Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (213254)	12/12/2004 11:52:16 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578281

"so that leaves a situation where others might have lots of children." "The Marching Morons". Great book. Actually, the issue isn't stupidity. Even if it was, intelligence doesn't correlate all that well with genetics. It's like the argument that Italians aren't as bright as others because the smartest males went into the priesthood and didn't reproduce. It isn't true.

To: Amy J who wrote (213254)	12/13/2004 12:36:32 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578281

Hi Amy: Maybe smart people are too busy to have lots of children, so that leaves a situation where others might have lots and lots and lots of children. Maybe Darwin's theory is broke. Although Darwin and those of his time spoke of progression in evolution leading to man, that is not the modern view. All existing species are "modern". It's about finding some toehold. Control freaks that "keep their women at home" probably pump out a baby every year. Intelligent people are outnumbered. I like China's rule. One child per family. Whether you are smart or not, doesn't matter. It's fair and equal. In America, it's not. Over time this country will go down hill, I predict. Darwin phrased it nicely, but I don't feel like hunting for the quote right now.. the rate of increase so great that there is a struggle for life.. or something to that effect. Indeed, a high rate of reproduction insures that life will be a struggle, and conversely, because life is a struggle, the rate of reproduction must be high. The two are linked in a loop. You can make life more pleasant if you limit reproduction. If life is more pleasant, lower reproduction is ok. I find it very ironic that most western cultures have governments and constitutions which are primarily concerned with trying to make life more pleasant (protection of life and property, i.e. removing the red tooth and claw from human existence) but ignore any attempts at societal pacts on individual reproduction. This is the fundamental problem with libertarian philosophy. The right to life and the right to property are necessary but not sufficient conditions. If you limit stealing and killing, you must also limit reproduction. Biology will rule in the end. I think many people delude themselves that somehow our species is immune. We have had a good run (especially the white man) for the last few thousand years, but the earth is a good deal older than 10K years, and will be around a good deal longer than another 10K years, religious conservative views not withstanding.