Deleted

pqrdef

ILW wrote: »

they practise a policy of survival of the fittest, where the least able tend to die out.

But eugenics doesn't work. You can't improve a population that way.

ILW

pqrdef wrote: »

But eugenics doesn't work. You can't improve a population that way.

Who said anything about Eugenics?
Just cannot see any long term benefit in encouraging the least able in society to have more children than the more successful. If you can see one please explain.

ruggedtoast

Percy1983 wrote: »

Do you want to divide that GDP by the number of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

Doesn't look as great now, but hey lets just keep paying chavs to breed and we will be down there with China and India in no time!

Its a pity, you actually seemed like one of the more decent forum users. It doesn't seem to have taken much to coax out your class prejudice or frankly disturbing Nietzschean views on the "lower classes" and how to control their "breeding" habits.

I travel extensively to India and China and know both those countries well. They are unrecognisable from a decade ago, and have no noticeable policy on preventing the lower classes from procreating (yes I know China has a one child policy). They are on the other hand, extremely scientifically progressive and very focused on educating their children, who they see as a precious resource.

I suppose its a shame no-one saw fit to make the same investment in you and the rest of the people on this thread, its lack is all too evident in your writing.

I am done with this thread and its vile opinions, you want to all keep identifying yourselves as swivel eyed class-prejudiced nutbags, go ahead.

Cheerio.

Percy1983

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Its a pity, you actually seemed like one of the more decent forum users. It doesn't seem to have taken much to coax out your class prejudice or frankly disturbing Nietzschean views on the "lower classes" and how to control their "breeding" habits.

I travel extensively to India and China and know both those countries well. They are unrecognisable from a decade ago, and have no noticeable policy on preventing the lower classes from procreating (yes I know China has a one child policy). They are on the other hand, extremely scientifically progressive and very focused on educating their children, who they see as a precious resource.

I suppose its a shame no-one saw fit to make the same investment in you and the rest of the people on this thread, its lack is all too evident in your writing.

I am done with this thread and its vile opinions, you want to all keep identifying yourselves as swivel eyed class-prejudiced nutbags, go ahead.

Cheerio.

I guess you are missing the point greatly, I am not talking about stopping the poor having children, I am talking about not encouraging them to have children.

We can't afford to keep increasing the population of this planet, so surely the few children we do want born should be through love and not for financial gain.

Seriously you keep telling me I am wrong so what should we do?

A._Badger

Bye, toastie. Send us a postcard from utopia.

Always assuming the camp guards of your Marxist paradise let you live long enough to write anything. Past precedent would suggest they won't.

PaulF81

The world would be a much better place if the poor couldn't have children. There are about 2 billion too many of us already; better to have less of the weak and more of the competitive, intelligent types.

FTBFun

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I travel extensively to India and China and know both those countries well. They are unrecognisable from a decade ago, and have no noticeable policy on preventing the lower classes from procreating (yes I know China has a one child policy). They are on the other hand, extremely scientifically progressive and very focused on educating their children, who they see as a precious resource.

Well I was in India a few years ago and was accosted by elderly people on a couple of occasions begging. Pretty sure that wouldn't happen at all in the UK - apart from the few alcoholic homeless people of course.

I have a lot of time for the Indians, but they really need to look at their policies for the vulnerable before they edge towards being what many would call an advanced nation.

pqrdef

ILW wrote: »

Just cannot see any long term benefit in encouraging the least able in society to have more children than the more successful. If you can see one please explain.

Well, the least able will tend to have children who are more able than their parents were, and the more successful will tend to have children who are less successful than their parents were. It's called regression to the mean.

Fact is, it doesn't make much difference who your parents are, because they didn't make their own genes, they only passed on the ones they got from their parents, and so on. So all of your genes have passed through a whole long chain of people before they got to you.

It's true that in the past many of the less successful members of society didn't get to breed. But that didn't improve the stock, it only got us the crop we've got now. Every scumbag out there is descended entirely from relatively successful people, people who against the odds were able to raise successful children on their own resources. Every scumbag out there is the product of the same eugenic programme that you want to continue.

Running_Horse

No mention of immigration in relation to London housing availability?

My area has a lot of small terraced houses lived in by hardworking families who mainly work shifts in warehouses. They managed to buy when prices were a bit cheaper, had a couple of kids, and now find themselves pushed for space.

The difference is they don't complain and demand someone else fixes the problem. They just get on with it, the way people used to before the nanny state tried to take over our lives.

ILW

pqrdef wrote: »

Well, the least able will tend to have children who are more able than their parents were, and the more successful will tend to have children who are less successful than their parents were. It's called regression to the mean.

Fact is, it doesn't make much difference who your parents are, because they didn't make their own genes, they only passed on the ones they got from their parents, and so on. So all of your genes have passed through a whole long chain of people before they got to you.

It's true that in the past many of the less successful members of society didn't get to breed. But that didn't improve the stock, it only got us the crop we've got now. Every scumbag out there is descended entirely from relatively successful people, people who against the odds were able to raise successful children on their own resources. Every scumbag out there is the product of the same eugenic programme that you want to continue.

The welfare system has altered the balance and taken away the motivation to improve by many.

In general, professors will tend to spawn intelligent kids, whilst chavs will tend to spawn more chavs.

Which group is it best to encourage?

Genetics only have a small (if any) roll in this process.
I would suggest it is more nurture than nature and some groups are better at nurturing than others.