SD on 7/11/2006 at 22:25
That's the point you fucking moron. It's impossible to tell whether what you wrote is right or wrong because it doesn't make a shred of goddamn sense.
Can we have it again, only this time, in English?
Thief13x on 7/11/2006 at 23:53
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Can we have it again, only this time, in English?
Quote:
In our society if you are wealthier then you tend to have fewer children.
I KNOW SMALL LETTERS CAN BE HARD TO READ
Scots Taffer on 8/11/2006 at 00:05
The only problem I think with that statement is that Convict was applying wealthiness as a genetic trait to be part of natural selection, which is a bit laffo to be honest.
Wealthiness does not necessarily include traits such as intelligence and skills, which one could argue are genetic traits, but even so, if they are genetic traits that are inheritable what the fuck does that have to do with the debate at hand??!?!?
Doctor: "Sorry, it looks like your son is genetically predisposed to be a gardener."
Lawyer: "Fuck that, flush the bastard."
Agent Monkeysee on 8/11/2006 at 00:06
There's some real ingrained classicism wrapped up in that "wealthy people have less kids therefore SOCIAL EVOLUTION!" There's a great big herd of assumptions behind it that poor people stay poor, poor people have some genetic traits (what these are is never mentioned) that somehow makes their children less able to compete and therefore *they* stay poor, poor people never breed with non-poor people, and yet somehow these genetically doomed welfare queens will somehow outbreed the richies and... I dunno I lose the argument at this point. What happens? Society gets run by the poor? The economic classes flip? Chaos and madness descends on a world where the living envy the dead?
Economic mobility moves about 8 billion times faster than evolutionary change. While demographically the poor do tend to have more children than the rich, the poor and the rich aren't made up of the same genetic lines generation to generation. Familes shift around economically, breed across economic lines, and generally muddle things up to the point where any possible genetic variation is hopelessly destroyed by economic variation. There simply isn't any correlation between economic viability and genetic stock.
I'm still wondering what the hell TGGP's comment about "evolution" overcoming birth control and family planning. At least Convict trotted out a comprehendible, if wrong-headed and trite, observation. TGGP isn't even coherent.
Scots Taffer on 8/11/2006 at 00:12
That argument is largely flawed due to the fact that people could have poor previously due to society's constraints - my grandfather was an intelligent man, he was offered a scholarship to Oxford in the 40s which was quite unheard of but was drafted into the war instead, so my grandfather returned from the war and worked in menial labouring jobs eventually ending up a nursery school janitor. My mother and father work relatively simple jobs as well, my father is a trained labourer and my mother is a typist/receptionist/administrative-type but neither of those had any influence on what I became.
Similarly, I've seen people come from wealthy, established and seemingly intelligent families and create some of the worthless contributions to society in the form of their children that I've ever seen.
I don't think this has anything to do with the matter at hand, but maybe I lost where the subject of the thread subtly shifted onto social evolution.
Agent Monkeysee on 8/11/2006 at 00:15
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
I don't think this has anything to do with the matter at hand, but maybe I lost where the subject of the thread subtly shifted onto social evolution.
When Convict tried to conflate genetic viability and economic status. There is no correlation. The poor are not genetically inferior to the rich and the reasons why people find themselves in a particular economic class has almost zilch to do with their evolutionary survivability, nor do the economic classes select for particular traits. This is asinine and the topic should be dropped.
Scots Taffer on 8/11/2006 at 00:16
I agree. Next!
Wait, I thought you weren't allowed to talk to me... you'll be getting none now, dude!
Rug Burn Junky on 8/11/2006 at 00:55
Quote Posted by Scots
Similarly, I've seen people come from wealthy, established and seemingly intelligent families and create some of the worthless contributions to society in the form of their children that I've ever seen.
A good friend of mine does Trust and Estates work for my old firm, dealing with uber-rich clients (hundreds of millions and up). After I had a dinner meeting with, among others, him and one of his clients, he relayed his cardinal rule, that, while subjective, he found to be universal in his roughly decade plus of work:
The generation that actually earns the windfall of money tends to be relatively well adjusted, and are able to pass that on to their children.
The second generation, which either grew up as the wealth was accumulated, or soon thereafter, usually tended to be quirky, but pleasant. They had a decent appreciation for money, work and interacting with people. But since much of it was second hand, as relayed by their own parents teachings instead of their own experiences, were unable to pass this along to their children.
The third generation, whose parents had grown up rich, were almost undoubtedly obnoxious, self-absorbed, badly adjusted shitheels.
After that, they tend to be badly adjusted, but not as nasty.
He said that within 5 minutes, he could size up which generation of a family had earned the money, almost without fail (and was backed up by another co-worker on this, who had lost bets to him a couple of times).
jay pettitt on 8/11/2006 at 01:12
Quote Posted by AgentM
I'm still wondering what the hell...
Like in Jurassic Park, with the frogs.
Agent Monkeysee on 8/11/2006 at 01:40
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
Wait, I thought you weren't allowed to talk to me... you'll be getting none now, dude!
shhh
