The Joy of Motherhood

[Martinus]

You can definitely make an argument that smart people who don't reproduce are not so smart on an evolutionary level.  (Not that an individual person should really be concerned with it.)  Creating your spawn is kind of the first requirement of being an evolutionary success.

Not really, at least not in case of a species like homo sapiens, which has transcended its biology and is more keenly governed by culture. Leonardo may have not passed on his genes, but he has exerted an infinitely more profound influence on humans that came after him than some Renaissance Tuscanian turnip farmer who had 15 children, even if their descendants live to this day.

[Valmy]

Tim said : You'll change your mind when you hit 30 (i.e. Korea will want to have / have kids)
Vinnie said: Not necessarily, recall the movie Idiocracy. (i.e. smart people don't want to have kids, therefore as Korea is smart, her opinion may not change)
Me: Who is the smart person in this scenario (in other words: Does Korea will qualify as smart?)

I thought you were zinging Vin.  Crap I clearly will be reproducing alot.

[garbon]

Fuck, I need to learn English. I guess I will have a large brood as well.

[Ed Anger]

Let's not forget Idiocracy.

I'm trying to forget that piece of shit movie.

[vinraith]

The Marching Morons thesis doesn't seem to work in a long run, based on a historical experience, though, does it? Sure it does seem like this is the case in a short run, but the progress keeps happening and, at least in the West, living conditions (in every meaning of the word) have been (save for an anomaly like a war or nazism) consistently improving for centuries.

I think the Marching Morons thesis seems to place too much importance on things like intelligence, values and opinions being hereditary in a biological/genetical sense, within a family unit. They are hereditary, but more in a cultural sense - and culture is being produced mainly by smart and creative people.

The new factor in the equation is really reproductive control methods, though.

[Malthus]

You can definitely make an argument that smart people who don't reproduce are not so smart on an evolutionary level.  (Not that an individual person should really be concerned with it.)  Creating your spawn is kind of the first requirement of being an evolutionary success.

Not really, at least not in case of a species like homo sapiens, which has transcended its biology and is more keenly governed by culture. Leonardo may have not passed on his genes, but he has exerted an infinitely more profound influence on humans that came after him than some Renaissance Tuscanian turnip farmer who had 15 children, even if their descendants live to this day.

I can certainly see why this theory would appeal to you.  But there is something in it, nonetheless.

However I would not totally discount actual genetic inheritance - humans are still animals, albeit animals with culture. We have not transcended our biology, actual children are still required. 

[garbon]

I think Madonna and Angie have suggested that we buy them.

[Martinus]

Notwithstanding that, I still maintain that as a species we have simply transcended biology - we are now running our own evolution that is much faster (and thus much more relevant) than natural selection. Plus, at least in the West, we have developed elaborate systems of law, medicine, technology, finance (pension schemes etc.) etc., which no longer forces old people to rely on the support of their descendants to survive.

Ergo: reproduction on a species/culture level remains necessary, but on an individual level is no longer relevant.

[Malthus]

I think Madonna and Angie have suggested that we buy them.

Madonna gave birth to a couple of her own first. She just went shopping for some Black spares. 

[Valmy]

Ergo: reproduction on a species/culture level remains necessary, but on an individual level is no longer relevant.

Incorrect.  I expect you to create at least four clones of yourself in a lab for the good of Poland and humanity.

Plus, at least in the West, we have developed elaborate systems of law, medicine, technology, finance (pension schemes etc.) etc., which no longer forces old people to rely on the support of their descendants to survive.

Pensions?    What is this?  1985?

I do not think I will leave my future to the tender mercies of the government, medical establishment, and the financial system.

[garbon]

Madonna gave birth to a couple of her own first. She just went shopping for some Black spares. 

She learned over time.

[Malthus]

Notwithstanding that, I still maintain that as a species we have simply transcended biology - we are now running our own evolution that is much faster (and thus much more relevant) than natural selection. Plus, at least in the West, we have developed elaborate systems of law, medicine, technology, finance (pension schemes etc.) etc., which no longer forces old people to rely on the support of their descendants to survive.

Ergo: reproduction on a species/culture level remains necessary, but on an individual level is no longer relevant.

Well, parents may not be relying on their kids to support 'em, but the reverse is most definitely not true - the state does a very bad job of raising children.

Edit: in the current economic climate, I'd be leery of relying on the state to support me in my old age! 

[Martinus]

Notwithstanding that, I still maintain that as a species we have simply transcended biology - we are now running our own evolution that is much faster (and thus much more relevant) than natural selection. Plus, at least in the West, we have developed elaborate systems of law, medicine, technology, finance (pension schemes etc.) etc., which no longer forces old people to rely on the support of their descendants to survive.

Ergo: reproduction on a species/culture level remains necessary, but on an individual level is no longer relevant.

Well, parents may not be relying on their kids to support 'em, but the reverse is most definitely not true - the state does a very bad job of raising children.

Yeah, but it's more of a charity for the good of the society than vice-versa. Financially, kids are a very bad investment.

[Malthus]

Yeah, but it's more of a charity for the good of the society than vice-versa. Financially, kids are a very bad investment.

Financially, pension funds haven't proven so hot either. 

[Valmy]

Financially, pension funds haven't proven so hot either. 

I think children are a very reliable investment.  The chances your kid will survive into adulthood and support him or herself are very high...whereas the chances any other investment will pan out are far lower.

I mean with a car or a pet or almost anything else you will probably put a whole lot of money into it and get nothing.