Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

If all the thick people have loads of kids then will this make the UK dumb? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    If all the thick people have loads of kids then will this make the UK dumb?

    It will be like reverse evolution.
    Long term unemployed state benefit, state dependent people on welfare, using NHS for their alcohol problems, drug abuse reasons and all the associated diseases = using all that money up.
    Bleeding dry the state system.

    Middle class and educated people either go abroad e.g. Australia and NZ, or they stay in the UK and have no kids or 1/2 and not 6-7 like the UnderClass people. All the high IQ people will be swallowed up by the low IQ people.
    A large component of IQ is genetic, so they're passing this on.
    A large component of criminality is genetic, so they will be passing this on.

    It will like evolutionary regression. The low IQ, low skills, low potential populace will be the overwhelming majority.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hear Me Roar)
    Stop with the pro-eugenics, Social Darwinist propaganda. Its all a load of nonsense.


    Attachment 216967
    Be careful what you say, for there are some people and some politicians in this country who favour social Darwinism, and would like to see eugenics happen in the near future.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's true that evolution favours reproduction and survival, not intelligence.

    However, I don't think the situation is as dire as you say. There are now very few extremely large families (although that's also paired with a much lower death rate). I know people like the Philpotts make the news, but in my experience the vast majority of families stick to their 2/3.

    It's also very important to distinguish between 'working class' and 'underclass', and the overlap between the two. It's not 'middle class professionals' vs 'drug addict criminal benefit stealing underclass' - there is a massive intermediate population who are perfectly hard working and / or intelligent, and plenty of those deemed 'underclass' still have the genetic potential to be something completely different had they not been born disadvantaged.

    So yes, it's not great for the UK if lawyers and academics have one child and Vicky Pollard has 8. However, I don't think it's an imminent problem. Besides, if you try to enforce any kind of child policy you enter a whole new minefield.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Directly stopping stupid people having kids isn't the answer. Educate them and their children so they are no longer stupid is the answer.

    Or have a war so loads of them die.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob :))
    Directly stopping stupid people having kids isn't the answer. Education them and their children so they are no longer stupid is the answer.

    Or have a war so loads of them die.
    Not meaning to be a grammar nazi, but self-defeating point? :lolz:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This happens all over the world.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    Not meaning to be a grammar nazi, but self-defeating point? :lolz:
    I'm tired! Leave me be!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    no

    read about regression to the mean
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    You should take a look at the film Idiocracy, its a comedy that basically goes by this argument.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jam198)
    If all the thick people have loads of kids then will this make the UK dumb?

    It will be like reverse evolution.
    Long term unemployed state benefit, state dependent people on welfare, using NHS for their alcohol problems, drug abuse reasons and all the associated diseases = using all that money up.
    Bleeding dry the state system.

    Middle class and educated people either go abroad e.g. Australia and NZ, or they stay in the UK and have no kids or 1/2 and not 6-7 like the UnderClass people. All the high IQ people will be swallowed up by the low IQ people.
    A large component of IQ is genetic, so they're passing this on.
    A large component of criminality is genetic, so they will be passing this on.

    It will like evolutionary regression. The low IQ, low skills, low potential populace will be the overwhelming majority.
    So we need some kind of Brave New World-esque solution to ensure we weed out the undesirables for a purer world?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I may sound selfish and arrogant but... That just means less competition for us smart people!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If that happens then there will be competition between the "thick" people to find out who is the smartest. Smart would be the new sexy and eventually people through selective breeding would rebuild civilization to where smart-dumb equilibrium is restored.

    Goddamit don't you just want to live in that world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think you should dictate who should have children or not, because before long it will move from intelligence to ridiculous characteristics. However, one way of solving it isn't through breeding licenses, but through cutting welfare payments from the state so it is not such an attractive option for the "thick people".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If you believe this is a good idea then please don't have children.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jam198)
    If all the thick people have loads of kids then will this make the UK dumb?

    It will be like reverse evolution.
    Long term unemployed state benefit, state dependent people on welfare, using NHS for their alcohol problems, drug abuse reasons and all the associated diseases = using all that money up.
    Bleeding dry the state system.

    Middle class and educated people either go abroad e.g. Australia and NZ, or they stay in the UK and have no kids or 1/2 and not 6-7 like the UnderClass people. All the high IQ people will be swallowed up by the low IQ people.
    A large component of IQ is genetic, so they're passing this on.
    A large component of criminality is genetic, so they will be passing this on.

    It will like evolutionary regression. The low IQ, low skills, low potential populace will be the overwhelming majority.
    This is whats happening OP, under corporate control

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If it hasn't already been recommended already, watch the film Idiocracy.

    Quite trashy and lighthearted, but it addresses this issue well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's already happening.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-suggests.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaiDuc)
    I may sound selfish and arrogant but... That just means less competition for us smart people!
    No it doesn't, it means the complete opposite. More smart individuals creates a brooding society of individuals desperate to prove themselves in front of their peers lest they seem unintelligent. And eventually you have to weed out the dumbest of those lot, and do the same for the next lot and so and so on until there's no one left to be smarter than.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jam198)
    If all the thick people have loads of kids then will this make the UK dumb?

    It will be like reverse evolution.
    .
    Yes, in fact even Professor James Flynn who noted the 'Flynn Effect' of rising scores notes that their is a downward trend. He cites the NZ example, but it's the same pattern in most Western countries as the smartest women tend to have fewer children.

    An internationally recognised expert on intelligence warns New Zealand children could get dumber in three or four generations unless women with higher education started producing more babies.

    Otago University emeritus professor Dr Jim Flynn was commenting on census figures that show mothers without a higher education were the anchor of New Zealand's current fertility rate.

    "Everyone knows if we only allowed short people to reproduce there would be a tendency in terms of genes for height to diminish. Intelligence is no different from other human traits," he told the Sunday Star-Times.

    "A persistent genetic trend which lowered the genetic quality for brain physiology would have some effect eventually."

    Statistics show women without tertiary qualifications who had reached their early 40s had produced 2.57 babies each.

    In contrast, women with a higher education were producing just 1.85 babies each.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10450313

    Also, the trend in places like the UK and Europe was previously upward. See for example, UC Davis economist Greg Clark's book 'A Farewell to Alms'. As Professsor Steve Hsu observes:

    So we have at least two documented cases of the descendants of the rich replacing the poor over an extended period of time. My guess is that this kind of population dynamics was quite common in the past. (Today we see the opposite pattern!) Could this type of natural selection lead to changes in quantitative, heritable traits over a relatively short period of time?

    Consider the following simple model, where X is a heritable trait such as intelligence or conscientiousness or even height. Suppose that X has narrow sense heritability of one half. Divide the population into 3 groups:

    Group 1 bottom 1/6 in X; < 1 SD below average
    Group 2 middle 2/3 in X; between -1 and +1 SD
    Group 3 highest 1/6 in X; > 1 SD above average

    Suppose that Group 3 has a reproductive rate which is 10% higher than Group 2, whereas Group 1 reproduces at a 10% lower rate than Group 2. A relatively weak correlation between X and material wealth could produce this effect, given the demographic data above (the rich outreproduced the poor almost 2 to 1!). Now we can calculate the change in population mean for X over a single generation. In units of SDs, the mean changes by roughly 1/6 ( .1 + .1) 1/2 or about .02 SD. (I assumed assortative mating by group.) Thus it would take roughly 50 generations, or 1k years, under such conditions for the population to experience a 1 SD shift in X.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.