Would the world be a better place if people with low IQs were not allowed to reproduce?



Apr 19, 2008 12:45pm

Who is to judge??? Huh? Does a proficiency at taking tests mean a person is more or less equipped to contribute to the world's "goodness"? I have no opinion on this silly question. The world is what it is, perhaps the "wrong" people are currently reproducing at a greater rate, but Whatever. Really, whatever.


Apr 19, 2008 12:48pm

This question is funny.

And so wonderfully wrong.

I do believe, however, that people should be rigorously tested as to their ability to responsibly raise a child, and provide them with at least the factors we are currently aware of that children require to develop properly.

By the way, I'm pretty sure I would fail such tests.


Apr 19, 2008 12:54pm

Stupid people.  That's a hot topic on my plate; while I wish we could evict our idiots to North Korea, I recognize the fact that we still need people to dig our ditches and stack our bread.


Apr 19, 2008 12:54pm

Even ignoring the morality of the question, it hinges on the idea that intelligence is hereditary. I'm not so sure it is.



Apr 19, 2008 12:54pm

Things don't work like that. Some of our world's greatest minds came from parents who no one would think should be allowed to breed. Einstein's effective IQ was borderline retarded. Tests are flawed at best. And no indication AT ALL how intelligent their offspring would be.

Humans are complex, tests are simplistic. That's just the way it is. Anyone who would say "yes" to this question is basically saying THEY should be sterilized for the betterment of the species.


Apr 19, 2008 1:00pm

On the other hand...

A world with less people in general would be nice.

Maybe we should ALL cut back on reproduction.


Apr 19, 2008 1:07pm

Damn you PolarBear and Poet for shredding my dreams into confetti with logic.  Still, the thought of collecting the world's idiots onto a small island and then having it bombed will always bring a smile to my face.


Apr 19, 2008 1:08pm

Ok, on that, I'd have to agree with you. (Mahn)

What I want to know is why there's only one vote for "no", despite everyone who's posted saying how much they disagree with the question.

There's three for "yes". Are there people finding the ballots confusing, or something? As if I didn't ALREADY have enough reasons to distrust the election system.

Naturally- this is "as of time of posting"- I'm sure it'll change eventually.

EDIT- Kindred, I wouldn't be so quick to go after the idiots. Politicians, on the other hand.... yes, that would work nicely.


Apr 19, 2008 1:17pm

But aren't politicians also idiots?  It's like an SAT question.

If all idiots get exploded and all politicians are idiots, do all politicians therefore get sent to the island and suck napalm?

The answer is yes!


Before I get myself lynched, I'm not COMPLETELY serious. :)


Apr 19, 2008 1:19pm

But SOME idiots are USEFUL. Politicians are not. That's the major difference.

The only function of a politician is to take the blame for the policies that major companies pay them to support.


Apr 19, 2008 1:19pm

Too late Kindred, the posse is on its way :\



Apr 19, 2008 1:22pm

Whenever I see this question, I just think of the movie Idiocracy.


Apr 19, 2008 1:34pm

when i see this forum i think of that movie, too


Apr 19, 2008 3:24pm

Idiocracy was such a great idea, it's so sad that it was turned into a shockingly shite unwatchable movie..

This question is interesting, in that people who vote yes are essentially proposing a skewed cull of the population. If you took everyone with an IQ less than 100 and killed them, then the spread of IQ across the planet would instantly normalise so that a huge number of people were sub-100. The average IQ is 100 as a relative measure. if you had 10 people of IQ 80, a hundred people of IQ 100 and 10 people of IQ 120, and you killed all the 80, youre left with an average IQ of 101.8 - but this then becomes the new IQ100 by with all are judged, and all those hundred people who tested 100 before, have their scores normalised to 97.2, which is below average, and they therefore need exterminating too. Congratulations; you just eradicated 83% of the population.

Now that only super intelligent, higher orders of human being are left, who will be happy with menial tasks such as sweeping the streets or cleaning the sewers while all the hot shots are busy off being brain surgeons or rocket scientists?

Moronic question


Apr 19, 2008 3:38pm

We could take the opposite side.  Intelligence tests can be highly skewed.  You can really weed out the low ones.  The solution would be taking the "best and brightest" our society has to offer and force them to breed in record numbers.  Let some form of natural selection take over the process.


Apr 19, 2008 3:53pm

Except that if we compel the breeding, it stops being "natural", now doesn't it?


Apr 19, 2008 4:18pm

i'm disgusted by the very existence of yes votes in this poll.  read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics


and please never raise children yourself, assholes.


Apr 19, 2008 4:31pm

Stupid people really frustrate me, at the same time where would you draw the line for IQ points?

As for IQs being genetic, a friend of mine has an IQ that is so high it's off the charts (seriously). Her oldest is in high school in all college prep classes. Her youngest is "normal"/average, a little to the pretty smart side and her two middle children are going to make the best darn night shift drive through managers Mickey-D's has ever seen (if they can get over their social retardation. I didn't say THEY are retarded, I said their social skills are).
They are the type of person where you speak to them and they are glassy-eyed and slack-jawed mouth-breathers staring back at you. (the type of person where if you ask for extra creamer for your coffee, instead of just giving it to you, will say the boss told them to put 2 creamers and 2 sugars in every bag. When you explain you need 4 creamers they will stare at you confused and then again tell you their boss said to put 2 creamers in every bag.)

So there is the proof right there that "breeding" smart people still only results in a 1 in 4 chance of the offspring being gifted, 1 in 4 chance of society’s "normal" and 2 in 4 chance of being on Jerry Springer.


Apr 19, 2008 4:43pm

>Stupid people really frustrate me

You probably really frustrate stupid people, if they can raise themselves out of their ignorant bliss long enough to notice, of course..

..which begs the question; who's right? Is not your very statement here just a prime example of you being judgemental, and putting yourself on the superior side of the fence, stupid people on the other? Is their being stupider than you any more of a crime than your being cleverer than them? Probably not..

End of the day, there's a bigger problem than this.. And like most bigger problems, it has a huge problem root cause. There are already too many people living on the planet, and the rate the population keeps growing, questions like this wont need to be debated academically because they'll become a reality - sure, there's food on the supermarket shelves now.. But what if one day there isnt? Who bought it all? The intelligent people, because they earn enough more money to be able to? Maybe..


Apr 19, 2008 4:49pm

Aren't IQ's based on a bell curve?  

Anyways, although genetics likely plays a role in your IQ, I am doubtful it means anything when compared to the quality of schooling received during childhood, and one's own personal effort.

It's a question of nature v. nurture.  Since 99.9% of what you know was taught to

you, I'm pretty sure nurture wins.

I like how DNA is the secret to everything.  Fitness, health, brains... It's all potential. Potential is nothing unless you make something of it. Ever watch GATTACA?

Post a comment