Intelligence and the desire to reproduce.

[truth_justice]

Greetings,

It has come to my attention that many intelligent people aren't concerned to have children of their own, and often don't. It appears as if intelligence extinguishes or reduces the desire to reproduce.


If in fact that is true, then a concern comes to mind. Namely, since the intelligence of the masses increases by 3% every 10 years, in 200 years from now, the general population would be just as intelligent as some of the smartest people today. If so, in the not so distance future, one might expect to see a decrease in population, and if this trend continues, a possible extinction of our species. It would ironic if intelligence is the cause of our demise.


However, before making any concrete conclusions, do you gentlemen think that the statement, As intelligence increases, the desire to reproduce decreases., is true?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Since a society of intelligent beings would always have the global population numbers at their disposal, it seems to me that if the levels reached a very low level, that they would take collective action to reproduce, like the baby boomer movement only more intelligent.

It is important to note some of the reasons preventing intelligent people from reproducing –

1. The population is already too high in many areas.
2. It is difficult to find masculine women who will produce healthy and intelligent offspring.
3. The financial burden of raising a child at this stage of our economical evolution is too bothersome.

So perhaps In the future, with better technology and a changing economy, it will be easier to guarantee that intelligent children are introduced into the world.

[Boyan]

It's often the case that intelligent people just can't be bothered with child raising, especially if they aren't secured financially.

Intelligent men and women are busy pursuing their careers. Also, it depends on the country, and how it encourages reproduction, which is a big concern in Europe as the population is decreasing in many of its countries.

Sweden I hear gives out great financial help to parents.

[Boyan]

1. The population is already too high in many areas.

This is not the reason, except in China. This would be the last thing preventing intelligent people from reproducing.

2. It is difficult to find masculine women who will produce healthy and intelligent offspring.

This is true for some members of the genius forum, not most people of above average intelligence. Why would you want a masculine woman? There are intelligent attractive - feminine attractive ones; not dressed to kill maybe, but they certainly exist. Intelligence is not restricted to masculine men and women.

You are projecting some genius forum views on the whole of intelligent people, with no basis for it whatsoever.

3. The financial burden of raising a child at this stage of our economical evolution is too bothersome.

It's much worse in south-eastern and eastern europe.

[Boyan]

Greetings,

It has come to my attention that many intelligent people aren't concerned to have children of their own, and often don't. It appears as if intelligence extinguishes or reduces the desire to reproduce.


If in fact that is true, then a concern comes to mind. Namely, since the intelligence of the masses increases by 3% every 10 years, in 200 years from now, the general population would be just as intelligent as some of the smartest people today. If so, in the not so distance future, one might expect to see a decrease in population, and if this trend continues, a possible extinction of our species. It would ironic if intelligence is the cause of our demise.


However, before making any concrete conclusions, do you gentlemen think that the statement, As intelligence increases, the desire to reproduce decreases., is true?

It is also due to the world-view of the more intelligent humans. While those of average iq and average aims see no problems in the usual laid out set pattern of life - school, job and then wife and kids, us thinking, wandering souls, dabbling with intellectual life and all sorts of philosophical notions have problems with it and often need more things going for us before deciding on to start a family.

While the majority sees having kids and a family as something they unquestionably wanted, more intelligent people see the drawbacks of it. Being independent all their lives, in thinking and acting, they see the negative effect the family can have on this independence and their lives (this refers to the philosophers more than the others).

[truth_justice]

Since a society of intelligent beings would always have the global population numbers at their disposal, it seems to me that if the levels reached a very low level, that they would take collective action to reproduce, like the baby boomer movement only more intelligent.

I would like to think that to too. But if the desire isn't there, making an effort might not be enough.

It is important to note some of the reasons preventing intelligent people from reproducing –

1. The population is already too high in many areas.
2. It is difficult to find masculine women who will produce healthy and intelligent offspring.
3. The financial burden of raising a child at this stage of our economical evolution is too bothersome.

There is these factors you mentioned. But they also apply to other individuals. And as Boyan points out, some aren't a concern everywhere.

But even if the impediments mentioned by you are removed, I don't think it would make a major difference 200 from years now. I think it is more of a mentality/desire issue rather than financial/inconvenience one. But the latter certainly doesn't help matters.

While the majority sees having kids and a family as something they unquestionably wanted, more intelligent people see the drawbacks of it. Being independent all their lives, in thinking and acting, they see the negative effect the family can have on this independence and their lives (this refers to the philosophers more than the others).

From what you are saying it seems to me that the desire just isn't there, or it is not strong enough. I suppose you agree then that as intelligence increases, the desire to reproduce decreases?

[Philosophaster]

Self-justification, served up piping hot each day on Genius Forum!

[Philosophaster]

"I hate mixing with 'normal people.' That must mean I'm intelligent."

"I don't want to reproduce. That must mean I'm intelligent, too."

"I don't like women. I must be a genius."

"I don't do [x], and I don't do [y], and I don't do [z]..."

Okay, there are lots of things that you don't. But what is it that you do?

If you want evidence of intelligence, try looking at what a person likes and does, not what he dislikes or doesn't do. Quit defining your "genius" negatively, in terms of being unlike the supposed "dumb masses."

[Philosophaster]

Any old idiot can not do stuff and not like stuff.

But in the end, do you have anything more to show for yourself beyond your record of abstinence from popular activities and disdain for popular beliefs?

Anything positive you have created?

Anything interesting you have discovered or invented?

Anything you have learned or taught that has made a real difference to somebody?

[Imadrongo]

I agree with Philosophaster.

I suspect your "intelligent people" are intelligent to the extent that they don't fit into the world, and their desire not to have children follows from their inability to do so.

[vicdan]

Hehe. I have four boys. :D

[truth_justice]

Any old idiot can not do stuff and not like stuff.

But in the end, do you have anything more to show for yourself beyond your record of abstinence from popular activities and disdain for popular beliefs?

Anything positive you have created?

Anything interesting you have discovered or invented?

Anything you have learned or taught that has made a real difference to somebody?

You seem to underestimate the value of self-control. A man isn't only judged by what he does, but also by what he refrains from doing. Hitler did a lot more than you or I would ever do. Do you think he should be the Humanitarian of his time?

The issue at hand is a valid one, be it may be brought up by a genius or an "old idiot". If you don't agree, please state your reason. But I suppose rather than focusing on the issue presented, you would rather point out, again, how this is about self-justification, right?

[Boyan]

"I hate mixing with 'normal people.' That must mean I'm intelligent."

"I don't want to reproduce. That must mean I'm intelligent, too."

"I don't like women. I must be a genius."

"I don't do [x], and I don't do [y], and I don't do [z]..."

Okay, there are lots of things that you don't. But what is it that you do?

If you want evidence of intelligence, try looking at what a person likes and does, not what he dislikes or doesn't do. Quit defining your "genius" negatively, in terms of being unlike the supposed "dumb masses."

You are completely off the mark here. Your remarks, regardless of how trendy they seem because it became fashionable to attack this forum these days, are off topic and predictable.

Who is talking about genius???? Nobody, obviously. Who is it here that defines genius????? Again, no one. The only one who is in line with the QRS school of thought on this thread is Ryan Rudolph, and I pointed to misconceptions in his post that came as a result of it.

We here were talking about a specific question, that is noticeable, and at least speaking for me and truth justice, did no bloody self justification. Did I say not reproducing is a good thing, a sign of great intelligence? No. Did I gave an explanation on the question why intellectuals (especially philosophically inclined ones) are hesitant to start a family? Yes.


And for the record: I like women, I fall in love.



As for Victor - I thought of that. Don't know what was the situation with his career and finances at the time when he started a family, though. Anyway, there are exceptions to every rule.

[Boyan]

Any old idiot can not do stuff and not like stuff.

But in the end, do you have anything more to show for yourself beyond your record of abstinence from popular activities and disdain for popular beliefs?

Anything positive you have created?

Anything interesting you have discovered or invented?

Anything you have learned or taught that has made a real difference to somebody?

We are talking about intellectuals, not geniuses.

And yes I have things to show for myself. Not inventions though. Have you invented some world changing thing?

[Philosophaster]

Have you invented some world changing thing?

Nope.

But I don't generally go around tooting my own horn, either.

[Boyan]

While the majority sees having kids and a family as something they unquestionably wanted, more intelligent people see the drawbacks of it. Being independent all their lives, in thinking and acting, they see the negative effect the family can have on this independence and their lives (this refers to the philosophers more than the others).

From what you are saying it seems to me that the desire just isn't there, or it is not strong enough. I suppose you agree then that as intelligence increases, the desire to reproduce decreases?[/quote]

As I said I think it's mostly due to different world view and needing more things going for them.

If a philosopher is pondering on starting a family he might go 'well, it will restrict my freedom, I will have more obligations and responsibilities, therefore if I do it it will have to be with a person I share mutual love with, I'll need to be financially set and my career or some other ambition pretty much attained.'

That would be my thinking, maybe, right now from this perspective at least.


Take Sartre for example: he was freedom as some say. He was not faithful to the women he was with, did not wanted any children, marriage, refused the Nobel prize even.


Those who left spiritual children often felt no need for the actual ones.

[Boyan]

Have you invented some world changing thing?

Nope.

But I don't generally go around tooting my own horn, either.

Tooting horns comes in different magnitudes. Tell me how was I tooting my horn that it seemed as if I was an inventor of life changing things?

[Philosophaster]

Tooting horns comes in different magnitudes. Tell me how was I tooting my horn that it seemed as if I was an inventor of life changing things?

I wasn't talking about you in particular. It was a general comment on what goes on at GF.

[Boyan]

Tooting horns comes in different magnitudes. Tell me how was I tooting my horn that it seemed as if I was an inventor of life changing things?

I wasn't talking about you in particular. It was a general comment on what goes on at GF.

Yeah, I thought so, but this thread was different, and had some potential.

[truth_justice]

Philosophaster,

What I find amusing about your comments is that you are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of. For, if in fact this was a "self justification" post, you found the need to point it out. Which implies you don't make such posts. Therefore,

1) You are somehow better than I because you don't make "self justification" posts.
2) You are intelligent to point out my desire for "self justification".

In either case, you are "showing off", which is another form of "self justification".

If you do make "self justification" posts yourself, then you are hypocrite.

What actually bothers me isn't your "showing off", or the insults, but the fact that if you reflect for one moment, you would realize that your comments imply that any sign of intelligence must be for "self justification". In other words, if Einstein himself made the first post, it must be because he wants "self justification". Likewise, if some drunk made the post for no particular reason other than he was bored, he must have done so for "self justification".

This is a forum for people to post questions. Every post can be seen as "self justification". Yet, some posts truly are such. But why bother pointing it out?

I do realize this very reply can be seen as "self justification".

I will make no further replies regarding this. Lets get back to the original post.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Boyan wrote:

This is not the reason, except in China. This would be the last thing preventing intelligent people from reproducing.

China, India, Indonesia, and most major cities in the western world are drastically overpopulated; don’t you think this is a reasonable factor for deciding not to have children? Why bring more people into the world, when we are incapable of taking care of the ones we have now, and we are incapable of looking after the earth? Intelligent people are able to ignore their biological drives in favor of the empirical evidence, and this ability is a masculine thing.

It seems to me that relatively masculine people are able to dedicate themselves to one cause of wisdom that they realize they have an act for, whether it be science/invention or life-negating philosophy. Both are masculine to different degrees, but science requires an individual that has a bit more feminine conditioning. Do you think Einstein would have had the insights he did if he was married at a young age, with a bunch of kids, and if he had the enormous responsibility of providing constant food, clothes and shelter for a bunch of dependents?

Truthjustice wrote:

I would like to think that to too. But if the desire isn't there, making an effort might not be enough.

Desire is effort though, if one observes a need to reproduce, this creates desire, which in return creates effort, and action.

Truthjustice wrote:

But even if the impediments mentioned by you are removed, I don't think it would make a major difference 200 from years now. I think it is more of a mentality/desire issue rather than financial/inconvenience one. But the latter certainly doesn't help matters.

If the population drastically decreases, this is not a problem, but a solution to many of the problems that now exist. However, if the population gets too low, necessary steps can be taken to increase levels. Even though the sage is without desire, he can still motivate himself to do things if he believes that there is need for action.

Technology is constantly reducing the burden for humans. Eventually, I can envision having computer technology that monitors global birth and death rates, and if the population gets too low, a world council could be notified, and they could order an increase in production of genetically modified fetuses in a lab to meet the proper levels.

babies could eventually be treated like a commodity, and engineered for perfection like every other commodity in the open market. This technological step will make women and the notion of the 'family' redundant, and a whole new world order will be born.

[Tomas]

Boyan wrote:

This is not the reason, except in China. This would be the last thing preventing intelligent people from reproducing.

China, India, Indonesia, and most major cities in the western world are drastically overpopulated; don’t you think this is a reasonable factor for deciding not to have children? Why bring more people into the world, when we are incapable of taking care of the ones we have now, and we are incapable of looking after the earth? Intelligent people are able to ignore their biological drives in favor of the empirical evidence, and this ability is a masculine thing.

It seems to me that relatively masculine people are able to dedicate themselves to one cause of wisdom that they realize they have an act for, whether it be science/invention or life-negating philosophy. Both are masculine to different degrees, but science requires an individual that has a bit more feminine conditioning. Do you think Einstein would have had the insights he did if he was married at a young age, with a bunch of kids, and if he had the enormous responsibility of providing constant food, clothes and shelter for a bunch of dependents?

Truthjustice wrote:

I would like to think that to too. But if the desire isn't there, making an effort might not be enough.

Desire is effort though, if one observes a need to reproduce, this creates desire, which in return creates effort, and action.

Truthjustice wrote:

But even if the impediments mentioned by you are removed, I don't think it would make a major difference 200 from years now. I think it is more of a mentality/desire issue rather than financial/inconvenience one. But the latter certainly doesn't help matters.

If the population drastically decreases, this is not a problem, but a solution to many of the problems that now exist. However, if the population gets too low, necessary steps can be taken to increase levels. Even though the sage is without desire, he can still motivate himself to do things if he believes that there is need for action.

Technology is constantly reducing the burden for humans. Eventually, I can envision having computer technology that monitors global birth and death rates, and if the population gets too low, a world council could be notified, and they could order an increase in production of genetically modified fetuses in a lab to meet the proper levels.

babies could eventually be treated like a commodity, and engineered for perfection like every other commodity in the open market. This technological step will make women and the notion of the 'family' redundant, and a whole new world order will be born.

Ryan,

Let me take a lucky guess...

You still live with your parents.



Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason


.

[Philosophaster]

What actually bothers me isn't your "showing off", or the insults, but the fact that if you reflect for one moment, you would realize that your comments imply that any sign of intelligence must be for "self justification". In other words, if Einstein himself made the first post, it must be because he wants "self justification".

No. I have heard, countless times, from self-proclaimed "highly intelligent people" that unreflective fools are the only kind of people who would have children (or do some other thing), the implication being that their own lack of desire for children (or whatever) is a mark of their high intelligence.

Maybe you can forgive me for assuming that you all were gearing up for just such a discussion.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Tomas,

Ryan,

Let me take a lucky guess...

You still live with your parents.

Don’t be fooled by your baby boomer mentality Tomas, the world is changing, and living with ones parents doesn’t have any bearing on ones ability to be logical, your humor is based on a sort of universal group-think that is becoming outdated, namely, that one needs to be financial successful, secure and totally independent with money to be intelligent and reliable in argument, but this is furthest from the truth.

Actually, having the financial burden taken away can actually increase ones ability to be reasonable because very little energy needs to be put into survival. I actually highly recommend living with ones parents for any young male thinker, especially in the beginning. It can be a vital step to get grounded in clarity before you live a minimalist lifestyle.

[vicdan]

As for Victor - I thought of that. Don't know what was the situation with his career and finances at the time when he started a family, though. Anyway, there are exceptions to every rule.

When I was marrying, I was busy graduating the top of my class -- and giving up an opportunity to earn $$$ in NYC, in order to be a poor graduate student in the hilly western Massachusetts. When my wife and I had our first kid, I was earning a small research assistantship at grad school, and she was working as a secretary.

The 'right time' to have a kid never comes, because our desires and needs grow to exhaust our means. Nobody (except in the very high income brackets) simply has extra $10K/yr just rattling around the piggybank, and unused hours each day, waiting to be spent on a kid.