This can't be true... right?

submitted by newguy from i.redd.it

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

The 'elites' are right about the 90-99%. They've just proved it again in front of the whole world.

7,794,798,739

We need to lose around 6 billion of these.

[–]ReeferMadness 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

No, they are right about the low IQ, but they are sterilizing the poor irrespective of intelligence. The wealthy will not sterilize their own low IQ kids. And they will not spare the intelligent poor kids either.

I support eugenics, but this is not the way. We should be using selective pressure based on secured testing.

[–]Intuit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If we stopped rewarding single-mother families and people who make poor decisions, the problem would correct itself without any eugenics.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That would make a small difference. Single motherhood is not a very indicator of intelligence. Lots of wealthy people are dumb and lots of smart people go through hard times. Who is to say a bastard is dumb just because it's mother tried to ensnare an alfa by deceptively getting pregnant with his child?

The reality is those single mothers would still have kids, even if it technically reduced the single parent household number by keeping the family together.

I can see how there would be some corrective pressure to keep women who have a litter of kids for the welfare money to keep having more, but that is too little and poorly placed.

[–]Intuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Smart kids aren't useful if they lead broken lives and never amount to much. That's what single parenthood brings, broken people.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That has nothing to do with the genetic portion of IQ which is what eugenics can improve.

[–]Intuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It allows IQ to better determine reproductive success.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's like draining a lake to salvage a sunken ship. There are far better ways to improve genetics.

[–]Intuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is how good genetics formed, by the natural rewards of reality favoring being smart and resourceful.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The majority of selection was surviving weather, starvation, and later war. It had fuck all to do with parenting. Because parenting CAN NOT make you smarter (higher IQ). It can make you "smarter"(intelligent, better at doing known things). IQ gives you the ability to solve NEW problems. The only natural selection that works to increase IQ, which is heritable while intelligence is not, is that which selects for IQ specifically.

Therefore wealth selects for low IQ by giving low IQ people the means to survive where they would otherwise have died. Poor parenting, and poverty leave the kids with only their wits to save them. Only the high IQ survive.