RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] speaking of apocalyptic horsemen...

[Jennifer Dozar <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

You know, not every very intelligent person has gone on to college.  There
are genius people who choose to be electricians, but they can wiz by you
in many subject areas. Important ones, like mathmatics or physics. And
there are those genius types that dont' do well in school for the simple
matter that they have  ahrd time adjusting to that type of learning.  So
you can't automatically assume that everyone who has gone onto college is
intelligent! believe mei have met some really stupid people in college and
extremely stupid people who have their degree.  So, it is very hard to
suggest that intelligent people do go onto  higher-education institues.
And it woudl be dificult to judge the lower-incomed ppl on the assuption
that they are stupid. I say all the stupid people are breeding! but
doesn't mean they are all on welfare ;)   Some people on welfare stay that
way cause they are intelligent enough to know how the system works and
actually work that system to stay on government assistance.  There are too
many variables on this subject.

I suspect also, the fact that more educated and intelligent women are
waiting later, the time they opt to have children is usually way later and
age actually can affect how the child is formed and carried, etc.  So that
could give a good thought on why geeks tend to have more asperger's
syndrome.  I do believe schizophrenia is rather high on that list of
possibly disorders for geek parents. Doesn't mean it will happen.
Schizophrenia is also genetic...

 --
Jennifer Dozar
http://seul.org/~jennifer/osschools/
*******************************************
ALL YOUR BASEPAIR ARE BELONG TO US!


On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Matthew Ross wrote:

> > The issue here is that someone will reproduce and someone else won't.
> > This will hold even if the mean rate of reproduction declines.  So who
> > gets to have the kids?  If it won't be determined by a random
> > lottery, I
> > think it should be determined by a design that allows smarter and
> > healthier people to have the kids.  I don't think it should
> > be determined
> > by a design that gives preference to people who are below average in
> > intelligence and health.  That's all.  Unfortunately, it
> > sometimes seems
> > that the default system is the latter system.
>
> I think at this point, unless we are willing to track each birth, and force each kid to go to school through college from that point on, we should base it off wether the parent has an education, as that shows an interest in higher learning that is often passed down, though nobody knows if thats genetic or environmental, either way, they're getting both from the parent.
> Second, as you said, is health and intellegence.
>
> On the other hand, what do we do with Hawking types? Huge intellegence, terrible health, and the health problems are often genetic.
>
> > > I didn't say contracept everybody, you know SOMEBODY will
> > have kids, its
> > > just that you volunteer not to be that somebody.
> >
> > And the volunteers are volunteering for exctinction.  Who needed those
> > helpful volunteer types anyway?  ;-)
>
> They're volunteering because they are concerned and not selfish or genetically conscious. Not many people think about what genetic heritage they pass on, unless they have a completely horrid set of genes to pass on. I'm not eager to pass on my genes, as my family has heart problems, alcoholism, digestive track problems, and a variety of other issues which are passed on genetically, and so far, I seem to be the intellectual fluke in the family, although others may be in hiding. Everybody else uses WindowsXP.
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion