these extra people might be fed? 

806625[/snapback]

 

I guess that's one image that I could use. Probably when Third Worlders clean your regular linens.

 

No need to get melodramatic. Instead of shipping all smarties to Mars, why don't we transport some white womenfolk to the Third World. That would immediately solve the population problem there. Unless, I'm misunderstanding your reasoning again.

[Bungee Jumper]

No need to get melodramatic.  Instead of shipping all smarties to Mars, why don't we transport some white womenfolk to the Third World.  That would immediately solve the population problem there.  Unless, I'm misunderstanding your reasoning again.

806646[/snapback]

 

You are. If we transported white women to the Third World, she wouldn't be able to find a job and make money, therefore she'd be stupid, therefore she'd have more kids and just create more stupidity in the world. What we really need to do is import more blacks to Europe and America. That way they'll have jobs, and therefore have fewer, smarter kids.

 

It's all perfectly sensible and consistent, if you accept the a priori assumption that HA isn't a !@#$ing idjimit.

[Orton's Arm]

I guess that's one image that I could use.  Probably when Third Worlders clean your regular linens. 

 

No need to get melodramatic.  Instead of shipping all smarties to Mars, why don't we transport some white womenfolk to the Third World.  That would immediately solve the population problem there.  Unless, I'm misunderstanding your reasoning again.

806646[/snapback]

Once again, you've found it easier and more fun to criticize me, than to come up with a solution to the overpopulation crisis. Your criticisms of me are unjust, but it's a far greater act of injustice to ignore the fact that, if present trends continue, people will be born into the world with little or nothing to eat.

 

The day will come--probably in your lifetime--when the total amount of food farmed in the world falls short of the world's caloric needs. You will be shown pictures of starving children.

 

When that day comes, will you admit the fact your present outlook and behavior are irresponsible? Will you congratulate yourself for having spent your time criticizing me and my solutions, instead of thinking about how to solve these problems before children started starving? Or will you find it easier to blame everyone except yourself for this disaster? "World leaders should have seen this coming, and should have done something," you might say. And you might forget the fact that any politician who did want to do something would have not gotten the vote of you or others who think like you.