|
|
 |
 |
|
 Elite Fitness Bodybuilding, Anabolics, Diet, Life Extension, Wellness, Supplements, and Training Boards
 Chat & Conversation
 Is there some grand control conspiracy or are we just devolving?
|
| Author | Topic: Is there some grand control conspiracy or are we just devolving? | ||
|
Amateur Bodybuilder 
Posts: 113 |
There is alot of evidence that secret societies exist and have a powerful influence on world events. But what about the other side of the argument? What if there was no conspiracy to turn the majority into obediant sheep? What if we as a country are bringing this on ourselves? I happen to believe bits and pieces of many of the conspiracy theories, but this is my theory in the event that no conspiracy exists: We are doing it to ourselves....by Myo-genetic As society advances in technology, life becomes easy. The standard of living increases for everyone, even if only slightly, regardless of income. According to population dynamics and ecological principles, when conditions are good, populations grow rapidly. This is known as a boom. But a boom is always followed by a bust (or population crash). The world, and the United States and Canada included are seeing exponential growth in the population. But who in the population is reproducing? There have been studies in the past that clearly show that number of children born to a family is inversely proportional to the education/intelligence level. Basically this means that the less educated or intelligent a person is, the more likely they will leave behind multiple offspring. At the same time, those with the most desirable traits such as intelligence leave less offspring. But this is unnatural. In a totally non-tech society, we would likely see the opposite as the producers would be the only ones who could afford to reproduce. So what are we looking at here? Well, what I see is the slow devolution of society. There are more and more people every year who are perfectly happy to get by while doing as little as possible. College enrollment is down everywhere....drastically so with young males. Basically the economy is supporting this kind of behavior. As the collective intelligence level of society decreases, you see increases in crime out of boredom, more deliberate "consumer-like" behavior (media controlled buying habits), the spread of STDs, and large numbers of illegitimate children. So who is to blame? I believe that both parties are at fault. First, the Republicans are pro-life and discourage the termination of illegitimate pregnancies. But the Democrats are just as at fault (if not more so) in keeping with the theme. The Democrats are responsibe for giving tax credits for having children. I'm sure that I'll piss off somebody when I say this, but I think it should work the opposite. We should give tax credits and tax cuts to those who have fewer than 2 kids. We should increase the taxes on those individuals who chose to have more than 2 kids. Giving tax credits only encourages this type of negative behavior and makes people more dependent on the government. In an ideal world, the children should replace the parents. Right now in my immediate family, I have two grandmothers, a mother and a sister. All the men except myself are gone. So I am replacing 3 men by myself. My sister is not having kids for at least 10 years, so she will be replacing all of the women.    | ||
|
Elite Bodybuilder 
Posts: 1011 |
well if this "problem" continues we can only keep our fingers crossed that some Big War pops up, or a killer virus that only kills the dumb....Then again what will we do when those that are "stupid" die off, does that mean we will be forced to do the physical labor? OH GOSH NO!!! j/k Interesting post I don't think I would favor a tax benefit either way. I am not sure the state of our resources and the burden it's causing our country. Something to reguard in later generations I'm sure  | ||
|
Amateur Bodybuilder
Posts: 241 |
Myo-Genetic, It's fairly apparent (to me at least) that as we progress socially and technologically, we have essentially removed the elements responsible for our progression and, ultimately, our evolution. We no longer live in caves and gather berries. I agree wholeheartedly with your theory, I have had the same same thoughts myself. I was even in total agreement with your and Warik's postion in the Republican vs. Democrats thread. Unfortunately I just don't see that there is much we can do. By following our natural instinct for self-preseravtion as a species, we protect the weak and inferior so they may persist and survive...hence, they continue to contribute to our gene pool. Yes, this is mostly due to the current political and social climate. Even tough I can see this myself, I am still not enough of a cold-hearted bastard to hope those who are less "fit" than the rest of us die off. The Darwinistic equivalent would be the caveman who runs the slowest is eaten by the sabertooth tiger first, ensuring the fact that he doesn't live long enough to significantly contribute to the gene pool. However, that slow motherfucker might be my friend in today's equivalent situation. And it frustrates me as well that many of these people, however, are just plain sorry human beings who have no fortituede, will power, discipline, etc. But what is the alternative? If we can't reinstigate natural selection the only other choice is unnatural selection, which is pretty much the father of ethnic cleansing. I think the last time this was tried it was attempted by a man named Adolf Hitler, probably the sickest, most reprehensible human being to ever live. I think your theory is on-point...I think it's very true. My point is, though, what can we really do about it? Isn't it pretty much beyond our control? ------------------ | ||
|
Moderator 
Posts: 6922 |
quote: I would like to disagree on this point. The reproduction rate of Canada is not even close to keeping the population from falling. That means that a steady influx of immigrants in necessary in order to keep the population from falling. The United States also relies heavy on immigration to keep the population growing. Your theory holds true for recently urbanizing societies that have used overproduction of children as a balance against a high infant mortality rate. When conditions improve (especially sanitation and proper nutrition) there is a steep decline in infant mortality and a population explosion. | ||
|
Moderator
Posts: 6922 |
quote:
I do agree with you about the consumer behavior. I disagree with your negative connotation in respect to "illegitimate children". It has been proven through functionalism that many minorities benefit from having children at a younger age and out of wedlock. It is a middle-class norm that dictates your thinking here. It does not take into account the survival strategies developed by other classes in order to make the most out of their situation. | ||
|
Amateur Bodybuilder
Posts: 90 |
As big brother as it may sound, this thought came to my brain one day; All females (males too when they develop that techniqe enough)should be put on mandatory birth control at or around puberty until 25 years old. I say 25, because, well, usually at that time, you're sort of pretty much set in where your life is going, you're most likely mentally grown up, and have your feet set on the ground fairly solid enough that you should be able to, be able to take care of a kid and yourself at the same time. Just think of all the teen pregnancies that would just go away, and all the issues behind that, and think about the possibility of how much more stable the family would be. face it, a lot of bad stuff happens to kids and families in which the parents are still kids themselves. Just my 2 cents. | ||
|
Moderator
Posts: 6922 |
Finally, the reason that tax credits are dolled out is because it costs a lot of money to raise a child. It is an astronomical amount so a tax break is necessary in order to keep the family falling under the poverty line and taxing the government (which you are opposed to). The reason there are more children born to middle classes is actually a function of society. The are far more middle and working class families than upper and middle upper class families. Also, there are more hours of work necessary in order to be "successful" in the middle management (and upper) jobs. This leaves less time for children. In order to earn more money, one must work longer hours. That is the overwhelming trend. The devolution of the American is result of closely controlled propaganda and the illusion of individuality. By whom you ask? Well it is those upper class bastards. America will finally be an Aristocracy just like the founding fathers envisioned!! | ||
|
Moderator
Posts: 6922 |
quote: Sorry to say that you are very wrong concerning the above quote. Let me give you a short list of ethnic cleansing since "Our Favorite Austrian Punching Bag" Adolf Hitler. 1. Stalin -Russia I could go on forever with the genocide and ethnic cleansing that has occurred in the last 50 years. | ||
|
Amateur Bodybuilder
Posts: 113 |
Interesting replies above. While obviously it is unrealistic and unnecessary for any type of cleansing to take place, that doesn't mean that measures should not be put into place that discourage overpopulation. Ecological principles with respect to boom and bust are very real indeed and can be directly applied to humanity. If you place a baterium in a culture, it will continue to grow and will grow exponentially until is using 100% of the resources available. If the resources cannot be replaced at a very rapid rate, this is when the crash comes in. I agree that Canada may actually have a shrinking population. But the United states has increased its known population by about 20% in the last 20 years. For a country that was 230 million people back then, that is a very substantial rate of growth. If you take death into consideration, there has been at least 100 million new people in that amount of time. Immigrants probably comprise about 25% of that number at the most. More free time because you produce less or whatever should not be an excuse to have more kids....merely because you are bored. We are not a society that needs a large family to work the families grain fields or run the family business. Here in the Philippines, most businesses and farms are run solely by the family. At least their family has a function. Children today are nothing more than blobs of goo who do little more than sit inside and play videogames, watch TV, and stuff Cheetos in their faces. They rarely, if ever contribute to society until they are late in their high school years. I realize that it is expensive to raise children and that is why the tax cuts are given. But that is exactly my point! Let's make it HARDER and discourage people from having kids. When people know they will be not held accountable for their actions, they will take full advantage of the system. That is when the system breaks down. And I am just not seeing how it benefits minorities by having children at a young age. When you are younger, you are typically poor. That means you will not be able to provide what is necessary to successfully raise a child (in most cases). When you are older, at least you can afford the costs of children without any type of outside assistance. And I saw some infant mortality rates for the U.S. awhile back, and it is well less than 1%. That is too insignificant a number to justify attempted reproduction. | ||
|
Moderator
Posts: 2777 |
Let Ted Kaczynski out! We have the real Unabomber here on elite. Just kidding...but his rants were also anti-technology. And he is very intelligent. OK..let's be serious. First, I object to any government program that encourages women to have babies. Tax credits don't concourage that - because kids are exprensive...I was thinking more along the lines of welfare and SSI which provide greater income to mothers with more children. People don't have kids to save on their taxes. But some do in order to get a bigger handout. The government must cease paying more when another baby is born. I am also interested in the claim about more children = less intelligent children. I believe it is worthy of some sort of economic investigation there too. I'm one of four: three college grads that are all professionally employed, and one in school now. I attribute this primarily to 2 things: intelligent parents....AND the fact that I grew up in a two-parent family on economically well-to-do Long Island. My parents could have had 12 of us and we'd be OK. If I grew up in rural Louisiana, dirt poor, things might be different, even if I were only one. There is some validity to your point about the LESS desirable traits being passed on, because it is getting easier for those with undesirable traits to reproduce. NOW....as I ramble on....I would claim that in society, it is clear that the rich are getting richer and the poor are not. This is clear economically, BUT, I postulate it is also true genetically, and that the two are inter-realated. what I mean is this: I grew up fairly comfortably, two parents, who stressed education, doing your best, etc. The women I date are similar....educated, intellgient, etc. The last girl I was sort of seeing had a Master's, good job, etc. Nothing came of it, but when I do get married, it will be to someone who is well-edcuated, independent and morally straight...and we'll pass that on to our children. Genetically, the rich will get richer. However, if I had grown up poor, to a single Mom......well, you know how it is. No male role model, Mom's at work all the time, I'm bounced around from day care to babysitters...will I have that stress on education? Will I have that confidence in myself? Unlikely. I'm less likely to graduate colege, and I'm not going to be dating girls with Master's degrees. More likely is someone from the lcoal wal-Mart. The genetically poor get poorer. So yes...there is a separation occuring in society, both economically and genetically. OK - another point: Technology is a three edged sword. (Cool, I just coined an expression) First, it makes thing seasier for the wealthy. But secondly, it makes sloth easier for the poor...they can sit around all day and let life pass them by from home. TV or the Internet can dull the pain of poverty. The third edge of the sword is that technology makes us more aware of our suroundings. when there were problems like this in the 1800s (and there were, during the population growth of the Industrial revolution), no one noticed, because there was no technology to aid in the spread of information. OK...good post Myo. | ||
|
Moderator
Posts: 6922 |
quote: A quick example would be a young black female in an inner city slum. If she has a child when she is 16-17 years old then she can continue her education throughout her pregnancy. Then when she gives birth, her grandparents will be young and healthy enough to take care of the children while she goes to school or to work. This way she has trusted babysitters without burdening her parents and hindering her education/career. If she waits longer to have children then her grandparents will be too old of ill to take care of the baby and her parents will still be working. That means she will have to give up everything including job and education to raise the child on her own. The reason that having a husband is not functional is because it adds to the strain without any benefits (since most men do not become usefully productive until their late 20s and early 30s). Getting married when pregnant (which is a middle class norm) will also hinder the mother and also strain the resources of the family. | ||
|
Novice 
Posts: 8 |
well I think I will get my two cents involved. The replays so far have hit on a couple of ideas, but one thing that has not been mentioned is the new state and federal laws that has slowed down the natural selection process. We as a group are keeping people too safe. What I mean is that the rules of wearing bike safety gear is keeping people alive that would have other wise been killed off in some sort of accident. Same with the seat belt laws, and other rules that have been made to keep us safe. Now before people start getting made that I want to kill of the kids, that is not what I am saying, all I mean is that there are people in the world who would have died in a natural selection, that are left to reproduce. ------------------ | ||
|
Amateur Bodybuilder
Posts: 200 |
This post is truly profound. These types of topics are exactly why I come here. Very good posts by just about everyone. I'll get into the mix once I get some extra time on my hands. ------------------ - Kwai-Chang Caine | ||
|
Moderator
Posts: 2777 |
quote: 2Thick, By 16 or 17, in the inner city slum you speak of, the education for many young black girls is over. If she's still in school, it is unlikely. My sister teaches in Flatbush in Brooklyn, and she can comment at length about the dropout rates from freshman to senior year. If she's having that baby at 16-17, chances are she is out of school. The ones that finish high school usually are the ones with some kind of stabilizing force in their lives - parents for example - and they tend to make better life decisions. These are the people who "make it out", and there are not many. I fear you are looking at inner city problems through upper-middle class lenses. It's impossible to extricate one problem (teen pregnancy) from another (lack of education) from another (poverty). they are inter-related. | ||
|
Moderator
Posts: 6922 |
quote: Thank you for your elitist view of life (assuming people want to but into the consumerism and classist bullshit that is espoused by the media propaganda machine) but you did not examine the functionality of the process nor the validity of the result. You merely used an ambiguous example to make it look like they [inner city teen mothers] lack something (i.e. "good" parents) and that they want to actually change their position. You shouldn't assume that your view is the same as other members of society. They may not want the same things as you. Therefore you are being classist when assuming that teen-pregnancy is a "problem" related to poverty. It may actually be a solution to poverty. Lack of education is the result when middle-class values are imposed on other members of society. | ||
|
Moderator
Posts: 6922 |
quote: BTW- This is wrong because my conclusions come from a long line of functional studies done in the innner cities by world renowned social scientists with PhDs. I didn't just make that up. It was observed and documented in the inner city and in real life situations. | ||
|
Amateur Bodybuilder
Posts: 113 |
The whole point is that the girl shouldn't be having kids in the first place if she can't raise them. We all know that 16 year old girls do not wake up one day and decide to bear children. Well, that is, unless she is doing it to trap a man. I hate to go here with this, but some people should not be allowed to have children unless they at least can support them by themselves at a level above poverty. As much as I would hate for a government to dictates the rights of individuals, there will come a time in the near future when population control measures will be very real. So they might as well get it taken care of now before the population becomes uncontrollable. | ||
|
Moderator
Posts: 2777 |
2Thick, By 16 or 17, the process of "education" for many inner city children has long since ended. Yes, I stand by the claim that teenage pregnancy among inner city teens is related to poverty. So is lack of education. Classist or reality? | ||
|
Elite Bodybuilder
Posts: 1036 |
I would think someone who is middle class knows more how to attain the status of middle class better than a poor innercity pregnant teenager. The middle class values that 2Thick is quick to denounce have obviously worked a hell of a lot better than the "functionality" of being an unmarried teen mother. ------------------ | ||
|
Amateur Bodybuilder
Posts: 91 |
Great post Myo! I could write endlessly, but suffice it to say that we in America have had it too good for too long. This manifests itself in many ways; We have physically weak (our 70% adult obesity) as well as mentally weak (due to TV, lack of having 'hard' lives,etc.) Unfortunately as Myo-Genetic and others have said, the natural selection process has been comprimised. Government have promulgated this by enacting laws in the public's own interest by saving them from anything injurious. We are definitely devolving. As far as a conspiracy, I'm not yet sold on the entire premise, but we are definitely headed in the wrong path albeit lead by ourselves or an elite class. Wait until something really bad happens in this country. (Depression, sever natural disaster) The mental hospitals will be filled to the gills! |
All times are ET (US) | |
 |
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c
posted February 28, 2001 01:09 AM
