Idiocracy or Why are Stupid People Allowed to Have More Babies?

[Exarch]

watching the opening of Mike Judge's Idiocracy, it got me thinking-or wondering as it were.

people who contribute little or at all to the economy or society tend to have more and more babies than those who do contribute to society and pay tax.
like the couple who, as professionals, contribute more to the wealth of a country and thusly, do not have time or the health to raise children (indeed, infertility is a major problem for couples in a lot of the first world) whereas welfare bludgers or the like get away with a nice gov. cheque and can go on rooting themselves and creating as many children as they want.

net result? the number of babies with dumb arse genes for parents outnumbers those babies with productive 'smart' genes.
and there you have an idiocracy.

so how should we resolve this?
aside from forcing every nerd and supermodel to mate with each other?

[Phier]

aside from forcing every nerd and supermodel to mate with each other?

If you want brains you mate two nerds.

I am always amused when I meet the children of rich able men and their trophy wives. The men tend to forget that the genetics of intelligence also come from the mother.

[Exarch]

If you want brains you mate two nerds.

I am always amused when I meet the children of rich able men and their trophy wives. The men tend to forget that the genetics of intelligence also come from the mother.

ok,
'besides mating two NERDS together, how else are we to resolve this problem?"

[TheXand]

ok,
'besides mating two NERDS together, how else are we to resolve this problem?"

Support someone like Hitler next time around, those Nazis sure knew their eugenics.

[bushbush]

I am always amused when I meet the children of rich able men and their trophy wives. The men tend to forget that the genetics of intelligence also come from the mother.

chinese saying, "rich doesn't last three generations", your post is one of the reasons lol.

[Axeman]

chinese saying, "rich doesn't last three generations", your post is one of the reasons lol.

I am taking that to heart.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Because heavy intellect is often accompanied by willed infertility in all men and women.

[Cornelius Plautus]

Because heavy intellect is often accompanied by willed infertility in all men and women.

I call it the 'Dr. Frink Syndrome'. You see, Dr. Frink is a character on The Simpsons, whose character is defined by great intelligence at the cost of social awkwardness. It seems as if the smartest academics are always the ugliest people, whom the common women would not want to mate, unless they had some great source of income in their lives off of which they could leech. (Yes, I have negative views on marriage -and love- altogether.)

Take a look at the Roman emperor Claudius. He was brilliant as a academic, and politically, he was a wily and wise man: it was not by the will of the gods that he stayed alive the first fifty years of his life, but rather his wit and intelligence. That said, Claudius' intelligence came with the curse of atrocious physical appearance. He married thrice, and did not fornicate his first two, as the wives found him repulsive. It was not untill he became Emperor (power, respect, and wealth) that any woman would willingly have sex with him, because they had something to gain.

That said, his whore of a wife poisoned him to put her son on the throne. Ultimately, women view intellectuals as having a lack of virility, and therefore and sexually unattracted to them. Counter that with another ancient example: Julius Caesar himself. Caesar was a battle-hardened soldier of great renown and handsomeness to the women. Previous to earning his fame on the battlefield, Caesar was already a favorite of the women: he had bedded hundreds, and after he attained power, he bedded thousands.

This reasoning can also be applied to such small communities as local high schools. A beautiful girl will probably be more attracted to a blockheaded, abusive, arrogant jock than a reasonable intellectual with a logical and just demeanor, simply because the former emits the pheromones for which her animalistic instincts go crazy. For this reason, the 'jocks' rather than 'nerds' fornicate frequently, and rule societies. Both the girls and the men with whom they fornicate are shallow and animalistic, and so produce shallow animalistic children.

Perhaps this is why many philosophers tried to deaden themselves to sexuality... as I have.

And guess the category with which I associate myself. It shouldn't be too hard, since I am able to form coherent thoughts and translate them into written text.

[DekuTrash]

Perhaps this is why many philosophers tried to deaden themselves to sexuality... as I have.

Virgin!

[Arch-hereticK]

Free abortion kits for everyone *hands out electric whisks with instructions entitled: "Scramble it, then just queef it out."

(What, did I cross the line?)

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I call it the 'Dr. Frink Syndrome'. You see, Dr. Frink is a character on The Simpsons, whose character is defined by great intelligence at the cost of social awkwardness. It seems as if the smartest academics are always the ugliest people, whom the common women would not want to mate, unless they had some great source of income in their lives off of which they could leech. (Yes, I have negative views on marriage -and love- altogether.)

Take a look at the Roman emperor Claudius. He was brilliant as a academic, and politically, he was a wily and wise man: it was not by the will of the gods that he stayed alive the first fifty years of his life, but rather his wit and intelligence. That said, Claudius' intelligence came with the curse of atrocious physical appearance. He married thrice, and did not fornicate his first two, as the wives found him repulsive. It was not untill he became Emperor (power, respect, and wealth) that any woman would willingly have sex with him, because they had something to gain.

That said, his whore of a wife poisoned him to put her son on the throne. Ultimately, women view intellectuals as having a lack of virility, and therefore and sexually unattracted to them. Counter that with another ancient example: Julius Caesar himself. Caesar was a battle-hardened soldier of great renown and handsomeness to the women. Previous to earning his fame on the battlefield, Caesar was already a favorite of the women: he had bedded hundreds, and after he attained power, he bedded thousands.

This reasoning can also be applied to such small communities as local high schools. A beautiful girl will probably be more attracted to a blockheaded, abusive, arrogant jock than a reasonable intellectual with a logical and just demeanor, simply because the former emits the pheromones for which her animalistic instincts go crazy. For this reason, the 'jocks' rather than 'nerds' fornicate frequently, and rule societies. Both the girls and the men with whom they fornicate are shallow and animalistic, and so produce shallow animalistic children.

Perhaps this is why many philosophers tried to deaden themselves to sexuality... as I have.

And guess the category with which I associate myself. It shouldn't be too hard, since I am able to form coherent thoughts and translate them into written text.

The explanation for this is far less shallow than what you're trying to present, at least in my view. But yes, since intellect and abstract truth lie in a different world from physiognomic facts, this is expected to happen.

[Exarch]

I call it the 'Dr. Frink Syndrome'. You see, Dr. Frink is a character on The Simpsons, whose character is defined by great intelligence at the cost of social awkwardness. It seems as if the smartest academics are always the ugliest people, whom the common women would not want to mate, unless they had some great source of income in their lives off of which they could leech. (Yes, I have negative views on marriage -and love- altogether.)

Take a look at the Roman emperor Claudius. He was brilliant as a academic, and politically, he was a wily and wise man: it was not by the will of the gods that he stayed alive the first fifty years of his life, but rather his wit and intelligence. That said, Claudius' intelligence came with the curse of atrocious physical appearance. He married thrice, and did not fornicate his first two, as the wives found him repulsive. It was not untill he became Emperor (power, respect, and wealth) that any woman would willingly have sex with him, because they had something to gain.

That said, his whore of a wife poisoned him to put her son on the throne. Ultimately, women view intellectuals as having a lack of virility, and therefore and sexually unattracted to them. Counter that with another ancient example: Julius Caesar himself. Caesar was a battle-hardened soldier of great renown and handsomeness to the women. Previous to earning his fame on the battlefield, Caesar was already a favorite of the women: he had bedded hundreds, and after he attained power, he bedded thousands.

This reasoning can also be applied to such small communities as local high schools. A beautiful girl will probably be more attracted to a blockheaded, abusive, arrogant jock than a reasonable intellectual with a logical and just demeanor, simply because the former emits the pheromones for which her animalistic instincts go crazy. For this reason, the 'jocks' rather than 'nerds' fornicate frequently, and rule societies. Both the girls and the men with whom they fornicate are shallow and animalistic, and so produce shallow animalistic children.

Perhaps this is why many philosophers tried to deaden themselves to sexuality... as I have.

And guess the category with which I associate myself. It shouldn't be too hard, since I am able to form coherent thoughts and translate them into written text.

that was very very well put

surely claudius' wealth and position would've meant some women would've bene obligated to sleep with him??

[eisenkopf]

I call it the 'Dr. Frink Syndrome'. You see, Dr. Frink is a character on The Simpsons, whose character is defined by great intelligence at the cost of social awkwardness. It seems as if the smartest academics are always the ugliest people, whom the common women would not want to mate, unless they had some great source of income in their lives off of which they could leech. (Yes, I have negative views on marriage -and love- altogether.)

Take a look at the Roman emperor Claudius. He was brilliant as a academic, and politically, he was a wily and wise man: it was not by the will of the gods that he stayed alive the first fifty years of his life, but rather his wit and intelligence. That said, Claudius' intelligence came with the curse of atrocious physical appearance. He married thrice, and did not fornicate his first two, as the wives found him repulsive. It was not untill he became Emperor (power, respect, and wealth) that any woman would willingly have sex with him, because they had something to gain.

That said, his whore of a wife poisoned him to put her son on the throne. Ultimately, women view intellectuals as having a lack of virility, and therefore and sexually unattracted to them. Counter that with another ancient example: Julius Caesar himself. Caesar was a battle-hardened soldier of great renown and handsomeness to the women. Previous to earning his fame on the battlefield, Caesar was already a favorite of the women: he had bedded hundreds, and after he attained power, he bedded thousands.

This reasoning can also be applied to such small communities as local high schools. A beautiful girl will probably be more attracted to a blockheaded, abusive, arrogant jock than a reasonable intellectual with a logical and just demeanor, simply because the former emits the pheromones for which her animalistic instincts go crazy. For this reason, the 'jocks' rather than 'nerds' fornicate frequently, and rule societies. Both the girls and the men with whom they fornicate are shallow and animalistic, and so produce shallow animalistic children.

Perhaps this is why many philosophers tried to deaden themselves to sexuality... as I have.

And guess the category with which I associate myself. It shouldn't be too hard, since I am able to form coherent thoughts and translate them into written text.

deleted my original post

the stupidity of this thread is too much... it's clouding my brain, and I assimilate. Or maybe it's because I have fornicated a lot, have children, and therefore I must be stupid. Don't know. But I'm sure you guys who are extremely knowledgeable about reprocuction, and life in general, will be able to tell.

[Sator Mortis]

I call it the 'Dr. Frink Syndrome'. You see, Dr. Frink is a character on The Simpsons, whose character is defined by great intelligence at the cost of social awkwardness. It seems as if the smartest academics are always the ugliest people, whom the common women would not want to mate, unless they had some great source of income in their lives off of which they could leech. (Yes, I have negative views on marriage -and love- altogether.)

Take a look at the Roman emperor Claudius. He was brilliant as a academic, and politically, he was a wily and wise man: it was not by the will of the gods that he stayed alive the first fifty years of his life, but rather his wit and intelligence. That said, Claudius' intelligence came with the curse of atrocious physical appearance. He married thrice, and did not fornicate his first two, as the wives found him repulsive. It was not untill he became Emperor (power, respect, and wealth) that any woman would willingly have sex with him, because they had something to gain.

That said, his whore of a wife poisoned him to put her son on the throne. Ultimately, women view intellectuals as having a lack of virility, and therefore and sexually unattracted to them. Counter that with another ancient example: Julius Caesar himself. Caesar was a battle-hardened soldier of great renown and handsomeness to the women. Previous to earning his fame on the battlefield, Caesar was already a favorite of the women: he had bedded hundreds, and after he attained power, he bedded thousands.

This reasoning can also be applied to such small communities as local high schools. A beautiful girl will probably be more attracted to a blockheaded, abusive, arrogant jock than a reasonable intellectual with a logical and just demeanor, simply because the former emits the pheromones for which her animalistic instincts go crazy. For this reason, the 'jocks' rather than 'nerds' fornicate frequently, and rule societies. Both the girls and the men with whom they fornicate are shallow and animalistic, and so produce shallow animalistic children.

Perhaps this is why many philosophers tried to deaden themselves to sexuality... as I have.

And guess the category with which I associate myself. It shouldn't be too hard, since I am able to form coherent thoughts and translate them into written text.

Then why is it that women rarely settle for a man who's less educated than them?

Girls like nice, intelligent guys, it's just that those aren't the only qualities a girl looks for. The reason some (mostly younger) girls fall for jerks is because those guys have the confidence to walk up to a girl and tell her "hey, I like you and I wanna you", while a nerdy guy sits in a corner doing nothing. The vast majority of people, both girls and guys, grow out of that phase - nice guys grow more confidence and hot girls realize that they can do better and don't have to settle for a guy who doesn't treat them well.

Also, science and philosophy hasn't been much of a 'girl thing' up until recently, but there are a lot of hot girls running around in lab coats these days. Nerd is gonna be the new jock.

[boofhead]

I call it the 'Dr. Frink Syndrome'. You see, Dr. Frink is a character on The Simpsons, whose character is defined by great intelligence at the cost of social awkwardness. It seems as if the smartest academics are always the ugliest people, whom the common women would not want to mate, unless they had some great source of income in their lives off of which they could leech. (Yes, I have negative views on marriage -and love- altogether.)

Take a look at the Roman emperor Claudius. He was brilliant as a academic, and politically, he was a wily and wise man: it was not by the will of the gods that he stayed alive the first fifty years of his life, but rather his wit and intelligence. That said, Claudius' intelligence came with the curse of atrocious physical appearance. He married thrice, and did not fornicate his first two, as the wives found him repulsive. It was not untill he became Emperor (power, respect, and wealth) that any woman would willingly have sex with him, because they had something to gain.

That said, his whore of a wife poisoned him to put her son on the throne. Ultimately, women view intellectuals as having a lack of virility, and therefore and sexually unattracted to them. Counter that with another ancient example: Julius Caesar himself. Caesar was a battle-hardened soldier of great renown and handsomeness to the women. Previous to earning his fame on the battlefield, Caesar was already a favorite of the women: he had bedded hundreds, and after he attained power, he bedded thousands.

This reasoning can also be applied to such small communities as local high schools. A beautiful girl will probably be more attracted to a blockheaded, abusive, arrogant jock than a reasonable intellectual with a logical and just demeanor, simply because the former emits the pheromones for which her animalistic instincts go crazy. For this reason, the 'jocks' rather than 'nerds' fornicate frequently, and rule societies. Both the girls and the men with whom they fornicate are shallow and animalistic, and so produce shallow animalistic children.

Perhaps this is why many philosophers tried to deaden themselves to sexuality... as I have.

And guess the category with which I associate myself. It shouldn't be too hard, since I am able to form coherent thoughts and translate them into written text.

What are you trying to say? That you're ugly and can't get a woman?

[chamaeleo]

What are you trying to say? That you're ugly and can't get a woman?

That's how I read it too...

I don't get folks who insist that it's an either/or, us/them dynamic. Much too black and white for my taste; there's plenty of ugly moronic studs, and smart jock celibates out there. Ultimately, you'll be happiest mating w someone who complements your personality (and doesn't kill you or your kids).

[Cornelius Plautus]

(and doesn't kill you or your kids).

Ah, if only...

[Sator Mortis]

What are you trying to say? That you're ugly and can't get a woman?

Then it might be nice to say something that could boost his confidence rather than something that may confirm his insecurities? Like:

Your general appearance is much more dependent on how much time, effort and money you put into it than on your genetics, and the thing that attracts women more than anything else is confidence. So start working out regularly, get a proper haircut, go to a proper clothing store where there are people who can help you pick out some fashionable clothes, etc., and find something you're really good at and enjoy doing - nothing builds confidence faster than being better at something than other people, whatever it is.

So aside from a cartoon reference – show me some data. I want to see the evidence - tell me for example of a credible survey that demonstrates say tenured PhDs academics with 130+ IQ in Europe or America have fewer children than I don’t know a sample of Crack dealers, or supposedly vapid rich folk like athletes or movie stars.

The wiki on Fertility and Intelligence lists a number of credible studies - or at least it claims to, I didn't bother to check them.

In any case, providing proper education and decent living standards for all children would be much more effective at reducing stupidity than any of the weird eugenics programs that some people propose.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Relevant, eh?

[Exarch]

i can actually see a side effect of china's one child policy; productive members of society who can afford to support more kids can have more benefits for their kids.

of course ignoring the hidden numbers not recorded on official statistics where rural families have more kids without telling the authorities.