Are we getting stupider? Why or why not? Evidence?

[paravani]

As for Paravan's question: "With that in mind, how might we stack the genetic deck in favor of those who think ahead, plan, and carry out their plans to a successful conclusion?":

1. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into preparing themselves to support a family before starting one ....

2. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into getting up in the morning ...

3. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into occasionally turning off the TV ...

4. Encourage--demand if necessary--that schools teach real necessary subjects and demand proficiency in those subjects ...

5. Encourage--shame if necessary--a return to values that promote belief in oneself ...

Do that, and you'll see the national intelligence significantly and noticeably increase.

I think that we as a society already do all of these things, with limited success.

All of what you're saying here makes good sense, and if everyone were "intelligent" enough -- that is, if everyone were able to see how their day-to-day activities impact their futures and the futures of their children, and to act consistently in their best future interest -- then not only would your suggestions work perfectly, but there would be no need for them!

Most people learn right actions through two main methods: monkey-see-monkey-do, and trial-and-error. A third method, learning-by-narrative -- what parents often call "do as I say, not as I do" -- has limited success, as any parent will tell you. There is a fourth method, which is used rarely: learning-by-deduction, which occurs when one applies some general knowledge to similar data, and reaches accurate conclusions that one then absorbs as additional knowledge.

But the primary methods of learning used by the vast majority of people are monkey-see-monkey-do, and trial-and-error: you learn to light a match by monkey-see-monkey-do; and you learn to drop it before it burns your fingers by trial-and-error.

Those two methods, monkey-see-monkey-do and trial-and-error, work well for many different tasks both simple and complex. One can use them to learn to speak, dress oneself, read and write, and cook a meal. One can also use them to learn how to solve a math problem, design an electrical substation, or fly a rocket to the moon. They can teach you how to play baseball or drive a car; and they can help you learn what to do on your first few days or weeks at a new job.

Unfortunately, they aren't very useful to societies when trying to determine right actions for individuals, and they aren't useful to individuals who are trying to determine right actions for their society.

"Shaming" depends on learning-by-narrative, which is a much less powerful method of learning than monkey-see-monkey-do or trial-and-error. This is why, if irresponsible people are having children who grow up to be irresponsible adults, we cannot simply "shame" them into becoming more responsible: because that is expecting learning-by-narrative to have more power than monkey-see-monkey-do or trial-and-error.

However, societies have to rely on learning-by-narrative through social pressure or legislation to guide individual behavior, often making laws that have different outcomes than expected. For instance, outlawing abortion did not, in fact, make unwanted pregnancy less common, because the social stigma against single mothers in that era already exerted pressure on girls to remain virgins until marriage. What it did accomplish was to make pregnant single women much more desperate, willing to submit to illegal abortions in the most horrifying circumstances, and driving them to despair resulting in suicides. Babies weren't being saved by the law; instead, young women were being lost to infection, hemorrhage, and suicide.

No, mere social pressure is not going to significantly influence who chooses to have babies and when, particularly not when our entertainment media glamorize and glorify sex.

We can't legislate smarter babies, responsible parents, or a smarter society. We can't make it illegal to have children; we can't use "eugenics" to decide who should or shouldn't have children; we can't use any of our social influence to ensure that only those adults who are thoughtful and responsible will have children, and irresponsible adults do not.

I think that somehow, we need to change the whole paradigm.

Our current reproductive paradigm is indiscriminate. Anyone with healthy reproductive organs can make a baby, provided that they can find a willing partner.

There is no intelligence test, no test for thoughtfulness or responsibility or foresight. If you can find a willing partner to dance the horizontal mambo with you, you can make a baby.

That's it. That's the only criterion.

And that's the problem... because any idiot can find a partner, even if the partner is just another idiot.

That's the paradigm we need to change.

-- Paravani

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Secondly, if you DO agree that people are becoming stupider, what solutions can you propose to reverse that trend? What do you see as the root causes, and how would you propose to address those causes?

To me, not enough people suffer the consequences of their bad choices anymore if they ever did to begin with and when people get away with their bad choices, more people are only going to join in.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[sakinago]

As for Paravan's question: "With that in mind, how might we stack the genetic deck in favor of those who think ahead, plan, and carry out their plans to a successful conclusion?":

1. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into preparing themselves to support a family before starting one ....

2. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into getting up in the morning ...

3. Encourage--shame if necessary--people into occasionally turning off the TV ...

4. Encourage--demand if necessary--that schools teach real necessary subjects and demand proficiency in those subjects ...

5. Encourage--shame if necessary--a return to values that promote belief in oneself ...

Do that, and you'll see the national intelligence significantly and noticeably increase.

I think that we as a society already do all of these things, with limited success.

All of what you're saying here makes good sense, and if everyone were "intelligent" enough -- that is, if everyone were able to see how their day-to-day activities impact their futures and the futures of their children, and to act consistently in their best future interest -- then not only would your suggestions work perfectly, but there would be no need for them!

Most people learn right actions through two main methods: monkey-see-monkey-do, and trial-and-error. A third method, learning-by-narrative -- what parents often call "do as I say, not as I do" -- has limited success, as any parent will tell you. There is a fourth method, which is used rarely: learning-by-deduction, which occurs when one applies some general knowledge to similar data, and reaches accurate conclusions that one then absorbs as additional knowledge.

But the primary methods of learning used by the vast majority of people are monkey-see-monkey-do, and trial-and-error: you learn to light a match by monkey-see-monkey-do; and you learn to drop it before it burns your fingers by trial-and-error.

Those two methods, monkey-see-monkey-do and trial-and-error, work well for many different tasks both simple and complex. One can use them to learn to speak, dress oneself, read and write, and cook a meal. One can also use them to learn how to solve a math problem, design an electrical substation, or fly a rocket to the moon. They can teach you how to play baseball or drive a car; and they can help you learn what to do on your first few days or weeks at a new job.

Unfortunately, they aren't very useful to societies when trying to determine right actions for individuals, and they aren't useful to individuals who are trying to determine right actions for their society.

"Shaming" depends on learning-by-narrative, which is a much less powerful method of learning than monkey-see-monkey-do or trial-and-error. This is why, if irresponsible people are having children who grow up to be irresponsible adults, we cannot simply "shame" them into becoming more responsible: because that is expecting learning-by-narrative to have more power than monkey-see-monkey-do or trial-and-error.

However, societies have to rely on learning-by-narrative through social pressure or legislation to guide individual behavior, often making laws that have different outcomes than expected. For instance, outlawing abortion did not, in fact, make unwanted pregnancy less common, because the social stigma against single mothers in that era already exerted pressure on girls to remain virgins until marriage. What it did accomplish was to make pregnant single women much more desperate, willing to submit to illegal abortions in the most horrifying circumstances, and driving them to despair resulting in suicides. Babies weren't being saved by the law; instead, young women were being lost to infection, hemorrhage, and suicide.

No, mere social pressure is not going to significantly influence who chooses to have babies and when, particularly not when our entertainment media glamorize and glorify sex.

We can't legislate smarter babies, responsible parents, or a smarter society. We can't make it illegal to have children; we can't use "eugenics" to decide who should or shouldn't have children; we can't use any of our social influence to ensure that only those adults who are thoughtful and responsible will have children, and irresponsible adults do not.

I think that somehow, we need to change the whole paradigm.

Our current reproductive paradigm is indiscriminate. Anyone with healthy reproductive organs can make a baby, provided that they can find a willing partner.

There is no intelligence test, no test for thoughtfulness or responsibility or foresight. If you can find a willing partner to dance the horizontal mambo with you, you can make a baby.

That's it. That's the only criterion.

And that's the problem... because any idiot can find a partner, even if the partner is just another idiot.

That's the paradigm we need to change.

-- Paravani

I know you say you are not talking about eugenics, but that is honestly what it sounds like. I think you are getting too hung up on genetics; when you are talking about intelligence on a cognitive basis, where genetics has a very limited role... if any. Genetics is not a very decisive variable in this equation, and you are missing many more decisive variables.

 

[paravani]

I think that somehow, we need to change the whole paradigm.

Our current reproductive paradigm is indiscriminate. Anyone with healthy reproductive organs can make a baby, provided that they can find a willing partner.

There is no intelligence test, no test for thoughtfulness or responsibility or foresight. If you can find a willing partner to dance the horizontal mambo with you, you can make a baby.

That's it. That's the only criterion.

And that's the problem... because any idiot can find a partner, even if the partner is just another idiot.

That's the paradigm we need to change.

-- Paravani

I know you say you are not talking about eugenics, but that is honestly what it sounds like. I think you are getting too hung up on genetics; when you are talking about intelligence on a cognitive basis, where genetics has a very limited role... if any. Genetics is not a very decisive variable in this equation, and you are missing many more decisive variables.

Thanks for your input, sakinago.

I really am not talking about eugenics. I don't think that society can accurately gauge what traits are worthy of selection; and if given that power, a corrupt society will select for unquestioning obedience, not intelligence -- and where would that get us?

No, I believe that we truly need to turn the reproductive paradigm on its head. We need to reverse it entirely.

Currently, one can choose NOT to have children. One can use birth control; and if that fails, one can seek an abortion or give the child up for adoption.

With me so far?

Okay...

So ... What if, instead, people had to actively choose to HAVE a child? What if, physically and biologically, no one could become pregnant without first planning to become pregnant and taking some deliberate steps over a period of weeks or even months to make it happen?

How would that affect society? Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing if every child in the world were planned and wanted?

-- Paravani

 

[Foxfyre]

A whole lot of those 'welfare' kids are not accidents, Paravani. And I say that as one who as worked closely with the mothers who have produced a lot of them. They are a ticket to increased goverment benefits and are insurance against getting kicked off the welfare roles any time soon. Not all, but may are very much planned and wanted.

 

[sakinago]

I think that somehow, we need to change the whole paradigm.

Our current reproductive paradigm is indiscriminate. Anyone with healthy reproductive organs can make a baby, provided that they can find a willing partner.

There is no intelligence test, no test for thoughtfulness or responsibility or foresight. If you can find a willing partner to dance the horizontal mambo with you, you can make a baby.

That's it. That's the only criterion.

And that's the problem... because any idiot can find a partner, even if the partner is just another idiot.

That's the paradigm we need to change.

-- Paravani

I know you say you are not talking about eugenics, but that is honestly what it sounds like. I think you are getting too hung up on genetics; when you are talking about intelligence on a cognitive basis, where genetics has a very limited role... if any. Genetics is not a very decisive variable in this equation, and you are missing many more decisive variables.

Thanks for your input, sakinago.

I really am not talking about eugenics. I don't think that society can accurately gauge what traits are worthy of selection; and if given that power, a corrupt society will select for unquestioning obedience, not intelligence -- and where would that get us?

No, I believe that we truly need to turn the reproductive paradigm on its head. We need to reverse it entirely.

Currently, one can choose NOT to have children. One can use birth control; and if that fails, one can seek an abortion or give the child up for adoption.

With me so far?

Okay...

So ... What if, instead, people had to actively choose to HAVE a child? What if, physically and biologically, no one could become pregnant without first planning to become pregnant and taking some deliberate steps over a period of weeks or even months to make it happen?

How would that affect society? Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing if every child in the world were planned and wanted?

-- Paravani

I see what your saying, and the above statement I wouldnt say is eugenics. But now your getting into making everyone (at least all the women) take depo injections, whether it be provided for at high school, college, or work. Whose gonna decide whether or not the mother can have children? If its decided by the person whether or not theyre ready for children, then the stupid people can still have children whenever they want, i.e. an 18 yo couple who think that babies are cute and it would be awesome to have one. And I dont think it would be ethical for the state to decide whether or not a potential mother fits the criterion. God forbid if its chosen by the work place, or if the work place is made aware if the mother is trying to have children. Depo is probably the most effective (counting expenses) birth control, and there are plenty of womens clinics and hospitals that will give women the shot for free, the kids just need to get off their asses and get em. Now that I think of it an IUD might be the cheapest in the long run, and the easiest to manage. But staying on point, I think the problem with our reproductive paradigm is the fact these people are too lazy, or simply just dont know about how to get the contraceptives. Just like the obesity problem in america, I think its best to give the population better education about the subject, not force shots or take away soda from them. Thats just way to controlling. Bottom line is people are not educated enough on those issues, or are just simply too lazy.

 

[Misty]

"Currently, one can choose NOT to have children. One can use birth control; and if that fails, one can seek an abortion or give the child up for adoption.

With me so far?

Okay...

So ... What if, instead, people had to actively choose to HAVE a child? What if, physically and biologically, no one could become pregnant without first planning to become pregnant and taking some deliberate steps over a period of weeks or even months to make it happen?"

There are many infertile people in the world who do this exact thing. Choose to have a baby and go through many procedures and pays lots of money but that doesn't mean the kid will be any more intelligent.

This thread is nonsense.

 

[Misty]

If you really want to show how stupid people are, you should of used the term more stupid instead of stupider.

 

[paravani]

If you really want to show how stupid people are, you should of used the term more stupid instead of stupider.

That should read:

If you really want to show how stupid people are, you should HAVE used the term more stupid instead of stupider.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Now, would you please put some clothes on and return when you're fully dressed? It's impossible for most intelligent adults to have a serious discussion with a navel.

-- Paravani

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Another thing that I think would help make things better is to not change what kids are learning in school these days. I heard not too long ago that writing in cursive is not being learned as much anymore. Ever since I learned how to write in cursive at age 7-8, it is the only way that I have done my writing and now it sounds like that soon people will not know how to read things that are written in such a way. Why should I and everyone else in my position be the one who have to change when there is nothing wrong with what we learned in school when we were in school in the first place?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. By the way, if anything else is being dropped from the school curriculum, what else is going to be a thing of the past?

 

[paravani]

Hi, Sakinago!

I believe that we truly need to turn the reproductive paradigm on its head. We need to reverse it entirely.

Currently, one can choose NOT to have children. One can use birth control; and if that fails, one can seek an abortion or give the child up for adoption.

With me so far?

Okay...

So ... What if, instead, people had to actively choose to HAVE a child? What if, physically and biologically, no one could become pregnant without first planning to become pregnant and taking some deliberate steps over a period of weeks or even months to make it happen?

How would that affect society? Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing if every child in the world were planned and wanted?

-- Paravani

I see what your saying, and the above statement I wouldn't say is eugenics.

I'm brilliant, but I had childhood epilepsy, have lousy eyesight, pollution-related asthma, and way too many emotional problems for my genes to have made it through any outside selection process. So no, I would never suggest forced eugenics, so please keep that out of the discussion.

But now your getting into making everyone (at least all the women) take depo injections, whether it be provided for at high school, college, or work.

Nuh-uh, don't go there yet. That's mechanics -- that's discussing the "how" before we've even talked about the consequences of "if".

And medical science has advanced so far that once we decide we really need to do something, developing the biotechnology to do it is well within the realm of possibility.

FYI, I believe that reproductive choices should always be made by the individual without needing to ask permission from the government. That's what freedom means, doesn't it?

Who's gonna decide whether or not the mother can have children? If its decided by the person whether or not they're ready for children, then the stupid people can still have children whenever they want, i.e. an 18 yo couple who think that babies are cute and it would be awesome to have one. And I don't think it would be ethical for the state to decide whether or not a potential mother fits the criterion. God forbid if its chosen by the work place, or if the work place is made aware if the mother is trying to have children.

It must be the individual couple who decides that they want to become pregnant. Or if not the couple, at least the mother.

If the "stupid" people are able to plan to have a child and carry out their plan -- which means, they have to be able to consistently do something on a routine basis for at least a few weeks, if not a couple of months before the mother becomes fertile -- then I guess they aren't so stupid after all. If they have that much foresight, then it's enough.

But staying on point, I think the problem with our reproductive paradigm is the fact these people are too lazy, or simply just dont know about how to get the contraceptives. Just like the obesity problem in america, I think its best to give the population better education about the subject, not force shots or take away soda from them. Thats just way to controlling. Bottom line is people are not educated enough on those issues, or are just simply too lazy.

Again, I want to stress that I don't believe in government interfering in our private lives or private decisions. I've tried to make that very clear.

You're on the right track, though.... I am talking about Universal Birth Control.

But shots are crude, and no one wants to be forced to have a shot. Even vaccinations aren't forced on people, although people could die if they aren't vaccinated.

But what if... what if there were a form of universal birth control that was simply ingested by everyone, all the time, with no bad effects? What if all a woman had to do to get pregnant was just stop drinking city water, and switch to bottled water instead?

You're right, stupid women and "welfare queens" could still get pregnant if they wanted a baby -- really wanted it enough to plan for it, and make sure that they don't eat or drink anything made with city water.

That wouldn't be very complicated, would it? It would still be easy to have a baby... it just wouldn't be easy to have a baby by accident, unless you lived in the country and drank well water.

But "easy" is the whole point. It should be easy to get pregnant when you want a baby ... It just shouldn't be so easy to get pregnant when you haven't thought about it at all.

And let's face it: ANY intelligence test, no matter how easy it is to pass it, is better than NONE.

-- Paravani

 

[Unkotare]

Another thing that I think would help make things better is to not change what kids are learning in school these days. I heard not too long ago that writing in cursive is not being learned as much anymore. Ever since I learned how to write in cursive at age 7-8, it is the only way that I have done my writing and now it sounds like that soon people will not know how to read things that are written in such a way. Why should I and everyone else in my position be the one who have to change when there is nothing wrong with what we learned in school when we were in school in the first place?

Cursive writing is pointless and outdated. 99% of everything people read now - let alone in the future - is in print. I was taught cursive in school too, ages before anyone had a computer. Until I got to college everything I submitted as a school assignment was handwritten. Cursive was a way of enforcing uniformity and a level of quality to handwritten material. Until my final undergrad year I used a manual typewriter (then I got a 'fancy' word processor ~ ooooh!). Today, few high school teachers of any subject will accept any assigment that is handwritten, and rightly so. There is a reason the buggywhip industry ain't what it used to be. Time to move on is time to move on.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ In my opinion, those who refuse to accept a homework assignment that isn't in print shouldn't be a teacher. To me, them being like that is like forcing someone to do things with their right hand when they are really a left handed person.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[sakinago]

Hi, Sakinago!

I believe that we truly need to turn the reproductive paradigm on its head. We need to reverse it entirely.

Currently, one can choose NOT to have children. One can use birth control; and if that fails, one can seek an abortion or give the child up for adoption.

With me so far?

Okay...

So ... What if, instead, people had to actively choose to HAVE a child? What if, physically and biologically, no one could become pregnant without first planning to become pregnant and taking some deliberate steps over a period of weeks or even months to make it happen?

How would that affect society? Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing if every child in the world were planned and wanted?

-- Paravani

I see what your saying, and the above statement I wouldn't say is eugenics.

I'm brilliant, but I had childhood epilepsy, have lousy eyesight, pollution-related asthma, and way too many emotional problems for my genes to have made it through any outside selection process. So no, I would never suggest forced eugenics, so please keep that out of the discussion.



Nuh-uh, don't go there yet. That's mechanics -- that's discussing the "how" before we've even talked about the consequences of "if".

And medical science has advanced so far that once we decide we really need to do something, developing the biotechnology to do it is well within the realm of possibility.

FYI, I believe that reproductive choices should always be made by the individual without needing to ask permission from the government. That's what freedom means, doesn't it?

Who's gonna decide whether or not the mother can have children? If its decided by the person whether or not they're ready for children, then the stupid people can still have children whenever they want, i.e. an 18 yo couple who think that babies are cute and it would be awesome to have one. And I don't think it would be ethical for the state to decide whether or not a potential mother fits the criterion. God forbid if its chosen by the work place, or if the work place is made aware if the mother is trying to have children.

It must be the individual couple who decides that they want to become pregnant. Or if not the couple, at least the mother.

If the "stupid" people are able to plan to have a child and carry out their plan -- which means, they have to be able to consistently do something on a routine basis for at least a few weeks, if not a couple of months before the mother becomes fertile -- then I guess they aren't so stupid after all. If they have that much foresight, then it's enough.

But staying on point, I think the problem with our reproductive paradigm is the fact these people are too lazy, or simply just dont know about how to get the contraceptives. Just like the obesity problem in america, I think its best to give the population better education about the subject, not force shots or take away soda from them. Thats just way to controlling. Bottom line is people are not educated enough on those issues, or are just simply too lazy.

Again, I want to stress that I don't believe in government interfering in our private lives or private decisions. I've tried to make that very clear.

You're on the right track, though.... I am talking about Universal Birth Control.

But shots are crude, and no one wants to be forced to have a shot. Even vaccinations aren't forced on people, although people could die if they aren't vaccinated.

But what if... what if there were a form of universal birth control that was simply ingested by everyone, all the time, with no bad effects? What if all a woman had to do to get pregnant was just stop drinking city water, and switch to bottled water instead?

You're right, stupid women and "welfare queens" could still get pregnant if they wanted a baby -- really wanted it enough to plan for it, and make sure that they don't eat or drink anything made with city water.

That wouldn't be very complicated, would it? It would still be easy to have a baby... it just wouldn't be easy to have a baby by accident, unless you lived in the country and drank well water.

But "easy" is the whole point. It should be easy to get pregnant when you want a baby ... It just shouldn't be so easy to get pregnant when you haven't thought about it at all.

And let's face it: ANY intelligence test, no matter how easy it is to pass it, is better than NONE.

-- Paravani

Problem 1 with this idea, it would only be effective in the city. In the suburbs and abroad there are too many areas that rely on wells, at least in older houses which there are a lot of in PA. Problem 2, any contraceptive outside of mechanical ones (condems, sponges, dams) uses hormones to in a sense trick the body into making it think it is already pregnant , so it wont release and waste eggs. You would be giving these hormones to both men and women alike, that is no bueno. Problem 3, there is no way to control the intake or distrabution of these hormones in the population. Some people would barely be effected, some would have the hormones way out of whack, which is a dangerous thing. If it didnt have a dangerous effect, my g/f biggest problem (and my problem as well) with the pill, is that it messes with her hormones too much, thats not fun. Problem 4, these hormones have dangerous effects on people with blood clotting issues, a lot of which dont even know they have a blood disorder until something major happens and they wind up in the hospital. Problem 5, without the ability to control how much intake of hormones a person would have, we would see a pretty big jump in breast cancer cases. Problem 6, I dont think that it is very ethical for the government to be pumping the water systems with hormones. I like flouride in water systems, and I think the "studies" that say its dangerous are bogus. Even if flouride is dangerous, the good outweighs the bad by a long shot, because a lot of people do not understand the importance of oral hygiene and health. You want to avoid sickness in the winter, wash you hands and keep your mouth clean.

The biggest problem is the fact the pregnancy and fertility is so dependent on hormones, that as of now and in the foreseeable future, there is no medical way to insure contraception without tampering with hormones. I think the answer you are looking for is in IUD's, and making them more accessible.

 

[koshergrl]

Evidence that the left is getting stupider by the second:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...s-people-then-forces-them-into-a-church.html?

 

[Katzndogz]

The book, The Bell Curve explained breeding for stupidity quite well. It might clear up what doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[sakinago]

The book, The Bell Curve explained breeding for stupidity quite well. It might clear up what doesn't seem to make sense.

Havn't read the book, nor do I know what the premise is, but I have a hard time believing that it took into account all of the variables that go into intelligence, or all the variables is genetics itself.

Besides, in this conversation you are going to have to define intelligence first. And now the conversation has shifted to a universal contraception discussion.

 

[High_Gravity]

A whole lot of those 'welfare' kids are not accidents, Paravani. And I say that as one who as worked closely with the mothers who have produced a lot of them. They are a ticket to increased goverment benefits and are insurance against getting kicked off the welfare roles any time soon. Not all, but may are very much planned and wanted.

Planned but not as much wanted I would say.

 

[paravani]

Hi, Sakinago!

Problems 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in your post #134 are for the biochemists to solve -- not you or me. I did postulate that any form of UBC -- Universal Birth Control -- must have no ill effects on the general population no matter how much water they drink. So whatever they develop must be effective in small doses, with no toxicity in larger doses:

But what if... what if there were a form of universal birth control that was simply ingested by everyone, all the time, with no bad effects? What if all a woman had to do to get pregnant was just stop drinking city water, and switch to bottled water instead?

Problem 1 with this idea, it would only be effective in the city. In the suburbs and abroad there are too many areas that rely on wells, at least in older houses which there are a lot of in PA.

Yes, it would not affect anyone who drinks well water unless they regularly commute to the city for work or school and eat or drink while there. It would only affect drinking water in the cities.

I like flouride in water systems, and I think the "studies" that say its dangerous are bogus. Even if flouride is dangerous, the good outweighs the bad by a long shot, because a lot of people do not understand the importance of oral hygiene and health. You want to avoid sickness in the winter, wash you hands and keep your mouth clean.

UBC would be much like flouride in water systems. People can still opt out of the flouridation program by drinking bottled water; likewise, they could still choose not to be affected by UBC.

The biggest problem is the fact the pregnancy and fertility is so dependent on hormones, that as of now and in the foreseeable future, there is no medical way to insure contraception without tampering with hormones. I think the answer you are looking for is in IUD's, and making them more accessible.

Absolutely not. There is no way people would accept IUD's on a universal basis. I know they wouldn't, because even as concerned as I am about population control, I myself find the idea of mandatory IUDs after a girl's first menstrual cycle to be repugnant.

Any acceptable form of UBC must be ... invisible. It must be in the water or the air, something that everybody takes for granted and nobody needs to think about at all, ever, unless they want to make a baby.

Air-based UBC is problematic because it could affect animals, and we are already causing extinctions faster than I want to contemplate... which leaves water, specifically city water.

Since we're thinking more about "delivery" problems than social consequences, I assume that you and all the other posters here already recognize the obvious social benefits.

No more unplanned teen pregnancy.
No more abortions.
No more overpopulation.
No more junkie babies.
Fewer unwanted children.
Fewer children on welfare.

Not to mention, over the long run, a much smaller, much smarter population that knows how to plan ahead.

Eventually, we can expect that future population to think about solutions to longterm environmental problems, and to recognize and solve the many other problems that threaten our continued survival. A future population that has been specifically bred for the ability to think ahead would have a much different approach to the problems we so reluctantly face now...

Is there a downside to UBC? Can you think of one?

-- Paravani

 

[Foxfyre]

A whole lot of those 'welfare' kids are not accidents, Paravani. And I say that as one who as worked closely with the mothers who have produced a lot of them. They are a ticket to increased goverment benefits and are insurance against getting kicked off the welfare roles any time soon. Not all, but may are very much planned and wanted.

Planned but not as much wanted I would say.

Good point. Wanted for their material benefit to the parent, but not so much for themselves. Many of these kids are neglected physically, mentally, and emotionally. Too often the mom is drugged out and doesn't give a damn about the kiddies so long as they leave her alone. It is up to the school to give them breakfast and lunch, and sometimes even to find them proper shoes or a winter coat. When on the school board, I have arrived at school for an early dawn meeting, and it breaks your heart to see the little ones huddled under the bushes near the cafeteria door waiting to be admitted so they can be warm and fed. By my ethical standards, it is criminal and no child should be left with a parent who allows that.

But we live in a society who thinks the compassionate thing is to subsidize neglectful mothers and increase the subsidy the more kids they have.