NationStates Jolt Archive

+ there will be a fair chunk of people that will not be having children
due to it getting in the way of their Careers
+ another group that can't have children because they chose to be with
the person of the same sex
+ another group that wont (or very much less likey) have children
because they arent sexualy intrested in ANYTHING(http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/scienc...tudy/index.html
)

+ and you have the generaly less inteligent people who arnt smart enuff
to use preventive material to keep them from getting pregnate and then
having their children go out and do the same thing b/c of the situation
they are in and 1 not knowing any better and 2 not really being albe to
figure it out b/c they have their parents DNA that oviously didnt help
them out.




so the Career focused people, homosexuals , and asexual will die out and
the less intelegent and less motivated of the race will grow rapidly ....
any one see a problem here?

you mean this isn't already happening? ;)

so the Career focused people, homosexuals , and asexual will die out and
the less intelegent and less motivated of the race will grow rapidly ....
any one see a problem here?
No. I think that you're failing to figure in adaption.


EDIT: May explain the growing gap between rich and poor though...

so the Career focused people, homosexuals , and asexual will die out and
the less intelegent and less motivated of the race will grow rapidly ....
any one see a problem here?It's a fairly common staple of sf in the 50s, and has been associated with pretty grotty ideologies before that. Which doesn't mean it's not a problem.
I'm not concerned myself though. I think it's more a matter of high socio-economic status being maladaptive than intelligence, I think that intelligence is still a bonus in the darwinian games for humans. I think that our western societies may be in a bit of trouble, but the human race will be just fine.

No. I think that you're failing to figure in adaption.


EDIT: May explain the growing gap between rich and poor though...



adaption of what?

I think in some ways we may have gotten around evolution. Now, with surrogacy (sp?) and test-tube babies, non-heterosexual couples can actually have children with the DNA of at least one of them. And being really busy and career minded hasn't stopped many people from having kids. Plus, with medical studies the way they are, almost all children can live into adulthood, no matter where they're from or what their geetics might entail.

Are you trying to suggest that

A) Humans are a-sexual?
B) Homosexuality is genetic
C) Stupid people should be eradicated?

While I agree with C, anyone of a certain level of stupidity should be destroyed so as to keep the gene pool at a certain level, but A & B I must query...

-Phil.

Wait, but homosexuality isn't a new thing. A lot of the famous men and in the past (especially artists, for some reason) that never got married were homosexual. Asexuality isn't new either. And the career bit is only coming into view because of women finally being slightly more respected.. and besides, it's not exactly a worldwide phenomenon.

I think it's a bit naive to think that the world has changed all that much.

Are you trying to suggest that

A) Humans are a-sexual?
B) Homosexuality is genetic
C) Stupid people should be eradicated?

While I agree with C, anyone of a certain level of stupidity should be destroyed so as to keep the gene pool at a certain level, but A & B I must query...

-Phil.

Whoa whoa, google asexuality and homosexuality before making wild claims like that. You'll find all the scientific evidence you need - especially about homosexuality.

And to add to all this debate, who says we NEED to keep pumping out babies? We're pretty populous already.

You forget that the career people, homosexuals and asexuals are produced by the heterosexuals (and sometimes even homosexuals who want family...)

I think it is fairly balanced and especially homosexuals do not make enough of the population to "threaten" the existence of mankind. People are not genetically dumb. People just live in varying environments which are condusive for intelligence growth or detrimental. I think intelligence overall is the same in every human. Just the way it is being used and developed, differs from country to country and city to city due to education opportunities or the lack thereof.

youre mixing sociology with biology

there is no big tragedy in carreer minded people having fewer children than more "family oriented" people .

there is no big lack of gay people having children

there is no big loss if asexual people dont pass on their genes

adaption of what?
People to the system, system to the people.

If we take only America as the example...if in the future, the families that are currently successful mostly died out, every American is still going to be just as arrogantly proud of his country as before, and so it's necessary for them to step it up some and this will actually make America better off. If you have to work hard through high school and college, you'll understand what hard work means and be better suited for solving the problems of the world. It's pretty much cyclic in my eyes. Anyway, it also wasn't that long that we had the industrial revolution and before that the agricultural revolution. Now we're having the IT revolution (which requires a more intelligent workforce), and who knows what sort of industry-focused revolution will come about next, but each of these revolutions represents a new cycle in the workforce and is an example of the system adapting to the people who've adapted to the system...if that makes sense.

Are you trying to suggest that

A) Humans are a-sexual?
B) Homosexuality is genetic
C) Stupid people should be eradicated?

While I agree with C, anyone of a certain level of stupidity should be destroyed so as to keep the gene pool at a certain level, but A & B I must query...

-Phil.

A - thats what the link was, aparently being "A-sexual" is a growing "fad"

B - No , im saying that it is near imposible for a homosexual couple to reproduce , it is posible but very costly and no very practical

C - .... i have no idea what to do with them but there are to many of them and it makes for easier mas-histaria

Gigatron that was kind of the point I was making...

Allesandria were you directing the google suggestion to me?

Finally, you cannot say that social behaviour is linked to biological production. Social behaviour is derived from nuture not nature.

-Phil.

and you have the generaly less inteligent people who arnt smart enuff

I can't be the only one who got a huge laugh out of this.

A - thats what the link was, aparently being "A-sexual" is a growing "fad"

B - No , im saying that it is near imposible for a homosexual couple to reproduce , it is posible but very costly and no very practical

C - .... i have no idea what to do with them but there are to many of them and it makes for easier mas-histaria

Coming from somebody who knows .. um, B isn't true.

Wait, but homosexuality isn't a new thing. A lot of the famous men and in the past (especially artists, for some reason) that never got married were homosexual. Asexuality isn't new either. And the career bit is only coming into view because of women finally being slightly more respected.. and besides, it's not exactly a worldwide phenomenon.

I think it's a bit naive to think that the world has changed all that much.

True, homosexuality has been around for dang near ever, how ever there is more and more people exploring that posibilty because of the recent puclic intrest of "Gay rights"

And same with the career however there are a growing number of women that are putting off even getting married untill thier career is ither well underway or they consider them selves succesfull , witch can put them close to or past their child bearing years,

Asexuality - see homoseuality (modify sligltly due to lack of "a-sexual rights, but still growing in popularity")

I think that the movie "Junior" proves effectively that gay males can have children...and there is another movie with Elen Degeneres that proves lesbians can also have children. 'Nuff said?

Organia, I also found his post hilarious, especially with mention to stupidity. Anyway;

Asexual: Solo reproduction. No human is asexual because it would involve someone producing an egg, fertalising it and then having the child without any outside intervention.

Homosexuals do not reproduce, they can adopt, they can even have an egg from some hooker, implant one of the lads sperm and have their own odd child, however homosexuals are produced by couples. They are not their own species you know...

-Phil.

Mmmm, eugenics! Always a good subject.

People to the system, system to the people.

If we take only America as the example...if in the future, the families that are currently successful mostly died out, every American is still going to be just as arrogantly proud of his country as before, and so it's necessary for them to step it up some and this will actually make America better off. If you have to work hard through high school and college, you'll understand what hard work means and be better suited for solving the problems of the world. It's pretty much cyclic in my eyes. Anyway, it also wasn't that long that we had the industrial revolution and before that the agricultural revolution. Now we're having the IT revolution (which requires a more intelligent workforce), and who knows what sort of industry-focused revolution will come about next, but each of these revolutions represents a new cycle in the workforce and is an example of the system adapting to the people who've adapted to the system...if that makes sense.
This post is long and it makes good sense. We should ignore it. Especially seeing as its the most on-topic post since the thread was started...

Organia, I also found his post hilarious, especially with mention to stupidity. Anyway;

Asexual: Solo reproduction. No human is asexual because it would involve someone producing an egg, fertalising it and then having the child without any outside intervention.

Homosexuals do not reproduce, they can adopt, they can even have an egg from some hooker, implant one of the lads sperm and have their own odd child, however homosexuals are produced by couples. They are not their own species you know...

-Phil.

Asexuality isn't like it is in frogs and stuff.. it's unfortunate that they use the same word. It's a lack of attraction to anyone regardless of gender.

Oh by the love of Christian jesus, did you just suggest homosexuality is a fashion?

What is this crazyness about humans having their own kind of asexuality? lol. Did someone decide to make a new meaning for the word?

-Phil.

Organia, I also found his post hilarious, especially with mention to stupidity. Anyway;

Asexual: Solo reproduction. No human is asexual because it would involve someone producing an egg, fertalising it and then having the child without any outside intervention.

Homosexuals do not reproduce, they can adopt, they can even have an egg from some hooker, implant one of the lads sperm and have their own odd child, however homosexuals are produced by couples. They are not their own species you know...

-Phil.

You have not read the link that I posted with the original comment then, being asexual is the compleat lack of sexual disire in any person

homosexuals(and i am talking about both male and female here) - yes but that costs quite a bit of money

Evolution hasn't occurred in the human race for a long time - evolution relies on weaker specimens dying out, but that doesn't happen any more. Breeding success rarely relies on survival traits like intelligence any more.

Oh by the love of Christian jesus, did you just suggest homosexuality is a fashion?

What is this crazyness about humans having their own kind of asexuality? lol. Did someone decide to make a new meaning for the word?

-Phil.


They took the prefix a-, meaning a lack thereof;without.

This post is long and it makes good sense. We should ignore it. Especially seeing as its the most on-topic post since the thread was started...
EFFIN AYH!
Christ people...it's called sarcasm...

Zonamar, are you an idiot? Looking beyond your inability to spell correctly, and even past the grammatical inaccuracies in your posts, you do not even know what asexual is. I find the fact someone in a suit somewhere has seen a new statistic in the growth of people who are deciding on a life of celebacy has reinvented the word asexual... It is laughable. It is the funniest thing I have heard in the last two days.

-Phil.

EFFIN AYH!
Christ people...it's called sarcasm...

^^;

I read your post and agreed it made sense. I'm not even really addressing what you talked about because I figure you stated it best. I don't even know why I'm saying anything about homosexuality or asexuality. Let's get started on bisexuality, pansexualism.. add in some genderqueerism, transgenderism, transsexualism, ..and then throw in metrosexualism just for kicks?

Oh by the love of Christian jesus, did you just suggest homosexuality is a fashion?



-Phil.

No , im saying that because of the recent public intrests more people are open to the idea that they might be sexualy oriented in that way

Zonamar, are you an idiot? Looking beyond your inability to spell correctly, and even past the grammatical inaccuracies in your posts, you do not even know what asexual is. I find the fact someone in a suit somewhere has seen a new statistic in the growth of people who are deciding on a life of celebacy has reinvented the word asexual... It is laughable. It is the funniest thing I have heard in the last two days.

-Phil.

Oh get over yourself. It's different from celibacy - that would imply being celibate from something, which is not the basis of asexualism. They just have no attraction, so there's nothing to be celibate FROM!

Zonamar, are you an idiot? Looking beyond your inability to spell correctly, and even past the grammatical inaccuracies in your posts, you do not even know what asexual is. I find the fact someone in a suit somewhere has seen a new statistic in the growth of people who are deciding on a life of celebacy has reinvented the word asexual... It is laughable. It is the funniest thing I have heard in the last two days.

-Phil.
Maybe you're the idiot...

I'd say that there is a difference between celebacy and what' Zonamar is talking about...

Celebacy is completely abstain from sex and completely CHOOSING not to have sex. It's a decision.
What Zonamar is talking about, no matter what you call it, is a disinterest in sex. The lack of a sex drive. It's not the choice to not have sex, it's simply not choosing. Sexual apathy.

A- (without) + -sexuality = without sexuality

What amoebas (etc) do is asexual reproduction - reproduction without sex.

The asexual humans do not asexually reproduce, they just don't feel sexual attraction.

I might add that you complained about his spelling then misspelled 'celibacy' yourself. But that would make me a nitpicker.

A- (without) + -sexuality = without sexuality

What amoebas (etc) do is asexual reproduction - reproduction without sex.

The asexual humans do not asexually reproduce, they just don't feel sexual attraction.

I know what that scientific definition is, but it's a different meaning when used in terms of sexuality. It's not reproduction without sex, it's this:

A- (without) + -sexuality = without a sexuality

sexuality can mean sexual orientation, as demonstrated by the word 'homosexuality'.

People to the system, system to the people.

If we take only America as the example...if in the future, the families that are currently successful mostly died out, every American is still going to be just as arrogantly proud of his country as before, and so it's necessary for them to step it up some and this will actually make America better off. If you have to work hard through high school and college, you'll understand what hard work means and be better suited for solving the problems of the world. It's pretty much cyclic in my eyes. Anyway, it also wasn't that long that we had the industrial revolution and before that the agricultural revolution. Now we're having the IT revolution (which requires a more intelligent workforce), and who knows what sort of industry-focused revolution will come about next, but each of these revolutions represents a new cycle in the workforce and is an example of the system adapting to the people who've adapted to the system...if that makes sense.


This is interesting and is kinda what i was looking for , however, in those previous revolutions there was always a strong social and political reasons for people not to do somthing out of the ordinary. With that no longer an issue it will be interesting to see what will happen.

I know what that scientific definition is, but it's a different meaning when used in terms of sexuality. It's not reproduction without sex, it's this:

A- (without) + -sexuality = without a sexuality

sexuality can mean sexual orientation, as demonstrated by the word 'homosexuality'.

Yeah, that's what I was arguing. I obviously didn't make it as clear as I meant.

Sorry, I try to avoid being a nitpicker, but .. it just comes so naturally..

however, in those previous revolutions there was always a strong social and political reasons for people not to do somthing out of the ordinary.

What?

Oh NO! Dumbasses are gonna get us all killed :eek:

People without a sex-drive? Would that not constitute as a medical problem? I am fairly sure such a thing would be a hormone problem. If not, seeing as how I am yet to read this report or whatever, I will ignore that for now.

Back to the original topic of discussion.

-Phil.

+ there will be a fair chunk of people that will not be having children
due to it getting in the way of their Careers
+ another group that can't have children because they chose to be with
the person of the same sex
+ another group that wont (or very much less likey) have children
because they arent sexualy intrested in ANYTHING(http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/scienc...tudy/index.html
)

+ and you have the generaly less inteligent people who arnt smart enuff
to use preventive material to keep them from getting pregnate and then
having their children go out and do the same thing b/c of the situation
they are in and 1 not knowing any better and 2 not really being albe to
figure it out b/c they have their parents DNA that oviously didnt help
them out.




so the Career focused people, homosexuals , and asexual will die out and
the less intelegent and less motivated of the race will grow rapidly ....
any one see a problem here?
Only in your logic. You seem to imply that only way people procreate is by the stupidity and ingnorance of some people. I would wager a guess that most children born are planned (yes, I AM too lazy to research). Not to say temporary insanity doesn't play a role...

People without a sex-drive? Would that not constitute as a medical problem? I am fairly sure such a thing would be a hormone problem. If not, seeing as how I am yet to read this report or whatever, I will ignore that for now.

Back to the original topic of discussion.

-Phil.
I'm an 18 year old male and I've no overwhelming interesting in having sex with anyone at the moment...

I'm an 18 year old male and I've no overwhelming interesting in having sex with anyone at the moment...
I am stunned

I think you're completly missunderstanding what evolution is!!

Evolution is the success of those best adapted to reproduce in their environment.
that environment includes other member of the species BTW.

It is not the breeding of people we deem to be inteligent by the social standards we have created for ourselves.

Statistically "successful" families, those above the poverty line in the world produce 1.8 children, this is below the selection level for their genes so they will die out.

Those below the poverty line produce an average of 4.6 children, since many below the poverty line are in third world contries with poor contraception methods.

So the poor are better suited to reproduce in this environment.
Evoution selects based on it's own criteria, not what mankind, American Values or the president says we should be. It's the true freedom of the world.

Definition of "asexual":

a·sex·u·al

adj.

1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=asexual


The most accurate definition would be: "without sex" which is exactly what the initial post and further use of the word "asexual" means.

As am I. An 18 year old male with no sexual desire? I would get that looked into, however you say it is a complete lack of sex drive? Do these people not even masturbate?

-Phil.

What?

The further back you go in American history the more it is (both politicly and socialy) dominated by christian beliefs. Due to this things seen as moraly wrong such as homosexuality and such , was also heavly frowned apon. I.e. there may have been as many homosexuals , but fewer were willing to openly express it and may have even had a wife and children in order to fit in.

I am stunned

I'm concerned. not for humanity, but for you!!

I'm concerned. not for humanity, but for you!!
Why? Because I can't believe an 18 year old male (biologically DESIGNED to mate) has no sex drive?

I think you're completly missunderstanding what evolution is!!

Evolution is the success of those best adapted to reproduce in their environment.
that environment includes other member of the species BTW.

It is not the breeding of people we deem to be inteligent by the social standards we have created for ourselves.

Statistically "successful" families, those above the poverty line in the world produce 1.8 children, this is below the selection level for their genes so they will die out.

Those below the poverty line produce an average of 4.6 children, since many below the poverty line are in third world contries with poor contraception methods.

So the poor are better suited to reproduce in this environment.
Evoution selects based on it's own criteria, not what mankind, American Values or the president says we should be. It's the true freedom of the world.
Alas, the poor do not reproduce because "they can". Most often they reproduce because they must, to secure their future or to get enough family members to keep the entire family alive. Best suited for reproduction are millionaires and richer people who can afford buying whatever they want and who do not have to care about the daily worries of the average joe. This does not necessarily include genetical disposition, but environmental circumstances which are good for reproduction. Whereas the environment of a third world country, cannot be considered good for reproduction at all, seeing the starvation levels and poverty of people there.

The further back you go in American history the more it is (both politicly and socialy) dominated by christian beliefs. Due to this things seen as moraly wrong such as homosexuality and such , was also heavly frowned apon. I.e. there may have been as many homosexuals , but fewer were willing to openly express it and may have even had a wife and children in order to fit in.

That is of course the case, but american history is the tip of the ice-burg.
I'm europe, you know Europe, where the real history comes from, castles and all.

Christianity is not alone though. all major religions, except budism, rule against homosexuality. Thats natural as the majority don't like people differant to them and the majority has always been hetrosexual. plus it makes sence in evolotion to not have same sex couples as without advanced science they would die out.
hence if any religion that encoraged homosexuality, would not exist today, just as christian groups who enforce strict celibacy for all members died out over the last 300 years,

Alas, the poor do not reproduce because "they can". Most often they reproduce because they must, to secure their future or to get enough family members to keep the entire family alive. Best suited for reproduction are millionaires and richer people who can afford buying whatever they want and who do not have to care about the daily worries of the average joe. This does not necessarily include genetical disposition, but environmental circumstances which are good for reproduction. Whereas the environment of a third world country, cannot be considered good for reproduction at all, seeing the starvation levels and poverty of people there.

but you see the fact that they DO reproduce proves you wrong.
best suited are millionares by your standards, but evololtion picks it's own rules.
you live and pass on your genes, they live and pass on theirs... thus evololution picked you as the winner...

mankind did not create evololution, we just observe it's effects.

As am I. An 18 year old male with no sexual desire? I would get that looked into, however you say it is a complete lack of sex drive? Do these people not even masturbate?

-Phil.
Let me correct myself...
I've no interest in reproducing any time in the near future...which is really the issue at hand...reproduction, not sex.

You said you have no interest in sex, not reproduction. Personally I have no plans to marry or have children. Signs of the changing times perhaps. But you said no interest in sex, not reproduction.

What of these asexual people, you say they have no sex drive, I find a man without ANY sex drive must have some kind of medical issue.

-Phil.

The further back you go in American history the more it is (both politicly and socialy) dominated by christian beliefs. Due to this things seen as moraly wrong such as homosexuality and such , was also heavly frowned apon. I.e. there may have been as many homosexuals , but fewer were willing to openly express it and may have even had a wife and children in order to fit in.
You're splitting your initial argument.

Your initial argument is that humans are devolving into a less intelligent species based off the premise that less intelligent people breed more. The evidence you present (career-drive, homosexuality, asexuality) merely backs up your argument, but it's not the argument itself. So whether or not homosexuality was as dominant way back whenever does not change your original premise that less intilligent people breed more. There is no connection between sexual preference and intelligence.

Asexual: Solo reproduction. No human is asexual because it would involve someone producing an egg, fertalising it and then having the child without any outside intervention.

-Phil.

It is possible to have the DNA removed from a Sperm and replaced with that from an Egg.
This sperm could theoretically fertilise another egg.
Thus, Asexual reproduction.

This has all been done, it's not theory, execpt the actual fertilisation.

Scary huh?

As am I. An 18 year old male with no sexual desire? I would get that looked into, however you say it is a complete lack of sex drive? Do these people not even masturbate?

-Phil.

Asexual people are not the same as people who lack sex drive due to health problems, they simply do not feel sexual attraction. Some apparently masturbate, so they're not impotent or anything.

What we have in the human race is not evolution though. They pass on their genes, but not because they are more suitable to survive, but rather because they must to survive themselves. It is an investment in their own future, not much the future of their children. Evolution, as the word suggests, is the growth of a species by passing on helpful genes which help individuals survive in any given environment. In today's world, it would be evolution if a business man/woman could pass on his/her business sense or greed for making a lot of money to his/her children. However considering the rapid speed at which our own species advances technically and thus negating the need for evolution in itself, this is not possible because evolution takes long and mutations of genes need to be passed on through several generations to manifest themselves permanently. If our species were to evolve any further, it would be, a reduction of our sexual desire as we see it, due to the overpopulation of the planet by humans. However, considering the short timespan the human species has been on this planet and considering the timespan life needed to get where it is, it is unlikely that any of us will see any significant evolution progress in our own species.

You said you have no interest in sex, not reproduction. Personally I have no plans to marry or have children. Signs of the changing times perhaps. But you said no interest in sex, not reproduction.

...

-Phil.
Which is why I correct myself jackass.

Firstly, don't be so petty as to resort to childish name calling.

Secondly, where did you correct yourself?

Thirdly, taking sperm and placing it inside the egg is outside interference.

Finally I questioned why some people are saying they lack ALL types of physical attraction to anyone or anything, and yet some say it is the lack of any sexual drive. Lacking the sex drive is a genetic problem.

-Phil.

Those people that produce the most children are poorer, not stupider.

The poor have been producing the most children from hundreds of years and yet human advancment has not stopped.

You see, we're not split into two classes that don't mix. The smart poor could have a family tree that leads to a millionare. The powerful famous person could produce stupid people. (any one thinking about old Gerry Ford now?)

You see it's just some of each generation that propel us forward, and the poor are the ones producing the next generation of Presidents and genuises, atleast in evolutionary time scales..

Never mind I see the correction.

-Phil.

Will you cut out the "-Phil"? Please?

It is something of a habit, I normally have a set sig on each forums thus I have to type -Phil myself and it is a habit. If you do not like it, ignore it.

-Phil.

if you two are gonna keep flirting can you do it in a flirting forum?
not here?

It is something of a habit, I normally have a set sig on each forums thus I have to type -Phil myself and it is a habit. If you do not like it, ignore it.

-Phil.
Why not set your NS sig?

Originally Posted by Zonamar
however, in those previous revolutions there was always a strong social and political reasons for people not to do somthing out of the ordinary.

What?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonamar
The further back you go in American history the more it is (both politicly and socialy) dominated by christian beliefs. Due to this things seen as moraly wrong such as homosexuality and such , was also heavly frowned apon. I.e. there may have been as many homosexuals , but fewer were willing to openly express it and may have even had a wife and children in order to fit in.

You're splitting your initial argument.

Your initial argument is that humans are devolving into a less intelligent species based off the premise that less intelligent people breed more. The evidence you present (career-drive, homosexuality, asexuality) merely backs up your argument, but it's not the argument itself. So whether or not homosexuality was as dominant way back whenever does not change your original premise that less intilligent people breed more. There is no connection between sexual preference and intelligence.



Yes but I did not see that as what you were asking about.

To that idea, it will really depend on how the political side of things happen ,if the USA changes into a type of socialism or somthing close to it where the less motivated and less inteligent people are able to get by then they might not have the incentive to finish highschool or collage. If they are put into a position that they aren't able to get by then it might work out. But I knew quite a few people that worked at sonic as cooks ,back when I was an ast. Manager there ,that were compleatly happy being cooks and didnt really wana change.

It is something of a habit, I normally have a set sig on each forums thus I have to type -Phil myself and it is a habit. If you do not like it, ignore it.

-Phil.
It's just that My mind warps it into "-Dr. Phil" so I think you're actually quoting the man (my god)

Yes but I did not see that as what you were asking about.

To that idea, it will really depend on how the political side of things happen ,if the USA changes into a type of socialism or somthing close to it where the less motivated and less inteligent people are able to get by then they might not have the incentive to finish highschool or collage. If they are put into a position that they aren't able to get by then it might work out. But I knew quite a few people that worked at sonic as cooks back when I was an ast. Manager there that were compleatly happy being cooks and didnt really wana change.
1) America isn't changing any time soon...
2) ...I'm pretty sure that the world needs cooks...
3) You can't have 100% of the population as intelligent people. Everyone has their strengths and their weaknesses. I think the American system allows people to play off their strengths and weeknesses pretty effectively. There will always be capable people to fill the positions of researchers, scientists, politicians, etcetera.

+ there will be a fair chunk of people that will not be having children
due to it getting in the way of their Careers
+ another group that can't have children because they chose to be with
the person of the same sex
+ another group that wont (or very much less likey) have children
because they arent sexualy intrested in ANYTHING(http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/scienc...tudy/index.html
)

+ and you have the generaly less inteligent people who arnt smart enuff
to use preventive material to keep them from getting pregnate and then
having their children go out and do the same thing b/c of the situation
they are in and 1 not knowing any better and 2 not really being albe to
figure it out b/c they have their parents DNA that oviously didnt help
them out.




so the Career focused people, homosexuals , and asexual will die out and
the less intelegent and less motivated of the race will grow rapidly ....
any one see a problem here?
a common misconception is that natural selection favors whoever produces the most babies. this is, in fact, not the case; selection favors whoever can produce the most SUCCESSFUL babies. the stupid breeders in the world may be able to make tons of babies, but that's because the intelligent people produce kids who can take on 10 stupids with ease.

1) America isn't changing any time soon...
2) ...I'm pretty sure that the world needs cooks...
3) You can't have 100% of the population as intelligent people. Everyone has their strengths and their weaknesses. I think the American system allows people to play off their strengths and weeknesses pretty effectively. There will always be capable people to fill the positions of researchers, scientists, politicians, etcetera.

1- could be, supposably(not tying to make this politcal) Kerry's health care plan will cover all Americans witch would be a step in that direction. Medication and other such health care is becoming more avalible to the poor because of government aid.

2 - ...Yes but I was going more with they were happy making $6 and probly would be for the rest of their lives. Not just saying they liked beeing cooks (at that place burger flipers and fri shakers)

3 - Yes, but inteligence has been proven to be at least somewhat geneticly passed , and if school gets to "hard" *laugh* and they know that it is feasalbe for them to just get a job at the local fast food joint and make it with out any real problem, why go threw years of collage and do somthing that will be just as mentaly difficult when they can do mindless stuff and be just fine.

a common misconception is that natural selection favors whoever produces the most babies. this is, in fact, not the case; selection favors whoever can produce the most SUCCESSFUL babies. the stupid breeders in the world may be able to make tons of babies, but that's because the intelligent people produce kids who can take on 10 stupids with ease.

Take them on?, In compitition for a job - heck ya, in being able to produce more children - not a chance.

Take them on?, In compitition for a job - heck ya, in being able to produce more children - not a chance.
but that is my point; who CARES who produces the most children? that's not the measure of success, and intelligent people are (by virtue of their easy domination of the stupid) not in any danger of dying out.

but that is my point; who CARES who produces the most children? that's not the measure of success, and intelligent people are (by virtue of their easy domination of the stupid) not in any danger of dying out.

My original statement was that more and more of the "Successfull" ones are waiting till they have gotten a career , witch for some females is to late to reproduce.

My original statement was that more and more of the "Successfull" ones are waiting till they have gotten a career , witch for some females is to late to reproduce.
yes, i realize that. did you read my posts?

yes, the more educated a woman is the fewer children she will have, and the later she will have them. so what?! this means that intelligent people have fewer babies. but their babies are a) more likely to survive to adulthood, b) more likely to have successful families of their own, and c) endowed with lifespans that are significantly longer than that of the stupids' children.

quality versus quantity, my friend. the stupids may breed like rabbits, but the smarts aren't in the slightest danger of extinction.

yes, i realize that. did you read my posts?

yes, the more educated a woman is the fewer children she will have, and the later she will have them. so what?! this means that intelligent people have fewer babies. but their babies are a) more likely to survive to adulthood, b) more likely to have successful families of their own, and c) endowed with lifespans that are significantly longer than that of the stupids' children.

quality versus quantity, my friend. the stupids may breed like rabbits, but the smarts aren't in the slightest danger of extinction.

yes , however, the government is working hard to make it so that the poor can get health care and so they will be able to keep up with length of life, Quality of life will suck, but they will live.

Not always, The longer a woman waits the less likely she will be able to bare children.

Finally I questioned why some people are saying they lack ALL types of physical attraction to anyone or anything, and yet some say it is the lack of any sexual drive. Lacking the sex drive is a genetic problem.



You can't really just define human asexuality as one constant. Some asexuals have sex drives some don't, the main idea is that they don't feel sexual attraction to other people. There are a lot of ranges for people who identify as asexual.

I personally am a 16-year-old female who identifies as asexual. I feel no sexual attraction to other people, though do harbour romantic feelings for a certain person, and I have no desire to have sex. Even beyond that, I have little to no urge for any sexually related activities. This is not true for all asexuals.

Also, I wouldn't call it a genetic disorder since 1) I experienced some form of a sex drive through puberty and 2) Asexuality isn't necessarily permanent.

If you're looking for some information on asexuals you may want to check out this site, it's fairly helpful: http://www.asexuality.org/info.htm

Kill off the stupid by removing pointless warning signs.
Like one near me which says 'wait for green man to cross'.

To suggest evolution is going the wrong way, is akin to suggesting that the wrong sun keeps rising. There is no wrong sun in this solar system, and there is no wrong 'evolutionary direction'. Whether or not the direction of evolution is pleasing to humans is not relevent to anything other than to humans. Whatever direction and speed evolutions moves at is the direction and speed of evolution, right and wrong are misapplied concepts within this context.

Kill off the stupid by removing pointless warning signs.
Like one near me which says 'wait for green man to cross'.
Huh?!

Doesn't this entire thread presuppose that asexuality, homosexuality, and intelligence are hereditary, which they obviously are not.

Social darwinism is bullshit.

C - .... i have no idea what to do with them but there are to many of them and it makes for easier mas-histaria

Less safety features and warning labels. What ever happened to baby walkers? A few people who are too stupid to keep their infants from wandering off the stairs don't have kids that reach adulthood. That's natural selection in the 20th century. Same goes for lawn darts, fast traffic lights, and drain cleaner stored under the sink. :D

Not always, The longer a woman waits the less likely she will be able to bare children.

There is some evidence that the longer a woman waits to concieve the longer she lives, the longer her offspring remain fertile, and the more long lived her descendents. The have never studied this in actual humans though so the fact that only humans have menopause may throw a wrench in things.

And to add to all this debate, who says we NEED to keep pumping out babies? We're pretty populous already.
That means nothing. People get older, and if we can't keep up our population and it continues to fall our military, economy, and everything will crumble.

To suggest evolution is going the wrong way, is akin to suggesting that the wrong sun keeps rising. There is no wrong sun in this solar system, and there is no wrong 'evolutionary direction'. Whether or not the direction of evolution is pleasing to humans is not relevent to anything other than to humans. Whatever direction and speed evolutions moves at is the direction and speed of evolution, right and wrong are misapplied concepts within this context.

Props. It's like a dinosaur making the case that evolution has a history of unfairly discriminating against the cold-blooded. (Where's the ACLU when you need 'em?)

Props. It's like a dinosaur making the case that evolution has a history of unfairly discriminating against the cold-blooded. (Where's the ACLU when you need 'em?)

Dinosaurs were not ectotherms. They were endotherms.

Less safety features and warning labels. What ever happened to baby walkers? A few people who are too stupid to keep their infants from wandering off the stairs don't have kids that reach adulthood. That's natural selection in the 20th century. Same goes for lawn darts, fast traffic lights, and drain cleaner stored under the sink. :D Quickly! Back to the trees, my brethren!

B - No , im saying that it is near imposible for a homosexual couple to reproduce , it is posible but very costly and no very practical


O_o

You know, before fertility clinics, women who wanted kids without husbands asked male friends to impregnante them...

+ there will be a fair chunk of people that will not be having children
due to it getting in the way of their Careers
+ another group that can't have children because they chose to be with
the person of the same sex
+ another group that wont (or very much less likey) have children
because they arent sexualy intrested in ANYTHING(http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/scienc...tudy/index.html
)

+ and you have the generaly less inteligent people who arnt smart enuff
to use preventive material to keep them from getting pregnate and then
having their children go out and do the same thing b/c of the situation
they are in and 1 not knowing any better and 2 not really being albe to
figure it out b/c they have their parents DNA that oviously didnt help
them out.




so the Career focused people, homosexuals , and asexual will die out and
the less intelegent and less motivated of the race will grow rapidly ....
any one see a problem here?
Like entropy?

To suggest evolution is going the wrong way, is akin to suggesting that the wrong sun keeps rising. There is no wrong sun in this solar system, and there is no wrong 'evolutionary direction'. Whether or not the direction of evolution is pleasing to humans is not relevent to anything other than to humans. Whatever direction and speed evolutions moves at is the direction and speed of evolution, right and wrong are misapplied concepts within this context.
Actually, it's not like the wrong sun rises. There is a wrong "evolutionary direction" too. In fact, it isn't possible for evolution to go the wrong way. Evolution adapts to the current situation of the species, and, most of the time, the full change happens to late for any benefit to come of it. But there isn't some guy named Larry in New York City saying "Unhhh, let's see what 'appens *hic* when I turn th' dial th' other way *snort*

:mp5: