What are you saying; *I* have a low IQ???
OMG!
Hey Jim! Moderator!
Somebody do something with this one, will ya'? Of all the....
(Haha- Kidding! Got your mail, thanks. I just had to say something...)
Posted on 09/29/2003 4:44:06 PM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
A DANISH academic has sparked an uproar by calling for state measures to encourage childbearing among intelligent people but to dissuade those with low intellectual ability, to create what he called a better Danish society.
Helmuth Nyborg, a well-known psychology professor at the University of Aarhus who specialises in intelligence research, said it was time to "abandon the politically correct" and to practice selection in order to "improve the coming generations and avoid degenerates in the population", in comments this weekend that have been widely reported on national television and the country's main newspapers.
"I'm aware that my proposal breaks a taboo that dates back more than half a century, since Hitler's Aryan race program, and it is very controversial," he said.
"But the debate has to be raised now because the trend is cause for concern in Denmark, where we have an increasing number of problem kids," he said.
His proposals triggered outrage among many politicians and experts, including Integration Minister Bertel Haarder, who said Nyborg's suggestions were "against all moral principles".
But he said statistics show that women with lower educations have more children than highly educated women, who tend to spend more time studying and working before starting a family.
Nyborg suggested that highly educated women could have their workloads reduced while less intelligent parents could be paid to not have children.
"It's easy to make associations to Hitler and Nazism, as my critics do. But this has nothing to do with Nazism. Hitler was not a eugenicist, but an ideologue who abused the program of procreation," he said.
"He didn't want to improve the human race, he wanted to eliminate certain groups such as Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, and he massacred the most intelligent among them," Nyborg said.
Nyborg claimed intelligence was hereditary, and said it was "unfortunate and worrying if parents of lower intelligence bring more children into the world, as is the case today in Denmark, than highly intelligent parents".
"We can already choose to have children or not by doing practical tests in fertility clinics which show whether the fetus has hereditary genetic malformations," he said.
"It's possible to choose the eggs. So why not keep the best ones, in terms of intelligence," he said.
"Between 10 and 20 per cent of the population, who are at the lower echelon of society and who cannot fill in a time sheet at work or who cannot hold down a job or take care of their children, should not have children," he said.
"We are all aware of this problem, but we don't dare talk about it. But we should, for the sake of society and the future, so that we can have productive citizens and not people who need help," he said.
Interesting how he blythly equates intelligence with educational level as if the former were indicative of the latter. Right here his prescription for Great Danes (sorry, I just had to do it) falls on its ill-conceived a$$. Higher education is (anymore at least) as much a function of opportunity and persistence as intelligence. I have met many PhDs who were dumber than a box of rocks.
The definition of intelligence an extraordinarilly slippery one. Einstein, for example, while universally hailed as brilliant could not keep his shaving soap straight from his washing soap, prompting him to finally give up and only have one type of soap for both functions to keep from confusing him. Is that indicative of low intelligence? (he also flunked sixth grade math in school). Would this bozo let Einstein reproduce?
This guy needs to ponder whether he himself is not quite bright enough to perceive the horrors his pet policy would unleash. One only needs to examine the US educational establishment to find a plethora of examples of highly educated morons, or American farmers to find a plethora of marginally educated intellects.
Intelligence and education, sadly, have little to do with each other these days.
... statistics show that women with lower educations have more children than highly educated women, who tend to spend more time studying and working before starting a family.
Under your guidance, where will the tax base go, Mr. Academic?
LOLOL! I live for jabs like that.
I have included one from the Indiana Evening Gazette dated October 26, 1950. Note two things about this article. First, it is long after the atrocities of the Nazis were known. Second, the name of the organization had been changed to Planned Parenthood - that is, it had already become the organization that it is today.
I have highlighted some passages in the text below. Keep in mind as you read this that it is from 1950. Finally, especially note the last line of the article.
------------------------------------
Birth Control Measure Asked by Mrs. Sanger
New York Oct 26 - (AP) - Mrs. Margaret Sanger, founder of the Birth control movement, proposed yesterday that the Federal government provide for sterilization of the feeble-minded and victims of transmissible, congenital disease.
Her message was read to the annual luncheon of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, of which she is honorary chairman.
"While our present Federal government Santa Clauses have their hands in the taxpayers' pockets," she said, "why not in their generous giving mood be constructive and provide for sterilization as well as giving a pension, dole - call it what you may - to the feeble-minded and the victims of transmissible, congenital diseases?"
"Such a program would be a sound future investment as well as a kindness to the couples themselves by preventing the birth of dozens of their progeny to become burdens, even criminals of another generation. It would save innocent children from the cruelty of being born to such parents."
Mrs. Sanger said that the federation should "stress quality as a prime essential in the birth and survival of our population."
Go hit Planned Parenthoods site as well, where they try to whitewash these views and claim that they are all made up by anti-choice fanatics. The memory hole is here. Thank God for the internet... for now.
But what is wrong with encouraging the upper end to consider having children?
I also have to admit that I'm a little bit biased, as I work in a research environment where the people are extremely well educated, bright and largely childless. Among my co-workers, I would estimate that fewer than 1 in 4 married couples have children. The average may be even less than that.
It's difficult not to consider the fact that certain parts of the population are "out breeding" certain other parts. While it's certainly not in anyone's interest to limit child bearing, I don't personally see anything wrong with promoting it among certain populations that may need reminding.
That's all I'm saying and I believe the professor in this article would settle for a compromise.
At the very least, there is certainly no reason the topic can't be discussed.
Tell you what, Doc, let's keep the most intelligent and the best physical specimens. I'd still be here, Doc, but would you be?
What's the matter, Doc? Would you like to re-think your criteria about who goes and who stays?
Are we socialists because we burden individuals with taxes in order to maintain a strong military, or to build sewage treatment plants, water treatment plants, power plants, freeways, etc.?
Remember, Nyborg isn't proposing that they violate anyone's rights. Low IQ people could still have children if they wanted to.
Now that you mention it, the large majority of the "childless couples" that I work with are also the liberals.
Maybe it's not the emergency I thought it was!
Obviously there is a reason those of less intelligence survived though the millennia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.