<p>Runaway growth in the list price for elite colleges paid by affluent families discourages them from having large families and has a dysgenic effect.</p>
<p>Talked about the Flynn effect back in post# 3. And as for fertility, its possible that as many women are delaying childbirth in favor of higher education and careers, fertility goes down with age. No surprise there.</p>
<p>We did our part by having three children, and I do try to nudge my smart acquaintances to have more children. Our children already have substantial 529 plans, and we’d like to pay for their college out of current earnings and leave the 529s for our grandchildren.</p>
<p>I look forward to Susan Patton’s book “Smarten Up!: Words of Wisdom from the Princeton Mom” encouraging early marriage of educated people.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, Godwin’s Law might say that you lost the argument, but I think your point merits a discussion.</p>
<p>If it is accepted that eugenics is immoral, is it also immoral to say that there is such a thing as dysgenics or that it may have negative consequences? I can think of one example which was brought up in class once. With the progress of medicine, genes encoding susceptibility to disease are being passed along with greater frequency as sick people survive and reproduce more often. This may lead to a sicklier population which is even more dependent on medicine. One solution may be engineering of the genome to correct some of these mutations which cause disease. But in a sense, this gene engineering could be considered eugenics, which is almost universally considered to be immoral. And also, the general dysgenic scenario involving genes for sickness cannot be discussed without getting people upset.</p>
<p>I dislike the assumption that I have to “pull my weight” to have x number of children, especially as someone who was a normal, healthy 27 yo who had very serious medical complications in pregnancy. I’m also surprised by the quote in there that says something to the effect of “barren” being linked with one or two children. One or two seems like the “normal” amount of children to have; three becomes a large family these days. I don’t look at women with one child and think they are “barren”. How odd.</p>
<p>There was also the cause of zero population growth promoted in the 60’s and 70’s which urged people not to have more than two children. Since people only encountered the idea of zero population growth in universities, I wonder if this had disproportionate impact on the number of children educated people had.</p>
<p>Yes, I think some people have fewer children because they are convinced it is good for the planet. The promotion of homosexuality, transgenderism, and other “alternative lifestyles” at universities may also have a dysgenic effect.</p>
<p>I think that the Flynn effect is created by better nutrition, and the overall different style of teaching. Teaching is based more on similarity than differences today, which affect things like IQ tests.</p>
<p>I think kids have gotten smarter, but some have also gotten a lot dumber.</p>
<p>My point is that environmentalists that would be concerned about the planet in this way tend to be disproportionately represented in the high-IQ subpopulation, as the college-going people were the people exposed to this theory at least in the beginning. Also, Zero Population Growth-ers, to coin a term, would be disproportionately represented among responsible, conscientious people. If there is some genetic component to these characteristics (though I acknowledge nurture is a pretty strong component too), what we are doing is reducing this trait in the general population.</p>
<p>^ FWIW, that statement was not directed at you… </p>
<p>The vast majority of women around the world do not want more than ~3 kids. They do not have the resources to limit their birth rate though. I do not think wanting fewer kids is some kind of hereditary trait.
Developed countries use far more resources than under-developed countries.</p>
<p>"Yes, I think some people have fewer children because they are convinced it is good for the planet. "</p>
<p>Maybe all they wanted was that number of children. I find the number of children someone chooses to have none of my business (unless I’m supporting them), and I would not take kindly to a coworker urging me to have more (or fewer). How do you know these people’s finances, medical conditions, energy levels, and desires in such a way you think it’s your place to urge them? It wouldn’t occur to you, Beliavsky, that you might be “urging” a female coworker to have children when she has a medical condition that precludes her from doing so, or maybe she and her husband are contemplating getting a divorce and it’s not your business, or she has major expenses you aren’t aware of, or they’re overwhelmed with the kids they have, or there’s a genetic condition they are afraid to pass on … Or they just don’t want any more? </p>
<p>For someone who prides himself on being so smart, there’s a social tone-deafness and lack of emotional intelligence associated with urging others to have more children.</p>
<p>Yeah, what’s wrong with 3? Three is a nice number. One sib had zero for very good reasons and the other sib had 3 and adopted one so it all evens out!! 6 natural born children, 3 siblings, average 2 and one orphan adopted. All with decent IQs. My sibs and I did our part for society LOL.</p>
<p>Though I personally wouldn’t tell other people how to make major life decisions, speaking abstractly, it’s not unreasonable to think that life decisions could be made for the collective good. A whole school of ethics, utilitarianism, is built on that premise.</p>
<p>In practice, it’s more reasonable that “the collective good” may only be a component of one’s decision, with the individual good being a much larger component. For example, maybe using an electric car is more expensive, but is better for than environment (it may not be more expensive any longer, but ignore that for the sake of argument.) You would have to weigh the collective good vs. the individual good/cost. Alternatively, one may take a lower paying job that does more to help the world. (I guess you could take an Ayn Rand approach and say that altruism can be justified by the fact it can make one feel good, but I’m not talking about the fact that it may make one feel good.)</p>
<p>Now, you may say that the having a baby is nothing like buying a car, and you’re right. First of all, again, I am speaking abstractly and saying that the collective good <em>may</em> be a component to one’s decision. It may be that for a thing which such a profound impact on one’s life, that individual good should override any other component. </p>
<p>However, I think it’s limiting to dismiss out-of-hand that one may consider the “collective good” in making life decisions.</p>
<p>That’s a very fair, collegealum314. I recycle, drive a Prius and do many of the things that Beliavsky will claim are liberal memes because I do feel some sense of collective good.</p>