Thoughts on the future: Population, IQ, and Sterilization

[Al B. Sure!]

i agree felch, and it's not just the OP. anyone who thinks that albert speer needs to be sterilized to stop him reproducing needs to have their head examined.

Yup! I can do it all by myself!

[David Floyd]

Yeah, that OP is pretty kooky. In an attempt to bring this thread back to rationality, my position on this subject has always been that a means to controlling poverty and hunger in the 3rd World is to decrease the birth rate, achieved through birth control and education.

Discuss.

[Hauldren Collider]

@ OP



I love that movie

[Lorizael]

Reproduction in today's society involves far more than physical abilities. The more intelligent the individual, the more likely they are going to have less kids due to the understanding of the cost behind them and their own plans for the future. There's no real way you can increase their reproduction, nor should you since this is the natural advancement. Those with higher intelligence have essentially reached equilibrium, or in some cases, a declining population.

Who said anything about physical abilities? Methinks you don't really understand the concept of reproductive fitness. And what's this "natural advancement" and "equilibrium" crap anyway?

If the cost of reproduction is prohibitive - such that intelligent people engage in the act less often than others - simply lower the cost of reproduction for intelligent people. Then the effective reproductive fitness of intelligent people in their habitat increases because they will be more willing to engage in the act of reproduction.

[Darius871]

anyone who thinks that albert speer needs to be sterilized to stop him reproducing needs to have their head examined.

[Al B. Sure!]

I've got good genes, too. No known history of any genetic maladies except near-sightedness and colorblindness.

But sex is icky and no one wants me anyway.

[DriXnaK]

Even if you increase the reproduction of intelligent people, you're still dealing with a population cap. If you want to maximize your population, you are going to have to bring down the reproductive rate of less intelligent people.

[Al B. Sure!]

Even if you increase the reproduction of intelligent people, you're still dealing with a population cap. If you want to maximize your population, you are going to have to bring down the reproductive rate of less intelligent people.

What the hell? You've been reading Malthus or something? Pop cap? Is this Starcraft? 200 pop limit?

[DriXnaK]

Everything is finite. There are only so many humans that can be supported on this planet even taking into account advances in technology.

[Al B. Sure!]

We already have Hera spouting this IQ nonsense but at least he does research. You're just spouting drivel. We don't need two of you, with you being the dumb one.

[DriXnaK]

Are you trying to say that the population of the world can expand endlessly?

[DaShi]

What the hell? You've been reading Malthus or something? Pop cap? Is this Starcraft? 200 pop limit?

The Matrix processors can only render 6 billion people at one time. However, there has been talk of putting people on different servers. While you'll be able to switch between servers, the Asia server is predicted to become full rather rapidly. But it will mostly be populated with gold sellers and hardcore pvpers anyway.

[David Floyd]

Al, if population can expand endlessly with no adverse results, then explain to me why the nations with the highest birthrates tend to be some of the poorest and most hungry nations in the world, and then explain to me why reducing the birth rate would not help reduce that trend.

[Felch]

Are you trying to say that the population of the world can expand endlessly?

Nobody in this thread said anything of the sort.

[Felch]

Al, if population can expand endlessly with no adverse results, then explain to me why the nations with the highest birthrates tend to be some of the poorest and most hungry nations in the world, and then explain to me why reducing the birth rate would not help reduce that trend.

Correlation is not causation. Fast growing populations aren't poor because they grow fast, they grow fast because they're poor. In a preindustrial economy, having a boatload of children is an economic safety net. They help with agricultural labor, and they care for their parents in old age. Without modern medicine, parents have to hedge their bets by having as many children as possible. After an economy matures, children become more of an economic burden, since they have to attend school for many years in order to be economically competitive, and because the government is generally responsible for old age pensions. Reducing the birth rate in a preindustrial society won't suddenly make all the people rich, because wealth isn't produced through low fertility.