A few thoughts after watching Idiocracy

[Imdmn04]

I saw the movie Idiocracy, although the movie is pretty cheesy itself, it does provoke some thoughts about our future.

Should we have incentives (tax, benefits, etc.) given to those that are highly educated (doctors, scientists, etc.)? I feel as we move toward an intellectual/information driven economy, we definitely need a higher educated labor force in the future. Lots of highly educated people are so occupied with their career that they do not have the time or energy to raise a family. Are you willing (knowing that it may or may not benefit you directly) to let your tax dollars go to incentives like healthcare, childcare, higher-education for these people's kids?

We already subsidize those that have children through tax breaks, but can we take it one step further by providing additional incentives to the group whose children are likely to enhance our labor force's competitiveness in the world economy tomorrow?

Obviously the pro to this idea is that we will get a higher proportion of smarter people in the future population, but there are also lots of cons that I can think of:

Poor people at a relative disadvantage
Not all educated people know how to raise useful members of society, even if assistance is provided.
Rich gets richer, creating a greater economic divide

Thoughts?

 

[Leros]

Neo-feudalism?

 

[nervegrind3r]

gattaca?

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: nervegrind3r
gattaca?

i liked a Brave New World better

 

[Jeff7]

Interesting thought.

That's the funny thing, those who have the foresight to know that raising good, respectful, productive offspring are also those who know that it's a bad idea to breed in litters. One family near where I grew up, I think the husband got his wife pregnant right after she'd finished delivering the previous one. Constantly there would be new "It's a Boy!" sign on their door. I think they were breeding an army worthy of Mordor in there.

Just another hick farming family, breeding more farmhands. Or else they had some silly religious objection to using birth control. Yeah, be fruitful and multiply until it's standing room only.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Interesting thought.

That's the funny thing, those who have the foresight to know that raising good, respectful, productive offspring are also those who know that it's a bad idea to breed in litters. One family near where I grew up, I think the husband got his wife pregnant right after she'd finished delivering the previous one. Constantly there would be new "It's a Boy!" sign on their door. I think they were breeding an army worthy of Mordor in there.

Just another hick farming family, breeding more farmhands. Or else they had some silly religious objection to using birth control. Yeah, be fruitful and multiply until it's standing room only.

You grew up near the Duggars?

 

[jpeyton]

People of all types will always reproduce. Why not create even more incentives to become educated instead?

 

[Auggie]

meh, it's a stupid question and proposition, in my opinion. my mom grew up on a farm in west virginia. as her son, I'm getting a phd in molecular genetics. if we want to cultivate more intellectualism rather than blue collar and unskilled labor, we should trash the whole "urban hip hop" thing that's keeping many latino and african american youths acting like retarded thugsters, and find a way to get suburban kids thinking about something other than House, Gray's Anatomy and World of Warcraft.

besides, you have to make personal sacrifices in order to excel for 23+ years in school to wind up with a good degree that will put you on the cutting edge of any field - it usually means you can't marry until you're 30, rather than just grabbing a high school or four-year Bachelor's degree then jumping into professional/working life and marrying - it's a lot harder to have kids, and most couples are finding they don't want more than a single child, so they can keep their jobs (and themselves) the number one priority.

 

[miketheidiot]

more maternity leave, free public education so people can spend more time breeding and less time working, stop people from listening to country/rap/thug shit that idealizes ignorance.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Imdmn04
I saw the movie Idiocracy, although the movie is pretty cheesy itself, it does provoke some thoughts about our future.

Should we have incentives (tax, benefits, etc.) given to those that are highly educated (doctors, scientists, etc.)? I feel as we move toward an intellectual/information driven economy, we definitely need a higher educated labor force in the future. Lots of highly educated people are so occupied with their career that they do not have the time or energy to raise a family. Are you willing (knowing that it may or may not benefit you directly) to let your tax dollars go to incentives like healthcare, childcare, higher-education for these people's kids?

We already subsidize those that have children through tax breaks, but can we take it one step further by providing additional incentives to the group whose children are likely to enhance our labor force's competitiveness in the world economy tomorrow?

Obviously the pro to this idea is that we will get a higher proportion of smarter people in the future population, but there are also lots of cons that I can think of:

Poor people at a relative disadvantage
Not all educated people know how to raise useful members of society, even if assistance is provided.
Rich gets richer, creating a greater economic divide

Thoughts?

Given overpopulation we should start de-incentivizing children. The more you have, the more you pay (into an education fund?). Influences the top wage earners (and the most educated) to have more kids. And no, I don't want my money going to support people who feel they need to have kids.

^^^
not a serious suggestion because of all the flaws such a plan would necessarily include

 

[nervegrind3r]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Interesting thought.

That's the funny thing, those who have the foresight to know that raising good, respectful, productive offspring are also those who know that it's a bad idea to breed in litters. One family near where I grew up, I think the husband got his wife pregnant right after she'd finished delivering the previous one. Constantly there would be new "It's a Boy!" sign on their door. I think they were breeding an army worthy of Mordor in there.

Just another hick farming family, breeding more farmhands. Or else they had some silly religious objection to using birth control. Yeah, be fruitful and multiply until it's standing room only.

You grew up near the Duggars?

thanks for the link man, I downloaded that directory, some funny shit in there

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

You grew up near the Duggars?

Damn close, except that'd be all boys, with one girl.

Though they probably had more since I moved away.

 

[Imdmn04]

Originally posted by: Auggie
meh, it's a stupid question and proposition, in my opinion. my mom grew up on a farm in west virginia. as her son, I'm getting a phd in molecular genetics. if we want to cultivate more intellectualism rather than blue collar and unskilled labor, we should trash the whole "urban hip hop" thing that's keeping many latino and african american youths acting like retarded thugsters, and find a way to get suburban kids thinking about something other than House, Gray's Anatomy and World of Warcraft.

You did not really state a valid argument to support your stance. You growing up on a farm and becoming a PhD is irrelevant to the proposition. I did not imply that country kids should not be allowed to (or cannot) become educated. Rather, I questioned whether we should provide incentives to the educated to make it worth their while to reproduce.

This "Urban hip hop" thing you mentioned is also irrelevant to your stance. This is the 21st century, hip hop is just a form of entertainment, so are TV shows, plenty of kids that follow pop culture goes to Ivy League schools.

Originally posted by: Auggie
besides, you have to make personal sacrifices in order to excel for 23+ years in school to wind up with a good degree that will put you on the cutting edge of any field - it usually means you can't marry until you're 30, rather than just grabbing a high school or four-year Bachelor's degree then jumping into professional/working life and marrying - it's a lot harder to have kids, and most couples are finding they don't want more than a single child, so they can keep their jobs (and themselves) the number one priority.

That is the reason for the incentives.

 

[Imdmn04]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
People of all types will always reproduce. Why not create even more incentives to become educated instead?

Chicken and egg question.

If everybody becomes educated, everybody decides to have less or no kids. Population dwindles.

 

[mugs]

Maybe instead we should stop providing so much incentive for poor people to breed.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Jus Primae Noctis for the intelligentsia? Show up at the wedding with a Mensa Card and preempt the honeymoon?

Medical advances have doomed humanity to devolution. Live with it.

 

[Auryg]

Originally posted by: mugs
Maybe instead we should stop providing so much incentive for poor people to breed.

I agree - this is the first step. Do this first, and then see what else needs to be done. Personally, I'm tired of people complaining about the world's "upcoming" overpopulation; I think we're overpopulated the way it is. The whole world needs an 'only replace yourself' (2 kids per couple..would need more details, obviously) policy on breeding, which would maybe help natural selection take it's course again somewhat as the less intelligent will probably have to take slightly more dangerous jobs.

If the population drops due to war, famine, etc., then the ban on extra children could be suspended. If you have an extra, you'd either have considerably higher taxes or you can give it up for adoption free of charge (so there's no coathanger shenanigans).

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Imdmn04

Originally posted by: jpeyton
People of all types will always reproduce. Why not create even more incentives to become educated instead?

Chicken and egg question.

If everybody becomes educated, everybody decides to have less or no kids. Population dwindles.

Good. Our growth rate isn't sustainable, especially with the new ways modern medicine is managing to keep us alive longer than ever before.

 

[Imdmn04]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Imdmn04

Originally posted by: jpeyton
People of all types will always reproduce. Why not create even more incentives to become educated instead?

Chicken and egg question.

If everybody becomes educated, everybody decides to have less or no kids. Population dwindles.

Good. Our growth rate isn't sustainable, especially with the new ways modern medicine is managing to keep us alive longer than ever before.

That may be good for the near term (next 100 years or so), but that sort of decrease in population is not sustainable for the long term.

If every couple on average produced 1 kid, in just 10-12 generations, 300mil population will dwindle down to approx. only 300k.

 

[judasmachine]

It's still possible for less intelligent people to have an intelligent child, and vice versa.

 

[her209]

Because the religious peeps will go nuts!

 

[Zolty]

I think there was a group of Europeans who tried something similar around 1930-1945 or so.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Zolty
I think there was a group of Europeans who tried something similar around 1930-1945 or so.

Godwin's Law

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Zolty
I think there was a group of Europeans who tried something similar around 1930-1945 or so.

Godwin's Law

I don't think the reference was sufficiently direct to invoke Godwin.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Zolty
I think there was a group of Europeans who tried something similar around 1930-1945 or so.

Eugenics preceded Nazism by decades.