why do we encourage poor people to reproduce?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
so what's the problem? are you selfish that you can't reach out a helping hand to your less fortunate fellow man? some bloodlines are just more evolved, smarter, better at succeeding in life... we dont get to pick who we'll be before we're born...

Everyone is selfish.

The problem is with definition of "less fortunate". Deciding to have children you cannot afford does not make you less fortunate.

Although from your talk of blood lines it seems you are using "less fortunate" as code for inferior.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
Why do we encourage you to crash your car by giving you medical care? Clearly the better policy is to not provide you any care.

Would have expected a better argument out of you, Craig.
Getting pregnant knowing that you can't afford a child is a purposeful decision. Crashing your car is typically an accident . .
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
Everyone is selfish.

The problem is with definition of "less fortunate". Deciding to have children you cannot afford does not make you less fortunate.

Although from your talk of blood lines it seems you are using "less fortunate" as code for inferior.

i am using it as inferior.. inferior in the field of making money and being successful...

doesnt take anything away from the value of there life, it's just the way things are.. so, we need to have welfare programs to make sure nobody goes hungry, and they should reproduce as much as they can, that's how evolution works, the more phenotypes, the more room for genetic mutation and evolution, so having more children will actually cause them to "catch up" and bridge the distance quicker...another great thing is the diversity involved in these lower wealth individuals, that makes room for the evolution of beauty/ability to attract mates, you got worn out rotten stock, diversity shows up, bam, new phenotypes, cleanses the gene pool.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
As an above poster said, birth rates in poor areas of Africa area also high and they presumably do not have a social net like we have here. The fact that the poor KNOWINGLY have children that they cannot afford is because they are selfish and do not respect the American people that work to pay taxes to help them. What is the other logical reason?

By giving them an "out" we essencially are assuming responsibility for their actions. It's detrimental to our society to perpetuate this cycle. What do we do with someone who steals? That sounds detrimental to our society, thus we have deemed there should be a punishment . . . the only difference is one is against the law the other is not. .
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
i am using it as inferior.. inferior in the field of making money and being successful...

doesnt take anything away from the value of there life, it's just the way things are.. so, we need to have welfare programs to make sure nobody goes hungry, and they should reproduce as much as they can, that's how evolution works, the more phenotypes, the more room for genetic mutation and evolution, so having more children will actually cause them to "catch up" and bridge the distance quicker...another great thing is the diversity involved in these lower wealth individuals, that makes room for the evolution of beauty/ability to attract mates, you got worn out rotten stock, diversity shows up, bam, new phenotypes, cleanses the gene pool.

Umm, no. That is not how evolution works. Evolution works by inferior organisms not reproducing, or reproducing in smaller numbers, than the successful ones.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
Umm, no. That is not how evolution works. Evolution works by inferior organisms not reproducing, or reproducing in smaller numbers, than the successful ones.

we see how well that model fits what's reality huh?

lol

you sir, are confused, why would the birthrates be higher in poor africa and in our lowest income areas? because the people are selfish? orrrrrrrrrrrrrr... because that's how this world works, the lowest on the rung will produce the most phentotypes to improve the chances that maybe one will survive...but, we're humans, and one day we will be completely eco-efficient, so there's no reason to let anyone die anymore, we just need to fix these problems keeping us from being eco-efficient, corruption, namely, as long as the corrupt monopoly on energy/other resources are in place, we will move at a slow crawl, overpopulation will happen, people will complain because they dont see the big picture, all they see is my money my wallet, my taxes... when the truth is, this is just part of becoming the type of advanced civilizatin we are becoming, it's gonna be hard, we may have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to feed the less fortunate, but that's better than creating a situation where they are demonized, and thus slowing the process down even more.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
As an above poster said, birth rates in poor areas of Africa area also high and they presumably do not have a social net like we have here. The fact that the poor KNOWINGLY have children that they cannot afford is because they are selfish and do not respect the American people that work to pay taxes to help them. What is the other logical reason?

By giving them an "out" we essencially are assuming responsibility for their actions. It's detrimental to our society to perpetuate this cycle. What do we do with someone who steals? That sounds detrimental to our society, thus we have deemed there should be a punishment . . . the only difference is one is against the law the other is not. .

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

This exactly.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
we see how well that model fits what's reality huh?

lol

you sir, are confused, why would the birthrates be higher in poor africa and in our lowest income areas? because the people are selfish? orrrrrrrrrrrrrr... because that's how this world works, the lowest on the rung will produce the most phentotypes to improve the chances that maybe one will survive...but, we're humans, and one day we will be completely eco-efficient, so there's no reason to let anyone die anymore, we just need to fix these problems keeping us from being eco-efficient, corruption, namely, as long as the corrupt monopoly on energy/other resources are in place, we will move at a slow crawl, overpopulation will happen, people will complain because they dont see the big picture, all they see is my money my wallet, my taxes... when the truth is, this is just part of becoming the type of advanced civilizatin we are becoming, it's gonna be hard, we may have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to feed the less fortunate, but that's better than creating a situation where they are demonized, and thus slowing the process down even more.

Just like in the movie Idiocracy? Saw how that turned out ;-)

Why not only have one child so you can dedicate all of your efforts into helping him/her succeeed? You can afford to feed and clothe them, send them to school. Maybe get a degree and get out of poverty. Do you think it's easier to bring ONE child to success, or EIGHT?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Just like in the movie Idiocracy? Saw how that turned out ;-)

Why not only have one child so you can dedicate all of your efforts into helping him/her succeeed? You can afford to feed and clothe them, send them to school. Maybe get a degree and get out of poverty. Do you think it's easier to bring ONE child to success, or EIGHT?

I recall learning in Freshman college biology that different species have different reproductive strategies. Some will have a ton of kids and invest little in each individually, so a lot die, but enough survive the perpetuate the species. Whereas others, will have a few, but invest a lot in each individually, so that few survive.

So the poor people are simply practicing a different reproductive strategy.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
Just like in the movie Idiocracy? Saw how that turned out ;-)

Why not only have one child so you can dedicate all of your efforts into helping him/her succeeed? You can afford to feed and clothe them, send them to school. Maybe get a degree and get out of poverty. Do you think it's easier to bring ONE child to success, or EIGHT?

your still thinking to small, it's just human nature, its not even remotely feasible to think people are gonna have one kid and stop, that's even more outlandish than the thought of trying to somehow enforce that with legislature.. we see how well that worked out for you know who, forced em to sell there daughters into prostitution, so they could have a son to carry the name on, evil builds upon evil. there's really no other way, there's no way to stop people from having 10 kids, it's just nature. lower chance of survival, number of offspring is directly effected, on a subconscious/primal level. in short, they'll get hornier.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
your still thinking to small, it's just human nature, its not even remotely feasible to think people are gonna have one kid and stop, that's even more outlandish than the thought of trying to somehow enforce that with legislature.. we see how well that worked out for you know who, forced em to sell there daughters into prostitution, so they could have a son to carry the name on, evil builds upon evil. there's really no other way, there's no way to stop people from having 10 kids, it's just nature. lower chance of survival, number of offspring is directly effected, on a subconscious/primal level. in short, they'll get hornier.

It is also human nature to punch someone in the face when they piss you off. But we passed laws against that, because it is bad for society to allow people to punch each other whenever they get mad.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
It is also human nature to punch someone in the face when they piss you off. But we passed laws against that, because it is bad for society to allow people to punch each other whenever they get mad.

lets compare the two.. punching someone in the face, who does that help? nothing but negativity, compared to... the enigma, and beauty, that is human life...

yep your right, good comparison..lol

what your missing is that, even though you cant think on a big enough timespan, the way it is, is the way it is, those are sacred, devine rules, that we follow because they are programmed into our DNA, because, on a large enough time scale, it actually isn't bad for society.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
lets compare the two.. punching someone in the face, who does that help? nothing but negativity, compared to... the enigma, and beauty, that is human life...

yep your right, good comparison..lol

what your missing is that, even though you cant think on a big enough timespan, the way it is, is the way it is, those are sacred, devine rules, that we follow because they are programmed into our DNA, because, on a large enough time scale, it actually isn't bad for society.

Someone has clearly never seen idiocracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
And here boys and girls is why we'll never substantially reform medicaid and continue to have generation after generation birthing as many as they please, ensnared by the idea that having children you won't be financially responsible for is a right of entitlement.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
And here boys and girls is why we'll never substantially reform medicaid and continue to have generation after generation birthing as many as they please, ensnared by the idea that having children you won't be financially responsible for is a right of entitlement.

can't beat it, might as well join it.. we aint rewriting our dna anytime soon...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
can't beat it, might as well join it.. we aint rewriting our dna anytime soon...

Perhaps, but the whole question is wrong. I think a more constructive statement would be to ask what must be done to have people get a job that pays and make sure they make use of that opportunity. Thats not as much fun though.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
nah i've never seen it, what i posted comes from lots and lots and lots of reading dawkins...

That is your problem...Dawkins turns into a raving lunatic as soon as religion is mentioned. He believes it is better to sexually molest children than to teach the children about religion.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
Perhaps, but the whole question is wrong. I think a more constructive statement would be to ask what must be done to have people get a job that pays and make sure they make use of that opportunity. Thats not as much fun though.

true story, the system def. needs improvement, i really wish something like in during the great depression, when they just got out there and starting fixing streets/rebuilding infrastructure, could happen, it feels like the economy is improving though now finally, if we could somehow blend the welfare state with a program like that, i think we'd be in business,
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
That is your problem...Dawkins turns into a raving lunatic as soon as religion is mentioned. He believes it is better to sexually molest children than to teach the children about religion.

yeah i dont particularly like his religious views, in the blind watchmaker i thought he was gonna finally convince himself that there is a God, he likes to use huge numbers and stats to make things/try ton convince himself of a certain thing... but he's a smart guy when it comes to evolution
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Oh snap!

This is quite simple actually...

Given that not all the rich people are Conservative we've not a political issue but, rather, a financial one.

That then creates a legitimate State need to control the Economic and Social welfare of our citizenry... It should easily pass judicial muster even though there is a fundamental Right to a suspect class involved... Only thing to decide is the level of wealth, the estimated continued flow of income and the ability of the parents to elect one of them to care for the child(ren)...

I propose a net worth of 1m $ an income of 100000$ per year and setting up a bond scheme to insure against job loss or transfer scenarios... this and a contract enforceable by the State to insure children are not nor will become a burden on society. Home schooling is mandated given the obvious intelligence advantage that comes with having amassed the wealth and the income.

To at least placate the less affluent we can establish a lottery for them... but limited to the proposed budget constraints and the need for minimum wage jobs in the future.

What's so hard about that?

OMG!
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Why is it that those who claim to be against racism are the first to bring it up in a sterile thread.

Those that scream the loudest are desperate to ensure that no one looks closely at the screamer

This. We've already seen the same thing with gay republicans being the most vocal about how gays are evil.

republican: poor people are a drain on society that we need to address
democrat: that's racist because all poor people are black!
republican: I never mentioned race....
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
yeah i dont particularly like his religious views, in the blind watchmaker i thought he was gonna finally convince himself that there is a God, he likes to use huge numbers and stats to make things/try ton convince himself of a certain thing... but he's a smart guy when it comes to evolution

Hes competent, but his claim to fame isn't his work but his mouth. Hes the Rush Limbaugh of atheism. Being loud and verbose isn't a sure sign of a great mind. Hes rather a pedestrian intellect IMO.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
your still thinking to small, it's just human nature, its not even remotely feasible to think people are gonna have one kid and stop, that's even more outlandish than the thought of trying to somehow enforce that with legislature.. we see how well that worked out for you know who, forced em to sell there daughters into prostitution, so they could have a son to carry the name on, evil builds upon evil. there's really no other way, there's no way to stop people from having 10 kids, it's just nature. lower chance of survival, number of offspring is directly effected, on a subconscious/primal level. in short, they'll get hornier.

nobody has said "only allow one child", the argument that i've seen is "only 'reward' for one child". . . if you want to have more, that's on you.
hornier = more children? hardly. I was a horny ass teenager as I'm sure most are, but I somehow managed to get out of that phase of life without children. I waited until I had started a career, had a wife and a home until I had a child. Stability. My offspring now has a MUCH higher chance of success than somsone whos' parents couldn't think past the next months check. . . .