AngryAmish (19,758 posts)
Are Babies for Idiots? Maternal Urge Decreases in Women with Higher IQ
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/497192/20130806/maternal-urge-decreases-more-intelligence-childless-study.htm
"A new study suggests that women who are highly intelligent may be more likely to choose not to have children.
According to the survey conducted by Satoshi Kanazawa, a researcher at the London School of Economics (LSE), women lose a quarter of their urge to have children with every 15 extra IQ points.
The study, which cites data from the UK's National Child Development Study, remained the same even when Kanazawa added economics and education as controls.
His findings are backed up by statistics which show that, whereas just 20% of British women over the age of 45 are childless, the figure rises to 43% for women with degrees."
AngryAmish (19,758 posts)
3. My fear is Idiocracy was a documentary
DonCoquixote (6,133 posts)
114. I'll see that and raise you
religion.
The ugly truth is, the reason why every agressive religion wants large families, they not only want to control the gene pool, they want to drown everyone else in it. That is why ., despite the fact all religions have progressive factions, the clergy in all religions, be they the Mormons, the Muslims, the Catholics, the Baptists, etc, all want large poor families; they make for cheap labor and bad educations.
The ugly truth is, the reason why every agressive religion wants large families, they not only want to control the gene pool, they want to drown everyone else in it. That is why ., despite the fact all religions have progressive factions, the clergy in all religions, be they the Mormons, the Muslims, the Catholics, the Baptists, etc, all want large poor families; they make for cheap labor and bad educations.
Are Babies for Idiots? Maternal Urge Decreases in Women with Higher IQAnd the ignorant wretches at DU naturally assume this refers to them. :rotf:
I'll wager there is a corresponding rise I the expectation that someone else will pay for their healthcare and retirement when they get older.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023413300
The claim is 43% of women withe degrees don't have children so that somehow means they are more intelligent. We have seen at DU many people with degrees who barely have the brain power to breathe on their own, jugs being a prime example.
My Aunt (the DUmbass, I've written about her) we found out, had her tubes tied when she was in her 20's. She's highly intelligent, and likes "free sex" which includes wrecking marriages.
Nice, really nice. :p
GliderGuider (15,469 posts)
18. Mother's Day is mawkish, sentimental, pro-breeding propaganda.
Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 09:50 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
On the other hand, our parents' behavior is understandable - when most of our parents had us, the walls of the future hadn't closed in quite as tightly as they have now.
Today any potential parent with a milligram of empathy and compassion will refrain from procreating. Only someone who is completely bound up in their own psychic wounds and egoic needs would even consider bringing a helpless child into the buzz-saw world that's unfolding around us.
GliderGuider (15,469 posts)
75. Based on the fact that the whole human species is probably 100x into overshoot.
Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 01:08 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
And that the level of our activity is making the planet unfit for habitation, whether by humans or many other species.
The level of human activity that can qualified as sustainable over the long haul (say the next 100,000 years) is probably on the order of 10 to 20 million people, but only if their energy consumption is at pre-Paleolithic levels. (http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html)
Based on that probability, I don't need to be any kind of a a eugenicist for my proposals to appear catastrophic and unreasonable. I certainly don't expect anyone to formulate policy on this basis.
mainer (6,829 posts)
147. The Chinese ferociously marketed "one child max"
yet real human beings tried to get around those rules because ... well, they're human beings.
get the red out (7,407 posts)
149. The government, not their culture
Their culture was still set on "have a boy to take care of you in the future", so many girls were dropped of at the orphanage, or simply hidden by their families hoping for the desired boy next time around.
mainer (6,829 posts)
150. So we must wipe out "the culture"?
I'm not entirely sure how to do that without exterminating the human race. Which, according to some here, seems to be the preferable route to overpopulation.
You were talking about "marketing". So it's not marketing per se, you're saying, it's the way people live and think and grew up.
get the red out (7,407 posts)
155. That is my take on how a culture markets things
I cannot see where I suggested "wiping out" anyone or anything! I was just questioning the government of China as a representation of their culture. Their current government system is far younger than their culture.
I do not see how pointing out how a culture predisposes people to think is a suggestion that someone try to wipe them out?
I personally believe that OUR cultural marketing is coming from the corporations who need more and more unquestioning consumers and warriors. I am not suggesting our people be wiped out either.
GliderGuider (15,469 posts)
166. And where do the corporations come from?
Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 04:41 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Why have they become so powerful? Are they not simply picking up belief/behavior cues that already exist in the population, and re-marketing the ones that are advantageous to them?
A culture markets things by creating narratives about them - largely unconscious stories we tell ourselves and each other about how the world works. They are mostly lies and self-deceptions, but that's the only thing that works to hold a culture together. People are fundamentally emotional and non-rational. Me included.
There is virtually nothing about the structure of human society that is abnormal or artificial (whatever those words might mean in this context). Distasteful yes, but that's not quite the same thing. things got to be this way not because of corporate malfeasance, but because at each step of the way the collective "we" agreed on some level that the next step was a good idea.
WCLinolVir (256 posts)
178. You can not separate our society from the politics of corporatism.
And you can not paint a picture of a society evolving without acknowledging a history of coercion. Theory that is not supported by facts is inapplicable. There is nothing unconscious about how things are marketed. If you really believe that then you really have been drinking the koolaid. People are fundamentally coerced. Just look at the high rates of depression and suicide. A symptom of the reality of what we are subjected to in our society. It is a symptom of the abnormal and artificial.
I really think you have hit the sweet spot in your thinking that gives you a comfort zone. Even though it is false.
GliderGuider (15,469 posts)
179. Yes, people are fundamentally coerced.
In fact, all norming (without which societies could not even form) is coercive - I got schooled in that fact earlier today on this thread. Any group of two or more people will exhibit coercion to some degree. But the coercion we're really talking about seems to be inevitable in a high-energy society. Just like the hierarchies that spring up to give the global system enough structure to let us produce and use 18 TW of power. You don't get that kind of power dissipation without a solid social structure, and you don't get that kind of solidity without coercion.
This perspective stems from my understanding of how the Second law of Thermodynamics operates in open, non-linear, far-from-equilibrium systems like the Earth, ecosystems, or human and non-human societies. In such circumstances self-organizing dissipative structures appear spontaneously. This operation of the Second Law shapes and constrains human behavior in similar (but more complex) ways to how it shapes hurricanes, Benard cells and life itself.
Hurricanes and tornadoes emerge to dissipate atmospheric and oceanic energy gradients. Life arises because the conditions are supportive and there are local energy gradients and other resources to be used. Life apparently emerges because it is a more effective as a dissipative structure than inanimate systems like whirlpools.
The dissipative imperative built into the Second Law is behind everything that happens in the universe - it structures the matter that life is made of, shapes the organization of living organisms, and it shapes their behavior - all to maximize their effectiveness at dissipating energy gradients.
In the "behavior"category we also find human social behavior, which has exactly the same roots as the behavior of bacteria or birds, or the operation of a whirlpool. The specifics of what behavior emerges - the social and political structures, the economic systgems etc. - are governed by local physical circumstances like climate, weather, resources, geographic location etc. But as human societies gain the ability/need to use more and more energy, they develop hierarchy and the attendant coercion just as naturally as a hurricane develops an eyewall.
Do you really think this is a comfort zone? It completely eliminates any hope that human free will might somehow pull our chesnuts out of the fire. That thought is anything but comforting. But instead of being false, I've become pretty sure that it's true.
GliderGuider (15,469 posts)You should get a job with Hallmark. You'd be great.
18. Mother's Day is mawkish, sentimental, pro-breeding propaganda.
On the other hand, our parents' behavior is understandable - when most of our parents had us, the walls of the future hadn't closed in quite as tightly as they have now.
According to the survey conducted by Satoshi Kanazawa, a researcher at the London School of Economics (LSE), women lose a quarter of their urge to have children with every 15 extra IQ points.
So, DUmmie wymins with an IQ of 60 or above shouldn't be breeding........hell, we've known that for years.....but they breed anyway.
And of course the worker's paradise can thrive...without workers.
Oh, to be one of the enlightened.
You may think this is just over-intellectualized Proglodyte prattle -- and you would be correct -- but it is important to not the fact that since they buy into this "all society is coerced" they believe that gives them the excuse to coerce you beneath the heel of their socialist boot.
Pay attention, there will be a test (of wills) later.
So what makes those super geniuses I Over there not think their beliefs weren't coerced too. Admittedly they have said they are emotional animals along with the masses so it would behoove the super intelligent there to consider thy could be wrong and 'coerced' too. In the interest of intellectual integrity at the very least;)
DonCoquixote (6,133 posts)
114. I'll see that and raise you
religion.
The ugly truth is, the reason why every agressive religion wants large families, they not only want to control the gene pool, they want to drown everyone else in it. That is why ., despite the fact all religions have progressive factions, the clergy in all religions, be they the Mormons, the Muslims, the Catholics, the Baptists, etc, all want large poor families; they make for cheap labor and bad educations.
cheap labor and bad educations
I was "exposed" to the Katie Curic(sp) Show yesterday.
GliderGuider (15,469 posts)
75. Based on the fact that the whole human species is probably 100x into overshoot.
Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 01:08 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
And that the level of our activity is making the planet unfit for habitation, whether by humans or many other species.
The level of human activity that can qualified as sustainable over the long haul (say the next 100,000 years) is probably on the order of 10 to 20 million people, but only if their energy consumption is at pre-Paleolithic levels. (http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html)
Based on that probability, I don't need to be any kind of a a eugenicist for my proposals to appear catastrophic and unreasonable. I certainly don't expect anyone to formulate policy on this basis.
Liberalism absolutely is coercive. That's why anyone who strays is a racist, bigot, homophobe, sexist, theocratic dominionist science hating fascist. That is why the liberal rage machine heaps torrents of abuse on anyone who is denounced.
Is it hypocritical?
Yes.
But that's the point of hypocrisy: use a phony, ginned-up moral outrage to enforce rules you do not live by so as to gain power for yourself.
Do liberals care about racism?
No. They have left the black community devastated with fatherless families and government interventions.
Do they want racism to go away?
No. They need the votes gained from screaming "Racism!"
But, by God's long ears, they will use cries of racism to coerce you either into conforming with them or at least silencing your dissent.
You should get a job with Hallmark. You'd be great.
IMHO, thanks to a government that supports abortions and same sex marriages, expect the American birthrate to take a virtual nosedive!! :mad: