Follow my logic here…

The earth is overpopulated as it is and people are still having kids without thinking about the future of the planet. After all, overpopulation is a problem that is easily controlled – people just have to have fewer or no children.

Now, I know a few couples and older individuals who will not have kids because of this very reason. It seems that most of the intelligent people/couples will end up with only one or two children or decide not to have any.

Now, on the other side of the situation we have groups of people who are often seen as “undesirables” who have many children and have no means of taking care of them.

In effect, we have the morons producing kids like rabbits in heat. Simple math will tell you that the idiots (or offspring of idiots) will far outnumber the intelligent people and the planet will continue its trend to overpopulation.

It just seems that the IQ of humanity was growing up until around this point and now it is allowed to drop. It is almost too easy to be an idiot in today’s society and prosper.

Let the debate rage …

8/14/2005 2:00:44 PM

it reminds me of the nofx song, the idiots are taking over.

8/14/2005 2:16:04 PM

Just so long as the jews and indians are no longer breeding we are in good shape.

8/14/2005 2:27:32 PM

8/14/2005 2:33:15 PM

yes

8/14/2005 3:07:46 PM

Eh...I don't know. It'd be pretty hard to breed intelligence out of humanity. A lot of smart people have dumb parents and a lot of dumb people have smart parents. I'm not saying that parents are irrelevant to the question, but if everyone with an IQ over 100 died today, the next generation would still have such kids.

One part of your argument that irks me is that the overwhelming majority of the breeding going on in the world goes on in places like India and, to a lesser extent, Africa, places where someone could potentially be quite intelligent but locked by social constraints into a position where they cannot demonstrate their potential. You call these people "morons," and I'm not cool with that.

Quote :

"Simple math will tell you that the idiots (or offspring of idiots) will far outnumber the intelligent"

This has always been true. Intelligence of any noteworthy level is, by definition, uncommon.


Of course, none of this is to say that the Earth won't be grossly overpopulated, although for the time being the threat is somewhat overstated. Parts of the Earth are overpopulated. IIRC, if the entire population of Earth lived at a density equal to that of Manhattan, then the whole thing could be fit into former Yugoslavia. We are supremely efficient at food production and could easily feed the planet were it not for certain manmade obstacles to that end.

8/14/2005 3:24:12 PM

Well, when we are talking about parts of the earth being overpopulated, I always have wondered about the 'Save the Children!' funds.

Yes, it is awful that the kids there have to die and live in awful situations.

But at the same time there are simply too many people in an area that cannot sustain that level of resource consumption. It seems like flying in food is doing nothing but prolonging the inevitable.

8/14/2005 3:52:24 PM

Quote :

" But at the same time there are simply too many people in an area that cannot sustain that level of resource consumption. It seems like flying in food is doing nothing but prolonging the inevitable."

By this logic people should only live on or directly adjacent to arable farmland, because anywhere else they have to have the food brought in. I think we can both agree that such is a little bit silly.

We have more than enough food production ability on this planet to feed everybody, we just have certain little douchebaggeries (like US farmers that don't want us to help other countries modernize agriculture) in the way. The people responsible aren't the starving kids, they're the douchebags.

8/14/2005 3:56:31 PM

Let them breed as much as they want, they will simply die if they are not smart enough to survive. The smart nations have nothing to fear because intelligent nations tend to be wealthy nations, which tend to have formidable militaries. Meanwhile, I think, it is the responsibility of all intelligent and responsible people to breed as quickly as possible and raising their children with the right values. Only by having sufficient citizens can the industrialized world keep the destabilizing force of a large deluted third world in check.

If the third world continuously fails to adopt the right values for prosperity and thus development, then it is incumbent upon the first world to develop fast enough to save humanity from itself. For example, the more Americans we have the faster we develop the technologies necessary to save humanity.

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2005 4:05:33 PM

Quote :

"cocaine is a hell of a drug"

8/14/2005 4:06:31 PM

the loneshark method: why help out your fellow man. Make yourself happy and not give a fuck about the consequences.

8/14/2005 4:10:44 PM

I'd say the more Americans we have, the more 3rd worlders we need to have to make shoes.

8/14/2005 4:12:54 PM

There is an abandoned shoe factory across the street which begs to disagree.

8/14/2005 4:14:05 PM

how does an abandoned shoe factory disagree?

8/14/2005 4:15:00 PM

nutsmackr, help all you want to, but don't pretend that if they fail we automatically fail. Especially when it was them that shot themselves in the heart.

Yes, America would be a far poorer nation if the rest of the world went to shit. But don't exagerate, a recession can be weathered.

8/14/2005 4:16:28 PM

An abandoned shoe factory begs to be reopened, idiot.

8/14/2005 4:17:00 PM

an abandoned shoe factory is abaondoned for a reason.

do I need to give you an economics lesson?


and if we allow the 3rd world to fail, then we have failed as a species.

8/14/2005 4:18:33 PM

Quote :

"I'd say the more Americans we have, the more 3rd worlders we need to have to make shoes."

If we have a shortage of third worlders to make shoes then the first worlders can make some Robots to take care of it.

8/14/2005 4:20:30 PM

because robots can be created out of the blue

and robots are the fixall for everything

just like moving the population to the equator when the next ice age occurs

and like builidng sea walls around america so when global warming causes the ice caps to melt we'll be safe.

8/14/2005 4:22:18 PM

I don't see the problem with encouraging people to have less kids.

It is pointless to try and max out the population potential of the planet.

8/14/2005 4:26:57 PM

I can do that to.

So you are saying that Miami didn't need its sea wall during the last hurricane?

So you are saying that American factories don't use robotics?

Because it cannot be conjured immediately it cannot happen?

Your naivety is so cute.

8/14/2005 4:27:29 PM

Loneshark: "Why do you hate liberty."

8/14/2005 4:27:33 PM

That sea wall will sure as shit stop the rain from falling and flooding everywhere

That sea wall will sure as shit stop everything from being flooded


and robots to build shoes is a wasted expense.

8/14/2005 4:28:50 PM

absolutely, hence why no one is doing it. Do you not understand the concept of a theoretical?

Quote :

"That sea wall will sure as shit stop the rain from falling and flooding everywhere"

You must be dumbest person in North America. Do you even know what a hurricane is? Ever heard of Storm Surge? Do you think we spend millions of dollars building them because they look nice?

8/14/2005 4:35:07 PM

please elucidate me on hurricanes. Oh flood wall as you like to call it doesn't really do much, other than cause flooding in areas that don't have the storm walls.

8/14/2005 4:37:13 PM

Sorry, busy. I'm sure you can find a book or something to teach you such a basic concept as controlling storm surge. Hell, Google should be your first stop.

I'm off, to everyone else reading, don't judge him too harsely. intelligence is not universal, it is inevitable that someone will be found short.

8/14/2005 4:40:22 PM

many ^^^'s...

Quote :

"But at the same time there are simply too many people in an area that cannot sustain that level of resource consumption. It seems like flying in food is doing nothing but prolonging the inevitable."

I think what eraser is trying to say is not that everyone should "only live on or directly adjacent to arable farmland" but rather that third world countries lack the infrastructure for food distribution that we have. A lot of charities/countries simply donate huge quantities of basic foodstuffs. This is fine as far as it goes, and it most certainly addresses short term needs, but it is not a long term fix. If people were truely interested in something other than a quick, feel-good way to help out, they'd invest in infrastructure: roads, irrigation equipment, farm machinery, etc.

And sending Africa billions of dollars in cash (debt forgiveness, whatever) like the LiveAid people want to isn't going to solve a damn thing.

8/14/2005 4:40:31 PM

Quote :

"I don't see the problem with encouraging people to have less kids. It is pointless to try and max out the population potential of the planet."

I'm with you, but you don't encourage people not to breed by handing out condoms and telling them the world is overpopulated. You encourage them to have fewer kids by making it their interest to do so. People have a lot of kids to beat the odds (several will die young) and to make new economic contributors to the family. Stop the kids dying and and stop the families subsistence farming, and we're getting there.

8/14/2005 4:43:12 PM

Quote :

"Sorry, busy. I'm sure you can find a book or something to teach you such a basic concept as controlling storm surge. Hell, Google should be your first stop. I'm off, to everyone else reading, don't judge him too harsely. intelligence is not universal, it is inevitable that someone will be found short."

in case you ever want to educate yourself. I come from a town with a storm wall. After we built the storm wall, all the other towns near us were getting fucked harder than from before the storm wall was ever built.

8/14/2005 4:47:00 PM

Quote :

"Now, I know a few couples and older individuals who will not have kids because of this very reason."

thats just stupid
only having 1 kid is a net gain of -1 person
its still contributing to the zero population growth movement to only have one kid

8/14/2005 5:39:45 PM

Quote :

"I think what eraser is trying to say is not that everyone should "only live on or directly adjacent to arable farmland" but rather that third world countries lack the infrastructure for food distribution that we have. A lot of charities/countries simply donate huge quantities of basic foodstuffs. This is fine as far as it goes, and it most certainly addresses short term needs, but it is not a long term fix. If people were truely interested in something other than a quick, feel-good way to help out, they'd invest in infrastructure: roads, irrigation equipment, farm machinery, etc."

DING DING DING.

We have a winner!

Quote :

"I'm with you, but you don't encourage people not to breed by handing out condoms and telling them the world is overpopulated. You encourage them to have fewer kids by making it their interest to do so. People have a lot of kids to beat the odds (several will die young) and to make new economic contributors to the family. Stop the kids dying and and stop the families subsistence farming, and we're getting there."

For the most part I agree with you. The problem is that this isn't what is really happening. Giving these countries aid, etc isn't going to make life more sustainable there unless there is a significant shift in their attitude towards their society.

Quote :

"its still contributing to the zero population growth movement to only have one kid"

The point I was trying to drive is that those who are less able to care for their kids are the ones who have the most kids. Look at welfare families, illegal immigrants, 3rd world countries and so on.

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 6:10 PM. Reason : +]

8/14/2005 6:07:19 PM

Quote :

"Giving these countries aid, etc isn't going to make life more sustainable there unless there is a significant shift in their their leaders' attitude towards their society."

In their defense, I'd say that a lot of those in destitute third world countries are just trying to live. It IS hard to plan for the future if you're worried about when, where and if your next meal is going to come. Their governments (by governments I mean dictators) need to get their shit together.

Talking about making that happen could probably constitute a whole other thread.

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 6:29 PM. Reason : ]

8/14/2005 6:28:10 PM

Quote :

"I come from a town with a storm wall. After we built the storm wall, all the other towns near us were getting fucked harder than from before the storm wall was ever built."

Good for your home town. But I didn't say "storm wall" I said "sea wall" which is not a system of dikes to retain a flooding river (which is what I assume you are trying to describe because I don't believe "storm wall" is in the vernacular), but instead a system of dikes to retain a rising ocean.

Storm surge is not a river which is going up because of excessive rain fall. It is an ocean being driven several feet higher by the presense of a low presure front which pulls the ocean inland. A sea wall restricts the flow of water inland to give the storm a chance to pass before major flooding occurs. Of course, this is only one application. They can be used in places that are naturally below sea level (such as Holand) or simply to prevent the beach from washing away.

8/15/2005 12:02:52 AM

this might sound a little obtuse, but i'm thinking that a sizable chunk of the world's population will die off with the next great recession and/or the next great war. like a lot of you've said, without foreign aid, life in those areas without arable land would be unsustainable.

8/15/2005 12:07:16 AM

MOON COLONIES NOW!!!

8/15/2005 9:07:38 AM

Quote :

"like a lot of you've said, without foreign aid, life in those areas without arable land would be unsustainable."

This statement is actually completely false. What these people must do is Trade. If you have no resources to speak of, then you trade labor for resources. You import raw materials and export finished products, take the surplus and import whatever it is your island lacks.

8/15/2005 9:20:55 AM

^^ The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert A Heinlein, 1966

8/15/2005 10:11:55 AM

i thought it said mormons.

if stupid ppl breed, it seems it would self perpetuate to drop the overall IQ of our planet

i mean, they breed to have more income producers, because they are poor. if all the offspring do is produce income (read construction job and GED if they are lucky) they wont be too successful, and will continue the cycle.

8/15/2005 10:24:24 AM

you should just be gay, then you wont contribute to future generations

oh wait.

8/15/2005 10:28:42 AM

does anyone else find it interesting that the areas where humanity began (africa) and the areas where civilization began (middle east) are also the worst places to live, with the most stressed land, the most poverty, etc?

yeah, now follow the pattern

Quote :

"it reminds me of the nofx song, the idiots are taking over."

me too

Mensa membership conceding
tell me why and how are all the stupid people breeding
Watson, it's really elementary
the industrial revolution
has flipped the bitch on evolution
the benevolent and wise are being thwarted, ostracized, what a bummer
the world keeps getting dumber
insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason


[Edited on August 15, 2005 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

8/15/2005 10:43:04 AM

Quote :

"This statement is actually completely false. What these people must do is Trade. If you have no resources to speak of, then you trade labor for resources. You import raw materials and export finished products, take the surplus and import whatever it is your island lacks."

once the imf creates all the infrastructure for manufacturing in such an area, the country would be so in debt, the people would pretty much be slaves. and with the imf also setting wages/working conditions, they'd be sure to stay that way.

if foreign aid for these countries was to ever become unavailable, i guess the question to ask would be, is it better to let a civilization die off from lack of resources, or to exploit them for their labor so they can live?

. . . or i suppose you could also ask, should the imf/wto be allowed to exploit foreign workers to within an inch of their lives?

8/15/2005 11:05:44 AM

Quote :

"is an ocean being driven several feet higher by the presense of a low presure front which pulls the ocean inland."

No. Storm surge is wind driven; the winds push the water ashore. The water isn't sucked or pulled up by low pressure.

8/15/2005 11:15:09 AM

^^ What does the IMF have to do with anything?

Ok, I am going to lay out a metaphore. Let us pretend I am rich, and want to build a factory somewhere. I hear there is a place named <name> where there is cheap labor and excellent legal protections for private property. So, since I don't own any mines or farms, after building my factory using my venture capital I begin purchasing raw materials off the world market, transporting it to my factory, and selling the products on the world market. I pay wages to my workers, which then live as best they can on those wages, most likely purchasing food and durable goods from the world market.

Now, what does it matter where <name> is? It could be an island in the Pacific, A nation in Asia, or the state of Alabama.

Living standards on the Island with never be as high as on the mainland, but only because shipping costs are so much higher. I offer the Islands of Hawaii as proof that Island existance does not automatically mean "death from starvation." Yes, Hawaii does have agricultural production, but not even 1/5th of Hawaii's food consumption is natively grown (most of what is grown is exported). The cargo holds of passenger jets are loaded down with california fruits, midwest grain, and other pre-packaged foods going to hawaii, pineapples going the otherway.

8/15/2005 11:44:06 AM

Quote :

"does anyone else find it interesting that the areas where humanity began (africa) and the areas where civilization began (middle east) are also the worst places to live, with the most stressed land, the most poverty, etc? yeah, now follow the pattern "

The logic here is as absolutely laughable as what I expect when you start talking about civilization.

There are a number of excellent reasons why Africa and the Middle East are poor regions, many of which should appeal to you because they make white people look so darn evil, and none of which stem from, "OMF CIVILIZATION IS TEH KILLAR!!!1"

8/15/2005 2:02:20 PM

I didn't realize the arabs hated themselves seeing as how they are caucasian. But don't let the facts get in the way of your "omg white people are oppressed" mentality.

8/15/2005 2:08:03 PM

I'm suprised nobody has claimed "OMG NAZI LOGIC" here yet?

8/15/2005 2:27:25 PM

Damn, you stupid dog. White people are the masters of this planet, don't food yourselves. No one gets oppressed without our express toleration. And we do tolerate a lot of opression. We could easily invade and conquer all of Africa, but we don't want to put forth the effort, so we're going to let the war-lords and tyrants run the place.

8/15/2005 2:27:26 PM

Quote :

"What does the IMF have to do with anything?"

just making the point that international corporations are usually the ones delevoping these 3rd world production facilities. the imf facilitates the process.

Quote :

"Now, what does it matter where <name> is? It could be an island in the Pacific, A nation in Asia, or the state of Alabama."

if matters because there are worker protections here in the us that guarantee a living wage and safe working conditions. some other countries aren't so lucky.



. . . these points are pretty obvious--i'm sure you know all this already. exploitation happens, i'm just saying it's not right.

8/15/2005 2:41:02 PM

Quote :

"if matters because there are worker protections here in the us that guarantee a living wage and safe working conditions. some other countries aren't so lucky."

ha, there is no guarantee of a living wage. That's why you still have people working for minimum and barely above.

8/15/2005 2:52:33 PM

Quote :

" The logic here is as absolutely laughable as what I expect when you start talking about civilization. There are a number of excellent reasons why Africa and the Middle East are poor regions, many of which should appeal to you because they make white people look so darn evil, and none of which stem from, "OMF CIVILIZATION IS TEH KILLAR!!!1""

i think what's funny is that you somehow think I want white people to seem evil. That's about one of the dumbest things you've ever said.

Also, I know the direct reasons for the decline in those places. Colonialism and the like, yes mostly by white people (but I'd argue it was their religion and business sense and not their race that was the cause for their behavior in those regions), caused a downward spiral that turned africa and the middle east into the pits of despair they now are.

However, the reason colonialism took place in those countries is many-fold. I'd argue that alot of it was because the resources of those places had in some cases been exhausted by centuries of "civilization" taking place there, and in the area where their resources hadn't been exhausted, they were colonized because those resources were to be plundered by their colonial masters.

either way, my logic holds up just fine

8/15/2005 3:18:32 PM