[15457345234]

The heritability of intelligence and other factors is highly variable.

You want people who will care diligently for their children to have them. Not people who will be largely indifferent to them, whether they're smart or dumb.

The Musk 'I'll have ten and scatter them to the wind with bags of money, the odds will take care of the rest' strategy is not really one that works out well in real life.

[Auracle]

The heritability of intelligence is pretty well established.

Your second point is true, of course.

[rpmisms]

I'm the oldest of 11 kids, and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this. I agree with your second statement, which is why conscientious people should have kids.

[marssaxman]

Well, hello! I am also the oldest of 11 kids; I rarely encounter another like me.

One of the many reasons I have carefully avoided making any children over the years is that I already had my fill of child-rearing by the time I left home, through looking after my younger siblings. I wonder what your experience with this was.

[15457345234]

I have very little of substance to add beyond 'you should really think about it, and do it for your own reasons alone.'

Kids aren't something you owe the world, and Idiocracy is just a movie.

[rpmisms]

Idiocracy is a joke about a real phenomenon. The outcome will likely be less extreme, but possibly not dissimilar.

[Apocryphon]

That wasn't even the point of the movie

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18489573

[rpmisms]

I fundamentally disagree with that post. The idea of Idiocracy was clear, but it made an additional statement with what it decided to portray as "stupid". Two things can be true at the same time.

[Apocryphon]

> We live in polarized times, which means that for every ‘Idiocracy is a documentary!’ take that goes around, there’s also a critique that argues that Idiocracy is a celebration of eugenics. Have you thought about that interpretation of it? Well, yeah. I mean I’ve actually read that a couple of times. But to me, I thought the opening made it very clear that whatever side you take, nature and nurture are both covered in that. That guy is clearly not a good father. I mean, there’s a kid with a motorcycle in the front yard, and no one’s paying attention to this. He’s just irresponsibly knocking up different woman, and proud of it. It’s not like he’s a good, upstanding role model for the kid. So I think it’s pretty clear here that, whichever one it is, [nature or nurture], there’s some combination of both. I obviously don’t believe in eugenics. I think you could look at it both ways—you have this couple that’s trying to be so responsible that they end up never having kids. Then there’s another couple who just irresponsibly keeps having them and not raising them right. So, you know, if the other couple adopted the other kids. I’m sure they would probably be better off.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3064328/mike-judge-on-the-10th-a...