Are Babies for Idiots? Maternal Urge Decreases in Women with Higher IQ

[AngryAmish]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/497192/20130806/maternal-urge-decreases-more-intelligence-childless-study.htm

"A new study suggests that women who are highly intelligent may be more likely to choose not to have children.

According to the survey conducted by Satoshi Kanazawa, a researcher at the London School of Economics (LSE), women lose a quarter of their urge to have children with every 15 extra IQ points.

The study, which cites data from the UK's National Child Development Study, remained the same even when Kanazawa added economics and education as controls.

His findings are backed up by statistics which show that, whereas just 20% of British women over the age of 45 are childless, the figure rises to 43% for women with degrees."

[liberal N proud]

1. Our youngest has a very high IQ and...

She has said she does not want to have babies.

She is only 20, but if this holds with the mentioned study, it would lend evidence to that conclusion.

[AngryOldDem]

2. Mine is 22, and she says if she has kids, it will be through adoption.

She is at the beginning of a very promising career in art, so kids are WAYYY off in the future for her.

I don't think it's a matter of higher degrees or intelligence; I think it's more that young people are well aware of the state of things and are reluctant to bring more people into the world.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. That is to say, SMART young people are aware…

while the idiots propagate as usual.

[AngryOldDem]

36. Duly noted! n/t

[hamsterjill]

158. I believe this to be true!

My daughter is about to turn 30, and she and her husband have chosen to hold off having children. It may be that they never have children. They are leaving that door open for the time being.

They both have good jobs and make decent money. Their jobs require regular hours at work and my son-in-law's job requires somewhat of a flexible schedule (i.e., some night shifts).

I have to say it - they are doing much better than some of their friends who have chosen to have children early and often! And I don't mean simply monetarily, although of course that is part of the equation. My kiddos have taken the time to enjoy one another's company, do things together (like travel), and work toward common goals BEFORE having children. They are happy, appear content, and financially secure!

I've seen several of my daughter's friends, who I have known for decades, struggle financially and stressfully trying to care for children that were born early in their lives. Several of these friends already have as many as three children. And while that decision may have been the right decision for THEM...I am happy that my own daughter has delayed the responsibility of children so that she can enjoy the life she has now. When and if she and her husband choose to have a child will be their decision and I will support that decision regardless of what it is. And I believe they will be in a better position to give a child the life it deserves for having waited a while.

[AngryAmish]

3. My fear is Idiocracy was a documentary

[hobbit709]

10. not was, IS.

[The2ndWheel]

19. Yeah, but who's fault was that?

The idiots who are too stupid to run society, or the smart people that previously built a society that could run basically on autopilot for hundreds of years, and couldn't figure out that they had to have more smart kids to keep the idiots in check?

[RC]

33. +10

What a quandary. Smart people having kids to keep the world running properly, and thereby by adding to the over population.
Or not having any kids and letting the idiots get control through their shear numbers. And boy do they have the numbers.

[Sivafae]

87. I have struggled with that question my whole life. nt

20 some odd years later, I still not able to answer it.

[DonCoquixote]

114. I'll see that and raise you

religion.

The ugly truth is, the reason why every agressive religion wants large families, they not only want to control the gene pool, they want to drown everyone else in it. That is why ., despite the fact all religions have progressive factions, the clergy in all religions, be they the Mormons, the Muslims, the Catholics, the Baptists, etc, all want large poor families; they make for cheap labor and bad educations.

[get the red out]

139. Yet religion isn't genetic

Their offspring have the potential to wake up. That must be why they so oppose education. I think the writing was on the wall for the death of education when people woke up for a minute in the 60's and 70's, then it was time to destroy the middle class so their children could not become educated.

[Quantess]

196. Religious fundies have such crappy, boring, lives unless they have several children.

Maybe not for the menfolk, since they are allowed more independence. But to be a woman in a fundamentally religious culture... how else would you find joy meaning in life, except by squeezing out a bunch of kids? Their life choices are dictated to them by their church, and women are basically told their value is in breeding and being a wife.

[KurtNYC]

37. Indeed. Here is the section which so accurately documented the trend cited in the OP

[hedgehog]

54. My fear is that Idiocracy reflects the ongoing influence of the eugenics

movement in American popular culture.

[AngryAmish]

115. and that was one reason why it was released in about five theaters nationwide

That and the fact it made fun of so many corporations.

[JackRiddler]

134. Correct.

That scene furthermore has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, which is about the dumbing down by corporate culture.

[Dash87]

170. Luckily it was just a horrible movie instead.

[cali]

22. no it doesn't. It's purely anecdotal. That doesn't add evidence.

[anneboleyn]

106. My husband and I are academics w/no kids. I am NOT suggesting that I have a high IQ

(I have never had mine tested so I have no idea) but many women in the academy choose not to have children. I honestly think that the long slog to a Ph.D. and the job pressures have a lot to do with that issue, but I know I never wanted children and many female colleagues have commented that they did not want them either. The birthrates have definitely declined with the GenXers (my generation) and will probably decline even more with millenials -- it takes so long to finish degrees, find and marry a decent person, and secure decent jobs these days that it makes sense that many women don't want children added into the mix.

[Orrex]

4. Just proves that the menfolk don't like breeding with them smart wimmins.

[AngryAmish]

12. In general men don't mind marrying down the IQ ladder, women do

In general (and of course if we do not speak in generalities then we cannot have intelligent discussions of groups) men will marry for looks ahead of brains, women will want to marry a man who has more resources (and the smarter you are the more resources you secure generally). So assuming that there are as many men as women at a given IQ point, if the men will select both high IQ women and lower IQ women, there necessarily be fewer high IQ men if women want to marry men with higher IQ.

Of course, this is in general: your experience may be different.

[Orrex]

14. That just shows that men and women are shallow in different ways

I find that strangely encouraging.

[AngryAmish]

17. yeah, how about it?

[raccoon]

68. Great post....that's been my observation & experience as well. nt

[RC]

34. I prefer smart women. Much prefer.

Dumb women drive me nutz.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. Idiots? Seriously?

[magical thyme]

6. misleading title (not your fault, of course)

It assumes having children is 100% by choice. It is not.

And to the degree that it is choice, it may be that more intelligent women choose not to, not due to lack of desire but lack of reasonably good circumstances.

And it may also be that less intelligent women are more likely to get pregnant due poor decision making, such as , "If I have a baby, marriage will follow" or the inability to follow simple instructions. (I work as a med lab tech. You would not believe how difficult it is for some people to follow the simplest instructions. The funniest recent one I can think of being the stool specimen we rejected because the patient poured out the preservative in the sterile cup prior to depositing their poop into it!)

[pipi_k]

24. Speaking of specimens...

Long ago I volunteered for a time at a family planning clinic.

One day while I was there a young woman came in for an exam and was given the standard urine specimen cup/kit and sent off to the bathroom.

We didn't see her for a while and wondered what was up...was she OK?

Finally she came out and handed over her specimen.

A stool specimen.

I was glad I wasn't the one who had to tell her that her effort was wasted and that she only had to provide us with some pee.

[magical thyme]

26. ah, but was it a "clean catch" poop?

[pipi_k]

48. I'm pretty sure

it wasn't.

Most likely she used the little towelettes to clean up after the "catch".

[hedgehog]

55. What you are describing is someone who didn't have the same vocabulary as you -

she didn't recognize the word "urine". Apparently, she also had so little contact with the health care system that that is the first time she was asked for a urine specimen. It's possible that she was mentally challenged, but my guess is that she was from the bottom 10%.

[pipi_k]

100. Not mentally challenged

as far as I could tell.

She appeared to be in her early 20s, not from a different culture (i.e. English speaking).

My only explanation is that she probably hadn't had much experience with healthcare. Which is sad.

Another thing that's sad...women who are totally ignorant about their own bodies. A few years back I was shocked to learn that a friend...in her mid 60s, with children...did not know that women had 3 "openings". She was under the assumption that urine and menstrual discharge both came from the same place.

She didn't want to believe me at first...

[Chemisse]

177. Where did she thing the penis was going during sexual intercourse?

Up her urethra? (ouch!)

[The2ndWheel]

7. That wouldn't say much for all of our mothers

Happy Idiot's Day mom!

Imagine the cards they could make.

[GliderGuider]

18. Mother's Day is mawkish, sentimental, pro-breeding propaganda.

On the other hand, our parents' behavior is understandable - when most of our parents had us, the walls of the future hadn't closed in quite as tightly as they have now.

Today any potential parent with a milligram of empathy and compassion will refrain from procreating. Only someone who is completely bound up in their own psychic wounds and egoic needs would even consider bringing a helpless child into the buzz-saw world that's unfolding around us.

[The2ndWheel]

25. Damned if you do or don't

If you have kids, you're a greedy person, and contributing more future misery with yet another mouth to eat the world. If you don't have kids, you're a greedy person, since it's so that you can eat more of the world yourself.

We can't stop, but we can't continue.

[cali]

28. oh what nonsense.

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)

Today any potential parent with a milligram of empathy and compassion will refrain from procreating. Only someone who is completely bound up in their own psychic wounds and egoic needs would even consider bringing a helpless child into the buzz-saw world that's unfolding around us.

Some members of every generation for millennia have seen the world/society as on the precipice of crashing down. Yes, it seems particularly dire now but imagine what it seemed like in other periods; for example in 1941, or during the depression or the plague years in Europe.

To claim that anyone who wants to have children- without any evidence- is severely damaged, is ludicrous.

[onenote]

39. + a really big number

[GliderGuider]

49. All the periods you mention saw a decline in birth rates.

It's not that the people who are still having children are damaged - it's that they are at the less perceptive/informed end of the human bell curve. The perceptive, well-informed ones on the other end who have the option of doing so are drastically reducing their birth rates.

I'd love to see the world population go into a steep decline, and it looks like I'll probably get my wish in the next 20-30 years. For the sake of having a sustainable biosphere we really should be getting the global population down to around 10 million or so (yes, that's million with an "m&quot as quickly as possible, preferably within this century. That won't happen of course, but then neither will a sustainable biosphere.

Here's an article that assesses a number of sobering sustainability speculations: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html

[cali]

63. more garbage without a scintilla of evidence to back up your silly claims

and you're contradicting yourself- first you talk about how people with wounded psyches are the ones having children then you claim that it's not that they're damaged but less perceptive and informed and you bring up the bell curve in a reference with nothing to back it up.

I tend to steer away from the kind of predictions you're indulging in. Sure it looks like we're heading for a steep decline in human population but who knows? Too many variables. It's what Malthus didn't take into consideration and it's what you're doing.

[GliderGuider]

66. I tend to have a fairly accepting attitude towards most human behavior.

People can't really control what we think or do (regardless that we believe this to be the case) so it doesn't make much sense to get upset about it.

What I was doing here amounted to floating a trial marketing balloon for the population-reduction folks. Anyone who seriously wants to try and reduce population growth to negative faces almost insurmountable odds. Human nature, evolutionary pressures and the nature of life itself all erect formidable barriers against voluntary, severe restrictions in fertility when enough resources are still available to support growth. The reaction to my few words here is yet more evidence of that.

You may rationalize your reaction as me being somehow "factually wrong", but the strength of the reactions tells me that the core objection is purely emotional. My statements violate core beliefs about the value of human life. As a result no derogatory assumptions about my character, motives or IQ feel too extreme.

My position stands - if we want people to reduce world population pressures by reducing their own fertility, we must help them feel that having kids is a bad idea. Appeals to altruism and education don't do it.

[loyalsister]

74. we must help them feel that having kids is a bad idea.

A BAD IDEA based on? Historically, it was based on the idea reproduction among undesirables was polluting the Nordic Superior Race in America.

[GliderGuider]

75. Based on the fact that the whole human species is probably 100x into overshoot.

And that the level of our activity is making the planet unfit for habitation, whether by humans or many other species.

The level of human activity that can qualified as sustainable over the long haul (say the next 100,000 years) is probably on the order of 10 to 20 million people, but only if their energy consumption is at pre-Paleolithic levels. (http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html)

Based on that probability, I don't need to be any kind of a a eugenicist for my proposals to appear catastrophic and unreasonable. I certainly don't expect anyone to formulate policy on this basis.

[cali]

77. ack. you are wrong.

my reaction has little to do with what my perception of the value of human life, en masse, is.

Yes, a sharp reduction is reproduction is probably the best chance that the human species has to avoid extinction. But extinction happens.

I don't need to rationalize anything: Scientific arguments without supporting evidence are an obvious failure. It's a tad on the ironic side that you're insisting that I'm the one arguing from an emotional place considering that you're arguing without facts or evidence..

I haven't made any derogatory assumptions about your character or motives- just about your argument. You, on the other hand, directly attack me with your accusation that I'm arguing from an emotional perspective and that I'm attacking your character, when I've done no such thing.


Regarding your last paragraph, if appeals to altruism and eduction are doomed to fail when it comes to getting people to stop having children, how do you suggest that helping "them feel that having kids is a bad idea", be implemented?

Procreation, as you admit, is a biological imperative. I'd argue that it's one that's doing us far more harm than good, but that doesn't make much difference.


Lastly, emotion does come into play in how my argument is presented. I wouldn't dispute that, but it has more to do with my admitted lack of patience with faulty logic than any attachment I place on the survival of the species.

[GliderGuider]

86. I actually don't think that any amount of human preaching will get people to change their behavior.

Certainly not on anything as fundamental as having children. I tend to agree with the findings of American anthropologist Marvin Harris. His framework called "Cultural Materialism" views every human culture as having three layers: the infrastructure, which is our interface with our physical environment; the structure, all the organizations we put in place to operate the mechanics of culture; and the superstructure - the level of values, beliefs etc.

Harris made a key observation: in every culture he examined, cultural changes flowed probabilistically up from the infrastructure, not down from the superstructure. What that means is that our behavior is shaped most strongly by changes to our physical circumstances. It also means that if the infrastructure supports one type of behavior, any attempts to change the cultural belief and value systems to go against that behavior will have very little power. Beliefs and values acquire a lot of strength when they are in support of the required (aka socially approved) behavior, but have little when they oppose it.

Ask the hippies, the population activists, the climate activists, the ecological activists. To paraphrase, "Nothing is so weak as an idea whose time has not yet come."

So I don't think that any type or amount of preaching will change our behavior around kids unless/until we come to see overpopulation as a threat. We're not there yet, even though it's probably too late already. As the reaction to my posts clearly demonstrates.

[cali]

101. I don't disagree with that.

I think that's a very astute observation by Harris. Yes, it likely is too late and contrary to what you seem to believe, that doesn't bother me- even though I'm a parent. Not to be nonchalant about that prospect, but species come and species go. I don't see extinction as the most likely of possibilities, but I do think that a population crash could very well occur. I had an anthropology professor once who declared that the best thing that could happen to our species would be if were bombed back into the stone age and started over.

Honestly though, I think the reaction on this thread to your comments flows from your initial thread on it which was, at best, poorly worded- and that's being charitable:

Today any potential parent with a milligram of empathy and compassion will refrain from procreating. Only someone who is completely bound up in their own psychic wounds and egoic needs would even consider bringing a helpless child into the buzz-saw world that's unfolding around us.

You said something silly, offensive and condescending. You assumed, wrongly I believe, that the ensuing reaction was due to your argument about the threat of overpopulation. Once again, correlation does not automatically imply causation.

[GliderGuider]

103. My wording was deliberately inflammatory.

Which is why I'm not taking offense at the strong reactions. Seriously, I'm involved in a number of other self-selecting discussion circles on the net, in which a statement like that would be met with amused head-nodding. This is not one of them,. This is quite an emotionally conventional place, by and large.

My position, shorn of the hyperbole, is this:

Having more kids today is a really, really bad idea, but we will continue doing it anyway until we can't. The reason we will continue is because people are so deeply invested in the sanctity of children and parenting, and because Harding's "Tragedy of the Commons" hasn't come back to bite us all on the ass just yet. Using more of the planet's resources is a really, really bad idea too, but we will continue doing it anyway until we can't. The reason we will continue is because people are so deeply invested in the sanctity of growth - and because Harding's "Tragedy of the Commons" hasn't come back to bite us all on the ass just yet.

That's why I think we're screwed.

[cali]

108. you deliberately post flame bait, make a claim

that in other internet discussion groups people would react in a more intellectual and enlightened way to it, with "amused head nodding"- a claim that no one can verify, btw. that's your explanation or defense?

If you were truly interested in discussion, you would have posted your third paragraph in the post I'm responding to, instead of admitted flame bait.

Again, the reason people responded to you negatively isn't as you posit that people don't want to deal with the subject matter. It's that you posted flame bait.

There's nothing particularly revelatory or shocking about what you're saying. It's something many, if not most here have recognized for a long time. I know that because of previous threads on the matter.

You chose to try and piss people off and then adopt this morally superior cloak when you do just that.

[GliderGuider]

112. Fair enough. I won't do it again.

Though I don't think I'm trying to be morally superior by pointing out that there are other groups with different reactions to the same wording. This is the more "normal" group, for sure. I tend to spend a lot of time on boards where things like human extinction within the next 50 years are seen as a reasonable conclusion, so I guess my perspective can seem a little bent outside those fora. I must admit I'd forgotten how much of a hot button I would press by saying things like that. It's been a short, sharp education in the need to watch my mouth.

[cali]

117. thanks. I think you bring up valid points and it's a discussion worthy topic

It's something a lot of people are interested in. Perhaps you could try again and post an OP?

[GliderGuider]

123. I'll think about it.

I harbor a lot of off-beat ideas - human behavior is largely shaped by the Second Law of Thermodynamics; free will is an illusion; global techno-industrial civilization has become humanity's cybernetic exoskeleton; humans have already become endosymbiotic with our technology, like the mitochondria in our own cells; we should stop trying to fix problems because over the long run it doesn't work; the only thing that's really going to help climate change is a global economic collapse; the maximum sustainable human population is 0; all human energy use damages the planet, regardless of its source; the way things are today isn't anybody's fault; believing that activism can change the global trajectory is a scale error (i.e. collective human behavior is qualitatively different from a collection of individual behaviors) etc.

I don't know if it's even possible to have a useful conversation about population control. I know I don't see eye to eye with either the breeders or the activists on the question, so it's a bit problematic for me (as you've seen...) I'll think about it, though.

[WilliamPitt]

57. Somebody fucked you up real good, didn't they.

[GliderGuider]

61. Why, because I have attitudes you don't agree with?

Srsly...

On edit: I have a wonderful relationship with my parents, and I'm happy to be alive - especially right now. Obviously, I am child-free. One thing I will cop to is that the last 10 years of trying to figure out what's really going on in the world and why left me with a shocking degree of pessimism about the future of our species. It took me while to put it all in perspective, but that's just a cost of living a well-examined life. I'm no more fucked up than anybody else, just fucked up in my own special way!

[WilliamPitt]

64. No, but apparently I'm "completely bound up in my own psychic wounds and egoic needs."

Can't you tell?



I'm not even sure "egoic" is a word, but whatever. That's a fucked up, obnoxious, vile thing to say to anyone.

Make your own choices, by all means, but take the shitty rhetoric and jam it sideways into whatever orifice most easily presents itself. Back into your mouth via the delete button would probably be best for all involved, especially you.

[GliderGuider]

67. That's quite an intense statement.

Which amounts to, "I don't like your thoughts, so STFU."

[WilliamPitt]

70. Yup.

That's pretty much it.

[GliderGuider]

76. That's too bad.

There are a lot of interesting, uncomfortable ideas out near the edge. But of course we don't all need to think them.

I meant nothing personal against you, Will. My thoughts were directed at how our culture markets demographic beliefs and turns them into holy writ.

[get the red out]

135. "our culture markets demographic beliefs and turns them into holy writ"

Thank you for this statement GliderGuider, I have somewhat different opinions on what the next 50 years or so will bring, but I do agree with a lot of what you are saying. Especially the statement above. I see, and see through this everyday. So many "truths" taken for granted leave me just scratching my head wondering how people blindly accept them. It makes me feel like I'm in that movie "The Truman Show" sometimes, except what's marketed to us is often too hard to believe to make good fiction, except we do blindly accept what beliefs our culture markets.

I am also adamantly child-free and people have always thought that strange, I never thought of it as much more than a life choice that was a part of my make up, until I fully realized it was so ferociously "marketed" as weird or unacceptable.

[GliderGuider]

137. We evolved to accept stupid beliefs in the interests of social harmony.

Also, it helps keep the cognitive dissonance down to to a dull roar.

[get the red out]

138. Sometimes I wish I could accept them

Sigh, I'd probably sleep better.

[GliderGuider]

140. Some bells can't be un-rung

Some truths can't be un-seen. Can you OD on the red pills?

Sleep is over-rated anyway. Why sleep when you could be awake doing something useful, like fretting over things you can't change?

[mainer]

147. The Chinese ferociously marketed "one child max"

yet real human beings tried to get around those rules because ... well, they're human beings.

[get the red out]

149. The government, not their culture

Their culture was still set on "have a boy to take care of you in the future", so many girls were dropped of at the orphanage, or simply hidden by their families hoping for the desired boy next time around.

[mainer]

150. So we must wipe out "the culture"?

I'm not entirely sure how to do that without exterminating the human race. Which, according to some here, seems to be the preferable route to overpopulation.

You were talking about "marketing". So it's not marketing per se, you're saying, it's the way people live and think and grew up.

[get the red out]

155. That is my take on how a culture markets things

I cannot see where I suggested "wiping out" anyone or anything! I was just questioning the government of China as a representation of their culture. Their current government system is far younger than their culture.

I do not see how pointing out how a culture predisposes people to think is a suggestion that someone try to wipe them out?

I personally believe that OUR cultural marketing is coming from the corporations who need more and more unquestioning consumers and warriors. I am not suggesting our people be wiped out either.

[GliderGuider]

166. And where do the corporations come from?

Why have they become so powerful? Are they not simply picking up belief/behavior cues that already exist in the population, and re-marketing the ones that are advantageous to them?

A culture markets things by creating narratives about them - largely unconscious stories we tell ourselves and each other about how the world works. They are mostly lies and self-deceptions, but that's the only thing that works to hold a culture together. People are fundamentally emotional and non-rational. Me included.

There is virtually nothing about the structure of human society that is abnormal or artificial (whatever those words might mean in this context). Distasteful yes, but that's not quite the same thing. things got to be this way not because of corporate malfeasance, but because at each step of the way the collective "we" agreed on some level that the next step was a good idea.

[get the red out]

167. I agree

They are manifesting our selfishness.

[GliderGuider]

168. All life is fundamentally selfish.

In other species we just call it their survival instinct. We're a little harsher on ourselves, though.

[WCLinolVir]

178. You can not separate our society from the politics of corporatism.

And you can not paint a picture of a society evolving without acknowledging a history of coercion. Theory that is not supported by facts is inapplicable. There is nothing unconscious about how things are marketed. If you really believe that then you really have been drinking the koolaid. People are fundamentally coerced. Just look at the high rates of depression and suicide. A symptom of the reality of what we are subjected to in our society. It is a symptom of the abnormal and artificial.
I really think you have hit the sweet spot in your thinking that gives you a comfort zone. Even though it is false.

[GliderGuider]

179. Yes, people are fundamentally coerced.

In fact, all norming (without which societies could not even form) is coercive - I got schooled in that fact earlier today on this thread. Any group of two or more people will exhibit coercion to some degree. But the coercion we're really talking about seems to be inevitable in a high-energy society. Just like the hierarchies that spring up to give the global system enough structure to let us produce and use 18 TW of power. You don't get that kind of power dissipation without a solid social structure, and you don't get that kind of solidity without coercion.

This perspective stems from my understanding of how the Second law of Thermodynamics operates in open, non-linear, far-from-equilibrium systems like the Earth, ecosystems, or human and non-human societies. In such circumstances self-organizing dissipative structures appear spontaneously. This operation of the Second Law shapes and constrains human behavior in similar (but more complex) ways to how it shapes hurricanes, Benard cells and life itself.

Hurricanes and tornadoes emerge to dissipate atmospheric and oceanic energy gradients. Life arises because the conditions are supportive and there are local energy gradients and other resources to be used. Life apparently emerges because it is a more effective as a dissipative structure than inanimate systems like whirlpools.

The dissipative imperative built into the Second Law is behind everything that happens in the universe - it structures the matter that life is made of, shapes the organization of living organisms, and it shapes their behavior - all to maximize their effectiveness at dissipating energy gradients.

In the "behavior"category we also find human social behavior, which has exactly the same roots as the behavior of bacteria or birds, or the operation of a whirlpool. The specifics of what behavior emerges - the social and political structures, the economic systgems etc. - are governed by local physical circumstances like climate, weather, resources, geographic location etc. But as human societies gain the ability/need to use more and more energy, they develop hierarchy and the attendant coercion just as naturally as a hurricane develops an eyewall.

Do you really think this is a comfort zone? It completely eliminates any hope that human free will might somehow pull our chesnuts out of the fire. That thought is anything but comforting. But instead of being false, I've become pretty sure that it's true.

[WCLinolVir]

194. Nice theory but once again all encompassing. Over broad.

Too many variables. What I refer to is your comfort with using a single model to explain the sum total of all phenomena and human life just does not function so predictably. i don't believe that our behavior has the same "roots" as a whirlpool. I really do not have the inclination to explain to you the facts about human beliefs and experience modeling our chemistry. If people could use a single model or even overlapping models, then human behavior would be predictable, like a whirlpool. But it isn't. And this energy that you attribute to modeling our behavior is without intent.
It just is not that simple.

[GliderGuider]

195. If you say so.

I'm not expecting to find much agreement with it, especially on a political board that is devoted to the belief in human agency.

I'm not saying the Second Law governs the details of human behavior. Gravity (a teleomatic force in the same category as 2LoT) doesn't determine exactly what you'll scream when you fall off a cliff, it just determines that you will fall down, not up. Similarly, 2LoT doesn't determine who will be the next global superpower, just that there will be one - and they will accede to that role because they make more effective use of the available energy gradients than any other power bloc.

[GliderGuider]

161. People can't live in groups without a culture emerging.

You can't wipe it out, and according to Marvin Hasrris, we can't really do much to change it. It's an emergent property, like a magnetic field.

Just to be clear, if you think that I believe that extermination is preferable to overpopulation, you are mistaken. I see extinction (as opposed to extermination) as a probable consequence of overpopulation coupled with overconsumption if we take it to the limit. And humans (in the collective) aren't so good at stopping short while there's still stuff that could be consumed.

The only time marketing works is when it's in support of something we want to do anyway. Look at the anti-marijuana marketing, and how effective that's been. Many of us want to get stoned, want to have kids, want to drive to Denny's for a triple bypass burger. Marketing that tells us how we can do all that and still be OK works like a charm. Marketing that tells us those might be bad ideas is soundly ignored.

[Marrah_G]

151. Your thoughts may be one thing

Your words, on the other hand, were offensive.

[GliderGuider]

153. Yes, I got that. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Completely unrelated

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

And wonderful baby, but police recommend not posting these types of pictures...it is a safety thing...if not now, consider that when that baby is older.

As I said, completely unrelated, and go ahead and call me paranoid.

And in case ou think I am making this shit up, like many here do...

http://www.netsmartz411.org/

There is more...but I am sure you can let your fingers walk the keyboard.

[GliderGuider]

93. Thats' a very good point.

When we're emotionally aroused, our caution tends to go out the window.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. My sis has yet to post one picture of her now 10 and 8 year olds

And we go out of our way not to take photos of kids at news stories. Tonight I will make an exception, since we are covering a vigil for a missing teen.

[pipi_k]

107. Well if you are

paranoid, then so am I.

Last year after the son of some family friends posted some nakedbaby pix of his new daughter on Facebook, I had Mr Pipi message him to say that it probably was not a good idea. The kid said thank you and promptly deleted the photos.

And one day when my two granddaughters were younger, we were at their house when my DIL was giving them a bath. They wanted Poppa and Nanny to take pictures of them in the tub.

No.

We only take photos of the kids when they're clothed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Well, we have been told this by SD police agencies

This is also posted by missing children advocates.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

165. Livia Soprano, is that you? nt

[pintobean]

8. They use a pic of Cameron Diaz as an example.

Is she known for having a high IQ?

[Orrex]

9. In addition...

Since IQ actually measures very little aside from an ability to do well on IQ tests, I don't see how this study tells us much of value.

[justiceischeap]

16. Actually, yes, she is. nt

[cali]

11. How fucking ridiculous. Speaking of idiots.

just how were economics and education added as controls? And if education was factored in, how does that square with the figures cited about women over 45 where it appears that education has a great deal to do with whether a woman decides to have children?

this is the sort of useless study that really makes me wonder. Wankers. What's the point? Going to start a campaign for "highly intelligent women to start cranking out babies?

Can the desire to have children even be quantified this way? "According to the survey conducted by Satoshi Kanazawa, a researcher at the London School of Economics (LSE), women lose a quarter of their urge to have children with every 15 extra IQ points." What about other variables?

[KittyWampus]

29. I would also add societal pressure into the mix of variables In some societal segments womens' roles

are limited to breeding and housekeeping with careers and education being a low priority.

After a life time of being told what your role is, some women may subconsciously lower their intellectual performance without realizing it. It just becomes a habit.

[Chemisse]

183. You are right - there are so many other variables.

Those with higher IQs are likely to spend more years in education (as you noted), or may face pressure from peers and even family to put their studies first (professors can be disdainful of students who are having babies).

They also may take longer to find a spouse because their studies keep them more isolated, or more preoccupied. After a while it just becomes too late to have babies.

They may not have a lot of friends who are having babies, which would apply subtle pressure to refrain from bearing children.

I'm sure there are many more possible factors that are not directly resultant from having a high IQ.

[GliderGuider]

13. Perhaps smarter, better-educated people can see the future more clearly?

And as a result they may be less inclined to thrust helpless, choiceless newborns into a situation that is so profoundly insecure and potentially catastrophic?

The near-term future holds a rising probability of sudden massive climate change, food shortages, overpopulation, pollution of all kinds, growing social, political and economic disparity, and rising levels of violence at all levels from suicides and domestic disputes up to wars of genocide.

What kind of monster would force children to live in a world like that?

[pintobean]

23. "smarter, better-educated people"

Live in fear? If that were actually true, many of us wouldn't be here. There's always been concern about the world the next generation is going to live in. It would seem to me that the "smarter, better-educated people" would want to reproduce so their offspring could help solve some of the coming problems.

[GliderGuider]

46. There are a growing number of people who don't think the problems are solvable any more.

It's not necessarily fear, although fear does make a strong appearance near the beginning of this recognition process. It's more a sense of realistic acceptance that the human trajectory is too far along, and that the combination of the Earth's deteriorating physical condition, backed up by human resistance and inertia makes significant deviations ever more difficult.

Anthropologist and demographer Virginia Abernethy has developed a theory she calls the fertility-opportunity hypothesis. In place of the demographic transition theory with its emphasis on education and income, her hypothesis states that fertility follows perceived economic opportunity. It's interesting, as global fertility has been falling since 1970 or so, in lock-step with the flattening of the growth in primary energy consumption which is a very good proxy for economic opportunity.



One other factor is probably related to the demographic transition theory - the world's people are now on average becoming wealthy enough that children aren't an absolute requirement for survival. As a result the perceived economic decline in the medium-term future changes children from an economic and social benefit to an overall cost. That has a greater influence in prompting people not to have as many children.

[Puzzledtraveller]

73. Funny that isn't it

I suppose more humans will just appear to replace the ones that die. I am beggining to believe some people think this way.

[GliderGuider]

78. Regarding our offspring solving future problems, do you know "Sevareid's Law?"

It says, "The chief cause of problems is solutions."

We ended up in this situation because our problem-solving nature has created mutually amplifying positive feedback loops involving resource consumption, energy use, human numbers and activity levels. We solvied every problem we encountered for the last million years just to get here. If we don't like where we are, what makes us think that more problem-solving will fix it?

Human beings are all accelerator, and no brake. Life typically relies on external factors to limit overgrowth. We treated each of those factors as a problem, and solved it. And the global situation kept getting worse despite (because of?) all that effort. Now what?

[pintobean]

89. Yet, here we are

using the tools and resources that the last million years have brought us to, and you're putting a lot of effort into solving a problem that doesn't exist.

[GliderGuider]

90. What problem do you see me as trying to solve?

I'm actually trying to get people to sit down, take a deep breath and stop creating new problems.

[pintobean]

94. My need for an education in bullshit. (nt)

[GliderGuider]

97. I can't teach you anything you don't want to learn.

In the future I'll probably stick to advocating that people stop using all fossil fuels effective immediately. There are fewer hot buttons around that topic

[Daemonaquila]

188. Not at all.

They'd just rather spend their OWN time making a better world rather than wasting time on kids they don't really want that much anyway, in the delusion that those kids are going to solve the problems "someday" rather than just working themselves to death having some more kids who might "someday" prevent humans from destroying all life on the planet. Rinse, lather, repeat.

[Throd]

30. I'm sure glad I'm not smart enough to see the world as you do.

It sounds like a truly horrible place.

[GliderGuider]

53. Once you get used to it, it's actually quite a wonderful place.

In order to come to terms completely with what's happening out there, you do need to change your view of what humanity is doing, and why.

Most people don't like the idea of discarding hope even if it is replaced with something equally noble though, so I completely understand why you feel that way. It takes all kinds, right?

[onenote]

42. This kind of "monster"?

Tawakkol Karman -- co-winner of Nobel Peace Prize in 2011, born in 1979, mother of three

Leymah Gbowee -- co-winner of Nobel Peace Prize in 2011, born in 1972, mother of four.

[GliderGuider]

50. IMO, any couple entering their reproductive phase now who has more than two children

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)

is committing omnicide.

My opinion won't stop them, of course. As Vonnegut said, "So it goes."

[Dawgs]

92. Be careful. I mentioned that I was going to put a "two is enough" bumper sticker on my car, and...

people went nuts.

[GliderGuider]

95. I know.

We're just a couple of closet eugenicists...

[liberal_at_heart]

162. enjoy your superiority complex. I'm done with this idiotic thread.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. That places Darwinian pressure on humans to become less intelligent. N/T

[Jackpine Radical]

38. That pressure has actually been there for a long time now.

There has been a negative correlation between education & fecundity for generations.

Maybe that explains…

[GreenStormCloud]

40. That is true. N/T

[GliderGuider]

58. It may go back much further than that.

Dr. George Mobus of the University of Washington thinks that humanity may have been on the verge of an evolutionary shift towards true sapience, or wisdom, back around when we invented agriculture 10,000 years ago. With the advent of agriculture and its emphasis on growth and technology, our linear, analytical, problem-solving abilities may have out-competed our integrative, holistic, wisdom-based tendencies. Thus instead of really becoming H. sapiens sapiens, we evolved into tool-monkeys. Clever as hell, but not so wise.

An introduction to Mobus' thinking: The Evolution of Sapience.

[Nay]

141. Well, not really. IIRC, intelligence as measured by IQ tests is only weakly inheritable.

But the resources and general quality of a child's life is much improved when he/she is lucky enough to have intelligent and involved parents.

[Myrina]

20. Not a surprise.

Although I think there's more to it than just IQ.
I think women with higher IQ's tend to get a better education & see that there's more to life than getting married and being a Mrs., and they also tend to have access to more & better life opportunities.

[bettyellen]

31. You alone here, got it! I thought it seemed simple and obvious enough.

[JustAnotherGen]

32. +1

And now that I'm 40 - I understand - you can have it all . . . but there's a good chance all of those 'things' are going to be done half assed. Give it all and give it now or simply do less.

[freeplessinseattle]

120. Seems an obvious confound, but.......

"Kanazawa used data from the UK’s National Child Development Study and added controls for economics and education. Even with these controls, the results showed that smarter women were choosing not to have children"

[mainer]

172. How did he measure "smartness"?

I'm not see standardized IQ tests here. Only those who went to college.

An IQ test takes a long time to administer, and takes a lot of time and effort. Did he do IQ tests on thousands of women?

[panader0]

21. Ask your mother.

[hedgehog]

56. !

[KittyWampus]

27. Perhaps women w/higher IQ's reason through options when unwanted pregnancy occurs AND

may be more likely to think about their reproductive choices before engaging in sex & more likely to use birth control?

[Xithras]

41. Probably because they have more to lose, and the ability to evaluate that loss

Even controlling for education and economics, people with higher IQ's typically have more opportunities and financial success than those who do not. Parenthood not only depresses income in women, but reduces their mobility and career opportunities. Clearly, it's a sacrifice many aren't interested in making.

[rrneck]

43. IQ is overrated. nt

[bunnies]

44. Makes sense to me.

My IQ is 143 and my maternal urge is 0.

[Daemonaquila]

189. LOL.

I'm a point lower than you, and thought the same damned thing.

[Bunnahabhain]

45. I wish

there was a link to the study itself. I would like to slice and dice his data a bit. For instance, I wonder if there is some cut point in the late teen years. Not every smart girl is going to have the chance to go to post-secondary education, but I bet once a smart girl gets there her likelihood of early childbearing drops sharply, and I wonder if the smart girls that do not go experience gravidity at about the same rates as the general population. Of course, once a woman starts putting off child birth her odds of having a child go down greatly, and her odds of having several severely plummet. This makes sense as her fertile years are running out, so if this holds true, IQ is just a predictor and not a cause.

[kiva]

47. Not surprising to me,

though I'd have said it was linked to education, not IQ. Look at college faculty - mostly PhDs with some Masters mixed in - and you'll see many childfree people. Among my colleagues with children, one woman has three kids and only two men have more that two children (one adopted his wife's children) - everyone else 0 -1 children.

[kestrel91316]

51. Well that explains me, lol. Still childless, and have not regretted it.

[pipi_k]

52. I think there may be

more to it than just higher IQ, though.

Like maybe emotional and/or chronological maturity.

Maybe it also has to do with something that's close to a hoarding disorder. People indiscriminately having kid after kid after kid, just like someone collecting cats...or dolls.

Trying to soothe their own emotional needs at the expense of the babies they spawn.

And other reasons, too...as people have mentioned above.

[Gormy Cuss]

59. Kanasawa also posted on his blog that black women are less attractive

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14945110

A lecturer at the London School of Economics (LSE) has apologised for a blog which discussed "why black women are less physically attractive".

Dr Satoshi Kanazawa said he was sorry for any offence caused and for any damage to the school.

LSE began an inquiry into the blog and concluded his arguments were "flawed".

The inquiry panel also ruled he had brought the school into disrepute and barred him from teaching compulsory courses this academic year.

The lecturer has also been banned from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for 12 months.

[SoCalDem]

60. Since reliable birth control came along, MANY childbearing-age women

have had a choice their older female friends/relatives did not have, so a whole new "field of study" emerged as these women have aged, and have been "studied".

There have always been women who chose to not have kids, to not marry. If one equates IQ with success, it also may indicate that as one goes up the ladder of "success", the reality of what it costs to raise children also figures into the mix.

Most people have a focus in their lives. If you are non-married, childless woman , your focus CAN be on yourself and your career, and of course, it does take intelligence & drive to succeed, especially if you are the sole support of your life/lifestyle.

Babies & small kids require and deserve 100% attention, love, support, and that's difficult to do (as many who have tried the be-everything-to-everyone route find/found out).

IQ is an odd thing too, since some very "smart" people do some very dangerous/stupid/criminal things and are anything BUT "successful"...and many people of modest IQ turn out to be great parents, great entrepreneurs, great spouses etc.

It all depends on your choice of focus and so many daily circumstances that present themselves..

One of my sons with a 168 IQ is a high school drop-out .. Some people would say he is a failure..time will tell.. He works hard, is a great Dad, and is happy with his "lesser-than" lifestyle.

[Zorra]

62. All the ramifications of this are a huge can of worms from the standpoint of natural selection

and evolution.

[HiPointDem]

65. oh bullshit. correlation not causation.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

69. Calling Sir Francis Galton on the Factophone:

Regression towards the Mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

[AngryAmish]

193. You have discovered the bane of every baseball agents' existence

Also why a lot of eugenics does not work.

[Puzzledtraveller]

71. Oy vey

[Dreamer Tatum]

72. It always amuses me when people critique an activity that is literally built into our DNA

Reproduction and propagation of the species is one of the most primal forces in nature.
You're not going to change it or shame people out of it.

[millennialmax]

82. First, I'm a monster for being an omnivore and now my mom's an idiot for getting pregnant. eom

[Puzzledtraveller]

83. ^^this^^

[get the red out]

148. Well, people certainly try to shame others into it

There is all sorts of shaming of the child-free that goes on. This article being discussed might just be another one. Trying to scare people into having kids because of the fear humanity will just be a flock of idiots one day.

[shenmue]

79. Wait a minute

If nobody has babies, nobody in the future will have any IQ.

[Dreamer Tatum]

80. Or pensions. nt

[laundry_queen]

81. Holy shit, imagine how many kids I'd have had if my IQ was 100

My IQ is 131+ and I have 4 kids. So, I'd have 8 kids if my iq was 100? lol.

I have 1 year of school left till my degree, so I did have my kids before I got my degree - don't know if that makes a difference.

[mainer]

84. Yet 57% women with university degrees have children

Which is the majority of your so-called "non-idiot" women.

[Dawgs]

96. Having a degree does not make you smart. There's a big difference.

Just look at some members (tea baggers) of my family.

[mainer]

99. Well, exactly! But that's the metric the study used

they seemed to base IQ on whether or not women had degrees. Which is not valid.

I'm just using the language of the study, which said that 43% of women with degrees don't have children.

[Dawgs]

119. Regardless, having a child these days is not smart. It's a thoughtless, and sometimes selfish, act.

[mainer]

125. Having a child is not necessarily "thoughtless"

because a lot of people put a lot of thought, not to mention financial investment, into having and raising a child.

Is it "selfish"? I hate to break it to you, but the drive to reproduce is what got all of us on this earth, and it's a mighty powerful drive. It's as selfish as wanting to keep breathing and stay alive. If by "selfish" you mean it uses up resources, well, the simple act of living to old age makes us all selfish, doesn't it?

Speaking as someone with a doctorate, a high-powered career, and two grown sons, I definitely do not regret having children. They are a joy to me. Although there were times during their teen years when I did wonder what I was thinking.

[Dawgs]

129. How old are your children, because I'm probably not talking about you?

And, when I said thoughtless I didn't mean financial investment. But, I have a feeling you already knew that.

And, you're right, "selfish" probably isn't the right word. Ignorance is better.

[mainer]

130. I'm 60, and I have a wonderful career

Having a child was something my husband and I had to think long and hard about because we were both juggling our careers. But we managed to have two sons, now about 30. And in the middle of all that child-rearing, my career took off and hubby decided to retire early and become Mr. Mom.

Women CAN have it all -- if the men in their lives support their ambitions.

[Dawgs]

131. Okay, so you're decision was 30 years ago. My initial comment was regarding present day. n/t

[mainer]

145. 30 years ago, I knew Paul Ehrlich

and he was saying about the same thing re: the Population Bomb.

Baby Boomers all heard the exact same message we're hearing now, about how selfish and irresponsible it is to bring a child into the world. So I don't think there's anything new about the message.

[Dawgs]

181. Except the world is in much dire straits now.

It was ONLY population 30 years ago. Now it's climate change, economy, lack of food and water, AND population.

[mainer]

185. Every generation thinks the world is in dire straits

we baby boomers grew up in the atomic age when we had to dive under our desks because of the imminent nuclear threat from the evil Russians.

It's all a matter of perspective.

[liberal_at_heart]

143. We are humans. We have emotions. We are not robots. If you don't want to have children that's

your decision but don't judge people and call them thoughtless and selfish just because they want to give their love to a child. We all face hardship in life and somtimes horrible things happen, but the human spirit is amazing. We find love and rise above the bad things that happen.

[freeplessinseattle]

121. I think that may be what helped prompt the idea for the study, but

"Kanazawa used data from the UK’s National Child Development Study and added controls for economics and education. Even with these controls, the results showed that smarter women were choosing not to have children"

[mainer]

122. Unless they actually measured IQ, which I doubt, they're using college as their metric

IQ tests are pretty time-consuming and expensive to do on a large group of people.

[mainer]

85. Maybe it all has to do with marital status?

Maybe women who can't find spouses, because they're unattractive either physically or personality-wise, devote their lives to building a career and so never find partners to have kids with.

[liberal_at_heart]

88. arrogance and self righteousness seem to increase with IQ.

If I had to chose between being extremely intelligent, arrogant, self righteous and alone or not as intelligent, humble, and surrounded by love then I would chose to be less intelligent, humble, and surrounded by love.

[kiva]

102. And there is no arrogance or self-righteousness

in saying that only people who have children are "surrounded by love"? And yes, that is exactly what you are saying.

[anneboleyn]

110. I honestly find that less-smart types tend to be FAR more arrogant and self-righteous

than scholars/academics ( my own experience) -- or even MDs and other degrees. Case in point -- my husband grew up in a small town filled with arch-conservative republicans, and even though these people are lower class, do not have college degrees, and have suffered terribly economically, they vote republican no matter the cost. They are the most self-righteous, arrogant, and unwilling to listen or learn crowd that I have ever encountered.

[AngryAmish]

118. If you are saying MDs are not arrogant then you don't know many surgeons

(a joke, but boy some surgeons really, really think highly of themselves)

[REP]

111. It's not an either/or thing though, thanks be

Though anecdotally, the most arrogant and self-righteous people I've encountered have been on the lower end of smart - bigots, homophobes, racists, anti-abortnoids, religious extremists, etc.

[liberal_at_heart]

127. I've seen plenty of arrogant, self righteous people right here on DU.

They think they are better than others because they are too smart to be religious, get married, have babies or vote for anything other than the established democratic party nominee.

[REP]

142. I prefer that to homophobes, racists, anti-abortnoids, etc personally

But that's just my own predilections.

[liberal_at_heart]

146. Neither is acceptable to me.

[REP]

152. I don't mind the unmarried, the childfree, or the areligious

They rarely, if ever, have an agenda or legislation trying to force their ways upon others.

Time has a rather good article on childfree women in the 8/12 issue; you might be interested.

[liberal_at_heart]

157. You don't think the article in the OP has an agenda?

I'm all for diversity and freedom. My children are atheists and my daughter is bisexual but neither one would ever think to look down upon those who are religous, straight, married, or have children. I have no idea if either of my children will get married or have children. If they don't I'm okay with that. If they do I'm okay with that too. I am just glad they are not the kind of people who think they have to push their choices on others as it appears some on this thread would gladly do.

[kiva]

180. You mean push choices like saying

people will only be "surrounded by love" if they have children...that sort of judgement?

[REP]

182. Or "you'll change your mind" or "you're just selfish!" or ad infitnitum

I NEVER ask people why they had children yet I get asked frequently why I don't (two sterilizations, thankyouverymuch). As the Time article I referenced mentions, this (US) culture is exceptionally bad at equating woman with mother - even in feminist circles. We're regarded as unnatural, selfish, cold, bitchy, judgmental ... for doing nothing more than choosing not to have children or being associated with a study, just by falling into a category studied! (Similar findings were part of the Time piece, but I believe in the "born that way" theory, as I was an early articulator myself).

[kiva]

184. The first one always makes me want to say,

"Oh, you had children...but what happens if you change your mind in a year or two?" I never say that, but the temptation is there.

And yes, this is one of those issues that point to the fact that feminism is not monolithic - choosing not to have children doesn't make me any less (or more) of a feminist that women who are mothers.

[REP]

186. It always makes me want to point out there's no history of Alzheimer's in my family.

Literal strangers telling me that I'll change my mind about something as personal as that usually prompts me to respond with the same level of courtesy.

I'm hoping that now that are so many of us, enough of will stop apologizing and demurring to women with children within the feminist movement. The work-dumping on the childless and childfree in the workplace, the ginned-up mother vs childfree "wars" - these are a couple of real things that should be addressed.

[kiva]

187. It's a discussion that needs to take place.

When the Supreme Court decided Mueller v Oregon (1908) in favor of protecting female workers by limiting the number of hours they could work each day, it caused a rift between mothers who desperately needed more time with their families and single women who needed to support themselves, often in non-traditional jobs they couldn't work under Muller.

I think we're headed in a similar direction today and we need to be discussing it. I've read a few articles lately about tension in the workplace (including both men and women) - between parents and childfree - and the hostility is growing. And yes, it is frustrating when we are told that we are not feminists if we (childfree women) voice concerns about the situation.

[get the red out]

160. Definitions please

There are many potential versions of "surrounded by love", having children is only one of them. There is no way to define this for every person.

[Peacetrain]

104. As a mother.. all I can say is... sigh..

Just call me stupid.. I loved the entire time my child was with me.. He is a grown man now and off on his own, working on his PHD in bio physics. Maybe it skips a generation. Well better go find someone who will cut my bread for me. God only knows I should not be left alone with a butter knife.

[Hekate]

105. What kind of idiot publication posts an article with that headline?

The gene pool is broad and deep enough to skim a few high-achieving centimeters off the top and not be affected adversely.

High-achieving women have more options, and are in careers that consume them and fulfill them during their peak childbearing years, especially if they fear losing ground to male peers.

It's a complex calculation -- and one that certainly does not mean the rest of us are "idiots." My gods how insulting.

Hekate

[Politicalboi]

113. I'm 52, and I will be lucky

Not see an extinction of lions, tigers, bears, rhinos. elephants. I couldn't even imagine bringing a child into this world now. I know generations have said this over and over again. But they didn't have melting ice caps that are REAL. They didn't have massive contamination from oil and nukes. And when more countries get introduced to fracking, it WILL be over for us. IMO you gotta be crazy to bring a baby in this world.

[freeplessinseattle]

116. Well, that explains why I still have no urge at age 41 lol

Now I need to show this to my mom, who is a bit bummed she will have no grandchildren...but has 3 wonderful grandkits!

[ananda]

124. These are women with the potential for big adventurous interesting lives.

...

[mainer]

128. I've had a big, adventurous, interesting life

and at age 60, am still traveling the world on business and for pleasure.

Yet I managed to be a mom, too.

Really, it's all about who your partner is, and is he willing to pitch in while you build your career.

[liberal_at_heart]

132. Being a mom is a great adventure, and being a mom does not mean that is all you will

ever do either. There are plenty of working moms who pursue careers they love. There are moms who travel. There are moms who go to college, get degrees, and further their intellect. I love biology, chemistry, and physics. I have gone to college a couple of times. It was not my kids who held me back. It was my anxiety issues. But I still plan on giving it another try. I can never stay away from college for too long. I love learning especially about science. My husband is starting his own business and is very excited about that. And we plan on traveling to British Columbia for one of our next anniversaries. My kids make me happy. They make me smile and laugh. My favorite part about being a parent is watching them develop their own individuality. It's beautiful.

[mainer]

175. As a career woman, I think that being a mom is the greatest adventure of all

but I agree it's not for everyone.

I've traveled to every continent except Antarctica for my job. I've lived my dreams, better than I ever imagined. But at the end of the day, when I'm back home, my greatest pleasure is sitting at the kitchen table and talking with my son and asking him what he thinks about the latest events in the world. And I still can't believe I helped create this amazing young man.

[Oilwellian]

126. I'm wondering...

do you consider your mother an idiot?

[raccoon]

136. Whoever wrote this article is an idiot. It makes it sound as if there's nothing between

idiots and high IQ. that's the trouble with MSM--binary thinking.

[get the red out]

156. Excellent point

[GalaxyHunter]

144. Maybe it could mean that women with a higher IQ only care about themselves where as women with

lower IQ's care about others.

Those with a higher IQ want to have a successful career for their lives and can't have that wait for children where those with a lower IQ want to have a family to care for and to care about them and are not as concerned with having a great career and children getting in the way.


Of course I don't believe this and feel that there are multiple reasons for someone having and not having children, not just the IQ of women.

[get the red out]

154. Does having a career = selfish?

If a person doesn't have children who are they being selfish towards, an imaginary child? How does not having children mean a person doesn't care about anyone but themselves? Are children the only accepted "others" there are in the world to care for?

This is the cultural bias that needs questioning. Not your fault, we have all been taught to think this way.

[GalaxyHunter]

159. I understand there are some who just don't simply want to have children.

that is fine, I have nothing against that.

You could make the argument that if one has a career where they are busy 24/7 and have no family of their own are a little selfish in that they are working for themselves to make themselves happy.

[get the red out]

163. And that could be argued against

Their job might be something which benefits many people. And being happy is so maligned that the disgust we feel in it must come from our Puritanical background here in the US.

When I think of "selfish", I think of someone who happily harms others or takes from others without a care. Someone with no concern for others. Dick Cheney (who has kids btw). Without knowing about someone as an individual and their approach to others it is hard to say if they are selfish for not having kids and working too much, or enjoying their lives "too much".

[GalaxyHunter]

164. I agree

Without knowing about someone as an individual and their approach to others it is hard to say if they are selfish for not having kids and working too much, or enjoying their lives "too much".


Everyone is different and do things for different reasons. We can't lump everyone together.

[AZ Progressive]

169. You guys realize your giving RWers proof of "liberal snobbery"?

This thread is a trainwreck IMO. Just because women with higher IQ's are less likely to have babies doesn't mean that having children is for stupid people. You guys are just giving RWers fodder for their attacks against liberals.

[mainer]

171. I'm not even sure they're justified calling it "higher IQs"

The researchers used as their "smart" category "women with college degrees." It doesn't say that they actually tested the IQs of every woman in the study.

"Women with college degrees" separates out those who have the means to go to college (i.e., women with family support and financial back-up). In other words, women who had advantages from the start.

[Egalitarian Thug]

190. Do you really think that will make any difference? It's like the President pissing away his first

year and a half trying to appease them and screwing the rest of us in the process. For what purpose? Did he really believe that he would win some over if he just gave them enough?

The Reich Wing is going to call us snobs, elitists, and anything else their very limited imaginations and vocabulary can concoct or pronounce no matter what we do, so why bother considering them at all?

Also, consider that the single issue underlying all the human caused problems in the world today spring from the fact that there are way to many of us on this planet. Perhaps reconsidering tradition and sentimentality that's origins go back to a time when a family had to have a dozen kids so that at least one would make it to adulthood, isn't a bad thing.

I've lived a life impossible for all but the really rich that that chose to breed, and it's great. And that whole "who'll take care of you when you're old" canard is just so much hot air as well. I know, and I'm sure you do as well, so many people that did make the monumental sacrifice of having kids, only to be abandoned and broke in their old age. At least my way, I know that there's nobody to count on and wherever I end up, it will have been one hell of a ride getting there.

[pintobean]

192. I disagree.

I think it's a pretty good thread. For the most part, DUers are saying the article is shit (which it is). There are many reasons why people choose to have, or not have, children. This thread can broaden one's perspective on why people make the choices they do. Then there's the comedy of those that fancy themselves as being the best and the brightest, using the shit article on a severely flawed study, to show the rest of us that they really are smart.
Who cares what wingnuts think? We should tell them how smart it is not to reproduce.

[mainer]

173. If you don't want children, don't have children

because clearly you know yourself, and you're doing yourselves (and any unborn children) a favor.

But why the need to insult every mother (including your own) and say that she's an idiot? After so many women have struggled and sacrificed to nurture those they loved, the fact that you'd ridicule them demonstrates a weird and deep-seated rage against people who've done nothing to you.

[felix_numinous]

174. Informed choice is important

and many women do not have this choice. Choice assures that children born are WANTED -- and this to me is a beautiful thing.

Although I knew as a child I would not choose motherhood, I ALWAYS admired loving parents and saw them as making a wonderful contribution to the world.

What I always found sad, frustrating--and alienating were people who saw my choice as either, evil, selfish, a source of pity, disobedient, or found me somehow defective and repulsive--when I RESPECT people for being authentic! Many people are very stubborn about this issue and get triggered into defending their core identity.

The issue of parenthood is intertwined with identity, and as mentioned up thread, it is a basic instinct-- so it is a hot trigger subject!

CHOICE and education should be made global initiatives--period. Only then can women make informed decisions based on knowledge about the world they bring children into.

Edited to add: the title of this article/ thread is worded as flame bait--which unfortunately is a common tool used to divide people. The discussion of choice and population control CAN happen--but not by inciting people into false posturing...this is really irresponsible and lousy writing, IMHO--Felix

[WCLinolVir]

176. At age eight I predicted I would not have children.

I was the product of a broken home, but just had a strong sense it wasn't for me.

[Sotf]

191. Dunno about babies but inflammatory titles sure are...