poor horatio

good for the poker community then.

The study I remember seeing was that the more intelligent you were, the less sex you had. This would seem to go hand-in-hand with that.

/grunch

whoa there, Kemosabe. Where's the other half of the stupid equation?

I don't think Corolla's idea is a bad one, it's just that it's totally unrealistic.

You can't pass a law that enforces birth control in a democratic country. By the time that overpopulation has become a serious problem, the majority of the population will not be in favor of regulating birth control. DUCY?

op,

the fact that you appear surprised to learn this does not bode well for your position on various spectrums.

fyp. You're welcome.

No one would force anything. You want money? Ok, you gotta get this shot.

I don't think it's a bad idea. I just don't think any regulations like this could ever pass in a democratic country. It reeks too much of eugenics. It won't become a national issue until the people who are threatened by these regulations are an overwhelming majority. And once they are that much of a majority, the law won't pass.

The inherent problem with democracy is that people don't generally vote for what's best for the country--they vote for what's best for themselves. (see Prisoner's Dilemma)

This is the second politics thread the OP has sneaked in here this week. This aggression will not stand, man.

What's the point of earning a university degree if you're going to torpedo your professional prospects by bearing a litter of children upon graduation?

Mostly so you can find a husband who doesn't work at McDonald's?

genetic manipulation

Causation-correlation fallacy.

/thread

You'd be surprised at the popularity of it here. What really matters is whether or not politicians would support it, not the people. Democrats would never pass it since it would cut into one of their core constituencies. People who favor this would care less about it than people who would be "hurt" by this.

I can't imagine why anybody would possibly be worried about this

I'm a bit skeptical of the study. It's possible the entire difference is in the less-intelligent women being less faithful with the birth control. I just skimmed it so I might be wrong, but I doubt there's an airtight control for making sure they all took their BC every time they were supposed to.

The conclusions "dumber women do dumb things like have unprotected sex more often than smarter women" and "smarter women are usually richer women, and richer women have better things to do than crank out kids," are much, much more intuitive than "dumber women are more fertile." And I really doubt this study presents much real evidence to convince anyone to believe the less intuitive thing.

Anyhow, not to be too harsh but dumb people have little effect on anything in the bigger world. Why do we care if the dumb population increases?

you are either misunderstanding my post or responding to someone else.

...
people with lower IQs are generally more incompetent than those with high IQs.

I think it's ironic that OP cant figure out how to resize an image for the web.

why would I bother doing that when the forum automatically does it?

I can see people are angry that I seem to be speaking ill of the uneducated and unintelligent as if they are not as valuable to society...

Who cares what happens 500 years from now? Unless you get stuck in a time traveling coffin from a secret Army program that gets forgotten about, why would it matter?

Given your total misunderstanding of what you read, you're not one of us. You're one of them.