Poverty represents a superior way of thinking.

[JAR]

Poverty represents a superior way of thinking.

What I mean by that is that the poorer ethnic groups of the world are increasing greatly in population while the wealthier ethnic groups are staying relatively the same in population or even worse, decreasing.

The impoverished mind set is aiding people in passing on their genes.

Don't worry if having 16 children drives you into poverty because the leftists will pitch in and save you and your children from starvation and not only that, they might accuse another race of causing your poverty through racial persecution.

[Small Town Jesus]

According to this (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=451097) article in yesterdays Independent, people in poorer countries are having less children than previous generations to the extent that the world population could level out or even start dropping within the next 50 years.

STJ

[JAR]

Originally posted by Small Town Jesus
According to this (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=451097) article in yesterdays Independent, people in poorer countries are having less children than previous generations to the extent that the world population could level out or even start dropping within the next 50 years.

STJ
But the fact still remains, wealthier people should have an advantage at passing on their genes, but they don't.

[Small Town Jesus]

Originally posted by JAR

But the fact still remains, wealthier people should have an advantage at passing on their genes, but they don't.

Poverty or wealth isn't a genetic trait, so what does it matter?

STJ

[Mr Manifesto]

STJ beat me to it. Poverty isn't genetic, duh!

[JAR]

Originally posted by Small Town Jesus


Poverty or wealth isn't a genetic trait, so what does it matter?

STJ
Poverty is a wave that carries genes to the land of having lots of descendants.

I may be impoverished when I move out of my parent's house and it's because I get bad grades in school.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by JAR

Poverty is a wave that carries genes to the land of having lots of descendants.

I may be impoverished when I move out of my parent's house and it's because I get bad grades in school.

Ah, but does that mean you are going to have more kids because you are poor?

Numbers of children drop when there is an economic advantage to having less children. But cultures change slowly.

The disturbing thing to me is hat in some countries the majority of the population is very young.

So, you usualy have a poit JAR, and I find them instructive. The incentive to have more children was zapped by 'welfare reform', so which liberals are going to save the children?

[American]

Originally posted by Small Town Jesus
According to this (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=451097) article in yesterdays Independent, people in poorer countries are having less children than previous generations to the extent that the world population could level out or even start dropping within the next 50 years.
STJ


When they have them at the age of 15, it more than makes up for their (lack of) planning. We reward such unprepared parents at the expense of working classes who get married and have fewer children, choosing to invest in their kids' well-being rather than let taxpayers support their next meal.

[a_unique_person]

Don't forget that sex has been called the "Beggars Opera". All the pleasure you want, for free.

[Random]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Don't forget that sex has been called the "Beggars Opera". All the pleasure you want, for free.

All the more reason to have it taxed.

[Skeptic]

All the more reason to have [sex] taxed.

Well, that would sure make chartered accountancy a lot more interesting. (Thanks, Monty Python).

JAR's posts, though, are typical of so-called "social Darwinism", the hare-brained attempt to push Darwin's theory of evolution into current social issues.

Evolution doesn't care about whether wealth or poverty, which are inventions of human civilization, are desirable or not for the individual. From the point of view of the genes, if wealth makes you have less children survive for some reason, then wealth is NOT a bonus for your genes, and poverty is. Just because you won the rat race doesn't mean you'll win the gene race--and there is no reason to think that it is.

Same goes with intelligence, for instance: the evolution of self-consciousness and intelligence probably made the human race far more likely to extinct itself than any other species in history. It might very well have been a fool's bet, genetically speaking. The dinosaurs, let alone the bacteria, survived quite a bit longer than we are likely to. As a caricature I've know said, showing two bacteria in a puddle, the sole survivors of a nuclear holocaust: "all over again, but this time, no brains."

So if JAR's contention is that being rich--or, for that matter, intelligent--is an evolutionary disadvantage (as it might very well be), all I can say is, "What did you expect? Of course it is!"

Dealing with the real question--the question of why people in poor countries tend ot have lots of children--it is pretty clear that it is NOT due to the poor counting on the "leftist" to "save" them (the poor in Congo or Mongolia included?). Nor is it due to a "cunning plan" to take over the world from the "deserving" rich. Nor is it the "short-sightedness" of not knowing that sex leads to children.

It is someting else entirely: in most of the world, early marriage and having many children used to be, for thousands of years, the ONLY way to make reasonably certain that at least two or three of them would reach adulthood, and would be able to help their aging parents, due to high infant mortality and other factors. It is not at all easy to change somthing so ingrained as that.

(I wonder what Jesus, of "blessed are the poor" fame, who himself was poor, of course, would have said about JAR's attitude--or for that matter, the "f--k the poor" attitude of the "christian" conservatives. But I digress).

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by JAR

But the fact still remains, wealthier people should have an advantage at passing on their genes, but they don't.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Rich people always get to have more sex than poor people.

They could pass on vast numbers of genes if they wanted to but they often choose not to. It does not have anything to do with genetics, instead they simply do not want to expend vast amounts of their time and money to raising many children, instead they would rather spend those resources to make more money.

Gee whiz dude, wake up will you!

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Crossbow
They could pass on vast numbers of genes if they wanted to but they often choose not to.

I think that's the key point. Birth control has thrown off most of natural selection in the last century. Previously, people had lots of kids because it was the inevitable result of doing something that's a lot of fun. Now, it's no longer inevitable. The behaviors that once led to numerical superiority for people who could attract more/better mates and support their families don't work anymore.

Jeremy

[Dancing David]

When it comes to american teens having babies out of wedlock there are a couple of issues.

1. Sex drive: kids make babies, hey are driven to do so, especialy since we don't really educate them about sex or condoms. Just say no never did work, never will.

2. Meeting other needs: often when kids have kids it is because they have some other need they are trying to meet, like attention, autonomy.

3. Pro life culture: there are plenty of white middle class teens who have sex, thier paernts encourage them to have abortions.

A Challenge:
Can anyone show me how the system rewards teens for having more children, monetary? I think this is like the myth that will not die.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by toddjh


I think that's the key point. Birth control has thrown off most of natural selection in the last century. Previously, people had lots of kids because it was the inevitable result of doing something that's a lot of fun. Now, it's no longer inevitable. The behaviors that once led to numerical superiority for people who could attract more/better mates and support their families don't work anymore.

Jeremy

Too right Jeremy!

I guess the author of this thread seemed to forget that in many ancient cultures one could more easily aquire and hold on to wealth with a large family which is why many powerful rulers had tens of wives and hundreds of children.

However, now the economy is very different from those days and as a result rich people do not think of children in this fashion.