HomeChild CareShould people with superior genes be paid to have more kids?
Posted in Child Care on 1st November 2011

Should people with superior genes be paid to have more kids?
For example, people who get into Stanford or one of the Ivy Leagues or MIT… clearly most of these people have superior genes – intelligence, robust health, energy, good personalities, probably good looks too – because you can’t get into one of these most selective universities without most of those traits. Yet these same people tend to have at most 1 or 2 kids, and many have none. Isn’t this a shame? Shouldn’t we give these people tax incentives to marry each other and have many children?

And on the other end of the spectrum, we have people with defective genes (and I consider myself one of them) – they suffer from hereditary diseases or other conditions that make it difficult or impossible to support themselves, let alone contribute to the advancement of society. And many of these people (not me!) have lots of kids, especially because our welfare system pays poor, single women more money the more kids they have. I believe the intent was correct (to help disadvantaged kids) but the perverse result is that this kind of policy actually produces more disadvantaged kids than would exist in the absence of such a policy. Wouldn’t it be better to pay such people to NOT have kids?

Incidentally, lest anyone accuse me of “racism”, I will state upfront that I don’t see this as a racial issue – every race and ethnicity produces some geniuses and lots of morons or otherwise disadvantaged people. The idea here is to promote the betterment of all humanity through peaceful means. Better health, energy and intelligence = greater happiness and higher productivity and less resources wasted on underutilized education, extra police, courts and prisons, expensive “health care”, etc.

What do you think?

Best answer(s):

Answer by cantcu
No!

Answer by ladystang
nope

Answer by Billy Blaze
Let’s see whether stupid people agree that stupid people should have more kids. Should be an easy one to predict.

Answer by Semper Fidelis
The only reason the intelligent people have less children is because they focus on their careers. The other end of the spectrum, I don’t know why they have more children.

Answer by Orion
No, what next start growing our children out of test tubes or genetically engineer them. Where do you stop drawing the line with this line of reasoning. I’ve known some really successfully intelligent people who have had some pretty dumb offspring so the reasoning doesn’t hold up anyhow.

Answer by justagrandma
Genetic carry through of ‘superiority’ isn’t accurate. A brilliant specimen can have far less than brilliant offspring.
Complicating this is the statement you give about all those goodies you think people who get into superior schools have, sorry to disappoint you there but good looks and good personality, and robust health isn’t the luck of most of those students all at one time.

Then of course we have the Stephen Hawkings presence Brilliant, but not in good health or good looking.

Lets put it this way, in dogs there are four gene series that control a simple thing like coat color.
What makes people the way they are is far more complicated, and some may not even be genetic.
Your idea isn’t scientifically sustainable.

The reason many poor people have several children is that there isn’t anything else they can do to feel and receive love. They live, on the whole, drab and depressing lives, with little stability or control.
Wealthy people have many sources of respect and admiration, possibilities for love aren’t cramped by limited finances in courtship.

Answer by Thankyoumam
No, we just pay Planned Parenthood to remove the inferior kids.

Answer by ?
three things

one: there’s enough people on earth. no need for incentives to make even more

two, it’s virtually impossible to decide which genes are “superior”. We have several thousand genes each, in 46 packages – that sometimes interchange parts!
whiteskinned people get burned by sunlightlevels that would’t suffice to make vitamin D for blackskinned people. Sometimes a handicap makes things possible, like John Nash got a nobelprize for math, thanks to his schizophrenia.

If you want better health, reducing the use of certain chemicals would be better

if you worry about waste… reforming the economy (there’s food for 12 billion people yet 1 billion go hungry), or dismanteling armed forces would be a far more proficient approach.

third, people don’t become underprivileged just because of their genes, but because of bad luck in general. famines, disease, poverty… and the way society distributes things. You can’t have an upper class without a lower class

Related Post for four Daylight Financial savings Time Ideas

Why Instructional Toys Are Essential to a Youngster’s Improvement
three Ideas for Households to Put together for Winter
Celebrating Thanksgiving with Younger Kids
Recommendations on Learn how to Create Extra Household Time All through the Week
four Daylight Financial savings Time Ideas