/sci/ - Science & Math

At least in modern society, having children has no advantage and generally makes your life worse. Smart people are more likely to plan ahead and stupid people are more likely to do things impulsively and make mistakes. Particularly a stupid person is more likely to fail to use contraceptives correctly.

>>10525660
This isn't the case in animals. Magpies, for instance, have a positive association between task performance and reproductive success.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25503

>>10525684
A Magpie isn't going to weigh the pros and cons and make a decision about making a family or not. The smartest and the dumbest are just following instinct. It's not really similar to the situation with humans where, at least these days, having children is a conscious choice. In most animals the strong instinct that results in children is to have sex. The instinct isn't to have children in and of itself. Humans have developed methods to fulfill their desire to have sex without the result that evolution "wants" (reproduction). I doubt the smart magpies would think up the idea of a condom or even be able to think of why it would be beneficial to not have children.

>>10525660
>Fertility=having children
no

>>10525660
>Implying that olsen isn't highly intelligent

How does this surprise anyone? Reproduction is a mindless activity that becomes less likely the more developed a person's mind is. It's slavery to nature/evolution.

Jocks are dumb, betas are smart. It's just how it is.

>>10525660
Might as well post this again.

>>10525660
>smart people having more kids
L0Lno fgt pls

>>10526859
>fgt
Why the homophobia?

>>10525660
First you need to define intelligence but I will word it in a different and a quite simpler way. People who think more are more stressed than people who don't since thinking is an activity, just like physically exercising your body also increases your stress levels. Though there is obviously a difference in how the body handles the stress and how the body reacts to it since both activities have different goals. High stress levels correlate with thinking, its why stressed have thoughts when they try to fall asleep. Their brain is trying to solve the problems that makes them stressed, at least make them think they should not be. So yes, being stressed through thinking makes your body harder to adapt to physical activities as your brain can control your body and push it over its limits meanwhile if you exhaust your brain you have nothing to replace it with.

>>10525672
>>10525788

>having children has no advantage
For most millennials, the choice is either women or families, or superheroes and video games. It’s no surprise that the “smart” generation feels this way

>>10525660
Earlier puberty/more pronounces sexual organs/more promiscuous sexual habits/more children/earlier time for sex/shorter lifespan/more aggression correlate with smaller brain strategy for survival. That is, they reproduce more and have more reproductive capability because the chance of survival for the offspring of the group is lower.

>>10525660
>Why did these become inversely correlated? Shouldn't smart people be having more kids?
because for every brain (smart person), you can have (and need) lots of muscles (dumb people).

>>10526168
>using outdated garbage

>>10528095
Literally the only advantage to having children in the modern day is that they're kind of cute and fun to play with sometimes and you can build an emotional bond. They're basically just pets.
Very very expensive pets that you need to care for for 18+ years
In the distant past, people had childrens because they didn't have any way to have normal sex without getting kids or they didn't understand sex caused kids. Then people had kids on purpose because they needed them to work on the farm or care for them when they get old. Now, your kids aren't going to work for you in their childhood and you don't need kids to care for you when you're old. They're just hobbies now, and the amusement just isn't worth the hassle.

>>10528271
>muh demographic transition
Which will inevitably reverse due to evolution catching up with modern selection pressures

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>10528217
That makes no sense. The issue is that not all sexual activity is considered equal. If group A most does anal and b is mostly vaginal in stuff in stuff where sexual activities are unusually weighted the latter group has "more sex".

>>10528283
How the hell would it reverse?

>>10528283
>Which will inevitably reverse due to evolution catching up with modern selection pressures
What if the selection pressure is that families with fewer children are much more likely to support those children and grandchildren.

>>10528278
found the incel

>>10528324
No need to be pedantic. Everyone understands what "more sex" means. They don't argue over whether some people do more anal or more vaginal.

>>10528386
Rushton papers always has a weird definition of sex to alter numbers fir groups. Like whites have a ton of sex but a lot of it isn't vaginal.

>>10528500
And shit like egg twinning varies completely on the population.

>>10528271
If you have more recent projections from the UN post them.

>>10525660
intelligence -> good decision making
if a smartass has a kid he will have to take care of a potential retarded normie
seing how the world is fucked up probably doesn't make people want their childs growing in it
decision making takes time, smartasses end up having a kid at 30 while the average retard had half a dozen with three women

>>10525660
Greg Olsen is a fucking beast.

>>10528278
Children aren’t actually expensive though. Its all fearmongering lies.

>>10525788
This

>>10528271
>Greenland
>no data

they're breeding an army

>>10528588
Not exactly. If they have special needs going in either direction they'll need more money invested in them and if you want a better QoL you will put in more.

>>10528588

Not him but children are expensive. Even working off the assumption that you will send them to a public school and ship them to the military to reduce education/ training costs. And abort any possible pregnancy that could occur. You still have to feed them, clothed them, pay for their hygiene/ healthcare and house them for at least 18 years.

This is based off of the idea that your career allows you to stay in one home for 18 years. That said home can house more than one kid. That you don't get divorced or suffer the death of your spouse. That your kid(s) maintain decent health without getting some chronic/ semi chronic illness or weird health issue halfway through the 18 year span. That your spouse is stay at home person so you don't have to pay for babysitting or cleaning. That your kids interests/ hobby isn't expensive.

There's a lot of stipulations that need to happen to prevent children not to be expensive. More than likely the average person having a children will suffer at least 2 to 3 factors I pointed out and the likelihood of such factors only increase the more kids you have.

>>10528681
Not to mention your kids end up hating you because you dragged them into this shithole to suffer and die all because you were lonely

>>10528681
Kids hockey is more expensive then then a drug habit. Especially with the early drives and equipment and if the kid grows in size a lot in spurts.

>>10528681
>>10528548

People with high iqs have much higher incomes on average and can realistically deal with these problems.

>>10528701
>depressed, whiny, pseudo-intellegent shit like this

This is why we hate you, sci

>>10528713
Spoken like a moron who can't make a logical justification for why it's okay to bring new lives into this awful world to work shitty boring slave jobs until they're dead, not to mention all the other nightmarish things that can and do occur during a lifetime

>>10525660
The ability to give in to animal instincts without considering the results is usually attributed to those that lack intellect.

>>10528711

Realistically they can only deal with feeding, clothing, hygiene, healthcare, housing, expensive hobby and maybe minor health related issues like asthma.

The moment spousal death, divorce or chronic illness occurs even high IQ/ income people succumb. If you don't then your income (which this whole hypothetical scenario is based off of one bread winner) is clearly outlier and not typical of the average.

>>10528742
White and Asian women who have completed higher education have an astronomically low divorce rate compared to other demographics.

Most deaths at that age are caused by "misadventure" which include drug and alcohol abuse, murder, etc. which don't really impact intelligent people as much.

>>10528720
The vast majority of humans do not commit suicide, which means they'd rather be living at any moment in their life than dying.

>>10528763
>which means
they're afraid
they don't want to hurt their families
they're programmed by billions of years of biological evolution to stay alive
they are being blackmailed by religious threats
>what it doesn't mean
they'd rather be alive than dead

you are a fucking idiot

>>10528768
>>what it doesn't mean
>they'd rather be alive than dead
I agree. I'd rather be dead right now. Still I am doing nothing.

>>10528757

>White and Asian women who have completed higher education have an astronomically low divorce rate compared to other demographics

They have low divorce rates but not astronomically low. Also those rates depends on the country.

>Most deaths at that age are caused by "misadventure" which include drug and alcohol abuse, murder, etc. which don't really impact intelligent people as much.

Anon you do know that Cancer is a thing and a real possibility right? Remember we are dealing with at least a 18 year span for female adults. You notating higher education women makes the cancer likelihood even worse as we are most likely talking about +25-30 yr olds living to nearly 50 without some form of cancer creeping into their lives.

Seeking quality of life, pursuing goals, flexibility and freedom of career and personal expression is not a problem. It brings about the realization of the individual and allows for concentration of effort at giving back to society. Forcing people to rear some brat so that they are forced to do the same when they grow up is not laudable or productive, unless they deliberately want to.

>>10526168
>We should be alarmed because of speculative extrapolation treated as a fact and muh scari blak peepl
Go be a zoomer /pol/ idiot back in your shitbox.

>>10528835
>overpopulation
Legitimate issue that many climate scientists are concerned over

>most of the world’s population growth is African
Raycisssss back to pol blacks deserve to food every continent

149 IQ here, for my whole life seconds before climax I have visions of all the race cars and boats I couldn't buy if I had kids, and I pull out. It's am extremely strong involuntary reaction, like all of a sudden a massive electromagnet kicks in. Not sure if it's intelligence or discipline.

>>10528835

>We should be alarmed

Yes we should be. Even assuming the UN population prediction is correct the whole 4-billion strong population of Sub-Saharan Africa would have less >105IQ people than Japan.

We're not even talking less geniuses than Japan, just people who can function okayish in a modern economy. The egalitarians have created hell and shriek at us as demons for pointing out the stark reality we face.

>>10528902

Btw anon here means 15 points when he says Standard Distribution or SD. Was in the thread.

>>10526889
>no replies
Of course gay niggers will not respond but continue making their shitty theories that doesn't even acknowledge the causes.

>>10529071

It's gobbledygook some 16 year old spouted about intelligence studies that have been successfully used in the field for over 100 years. Why honour it with a response.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146545/Man-fathered-30-kids-11-different-women-says-needs-break--child-support.html

Intelligence and fertility in which more kids is lower IQ?

>>10529132
>No sources or refutations
Damn, you love talking out of your ass.
>Why honour it with a response.
Because its the answer. What else are you looking for, you can't even comment on it yet look for something else, imagine being such a brainlet. Even /b/ would have a more meaningful discussion.

>>10528902
Average African IQ is 85 you faggot.

>>10529223

That's Afro-American IQ, 20-25% European and Jewish admixture. Under ideal conditions pure African IQ might be more like 75-80 but that's assuming ideal conditions like that of USA/Europe in Africa by like 2050.

>>10529169

>No sources

Knowing that IQ tests have been used for over the past 100 years does not need a source. That's like needing a source for saying that relative physics has been in used for 80 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
>IQ tests used in WWI (these were primitive compared to the ones used today, but that just shows the development of the field)
http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqtest.htm

>>10528720
Being alive is a privilege that you can't enjoy because of your own self reinforcing weakness.

>>10528271
>outdated garbage
>latest data from 2017
>posting a "counterargument" showing sub saharan africa stilll having 4 kids per women in 2050, thus confirming the projection
Nigger tier IQ

>>10529403
>Knowing that IQ tests have been used for over the past 100 years does not need a source. That's like needing a source for saying that relative physics has been in used for 80 years.
What are you even talking about, did you even read my first post? I'm sure you're either clinically retarded or just have a reading disability which is quite close to being retard as well.

>>10528902

>Even assuming the UN population prediction is correct the whole 4-billion strong population of Sub-Saharan Africa would have less >105IQ people than Japan.

Anon at a population of 4 billion the top 5% alone would constitute 200 million (Japan is roughly 130 million right now). Even at 80 IQ at least 14% ( 560 million) would have +100 IQ. Half of that 280 million would have at least 107IQ or more. Meaning that they would have more than double the amount of 105 IQ individuals than Japan right which is projected to decrease population by the time Africa gets to 4 billion.

>>10529403

Under ideal conditions their IQ would at least be 80-85 as shown by Nigeria, which happens to be the country with largest growth in Africa.

>>10525660


you can argue that human endeavours to procreate in herently leads to competition amongst procreators, while those striving to make money, are able to buy what they need to survive from dealing in goods and services.

>>10529701

I forgot to mention that I'm basing this on the premise that all of Japan has an IQ of at least 105. That is clearly highballing them as the reality is only about 65 million has 105 IQ or more.

>>10528898
Immaturity?

>>10528853
Population growth charts are notoriously innacurate. You clearly don't understand extrapolation error, specially the
further away you go.

>But i'm a racist and black people scare me
Yes, we got that the minute you autistically keep spam that chart. Get off of 4chan and seek a therapist.

>>10528902
>But m-muh IQ
Another snowflake race shitter. If we went to blindly follow some magical IQ score, the bulk of Europe in the dark ages and possibly even roman times would barely make it past the "borderline retarded" scores on average. Yet here we are.

Take the shitpost back to their /pol/prer shitbox.

>>10529791
>you aren’t allowed to say who is causing overpopulation or you’re racist and you should see a therapist

This is why people hate the left

>>10525660
how good are you if you fail to reproduce as a fertile individual?

>>10529820
>shit I am peddling racist shit
>time to play the victim since calling other people racist is horrible
You're an anti-semite (which often is racism when you target ethnic jews instead of religious jews)judging from your previous post in the climate thread, and intellectually dishonest in peddling your propaganda of people wrongly accusing you of racism when you run out of arguments.

>>10529820
sure you're allowed to say who is causing overpopulation. But don't lie about it.

White people are the ones draining all of the resources.Them dying off will save humanity.

>>10529791
>le dark ages
fucking memer plankton

>>10529885
If Africans ever improve or industrialize then they'll end up consuming and polluting as much as we do too.

>>10530638
not if we develop clean energy sources and enforce sustainable behaviors

>>10530731
Even then, a billion people means a ton of concrete, iron, aluminum, and every other element

>>10529791

>bulk of Europe in the dark ages and possibly even roman times would barely make it past the "borderline retarded" scores on average

Are you referencing the Flynn effect? The questions might have to be redesigned but you'd observe that general intelligence would still be very high. Given back-breaking labour and poverty I would assume a European IQ of 85-90 at that time, with something more like 108 for the landed gentry given superior genetics and living conditions.

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/lecture-series/Brand-Magna-Carta-and-the-Development-of-the-Common-Law-May15.pdf
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Score-gains-on-g-loaded-tests-No-g.pdf
https://www.gwern.net/docs/dnb/2013-colom.pdf

>>10529701

I'm not responding to this because you don't understand normal distribution. If I were to try I would have to write an essay explaining how every sentence has 1-3 errors.

There's no reason to assume an average IQ of 80 by 2050 or 2070 (when most of population would be born). As it is I used false generous assumptions for Africans, namely a SD of 15. In actuality it's closer to around 13, so even with an average IQ of 80 we would assume only 1% of the population to have an IQ of 106. Still smaller than 1/3 of Japan's population.

>>10529701

Actually it reminds me of a quote by Murray, where he says the problem with common perception of IQ is people believe the mean to be 130 and the SD of 30. In actuality the average person isn't that intelligence (and that's just 1st world populations) and most people bulk around this average. Exceptions are just that, exceptional.

>>10529749

Yeah, that's true, I made a mistake on that part. This means using either 70 IQ /15SD or 80 IQ /13 SD SS Africa would have 2/3rds the number of 105IQ people as Japan.

>>10529791
What’s your proof that early Europeans (and humans as a whole) were dumber?

>Crabtree based this assertion on genetics. About 2,000 to 5,000 genes control human intelligence, he estimated. At the rate at which genetic mutations accumulate, Crabtree calculated that within the last 3,000 years, all of humanity has sustained at least two mutations harmful to these intellect-determining genes (and will sustain a couple more in another 3,000 years). Not every mutation will cause harm — genes come in pairs, and some weaknesses caused by mutation can be covered for by the healthy half of the pair, Crabtree wrote; but the calculation suggests that intelligence is more fragile than it seems.

>Furthermore, he argued, intelligence isn't as evolutionarily important to humans today as it was when the species was hunter-gatherers. Thousands of years ago, failing to grasp the aerodynamics of throwing a spear when a lion was coming at you meant you were toast — no more passing along your genes to offspring. Modern man rarely faces such life-or-death tests of wits, Crabtree wrote. [10 Things That Make Humans Special]

>Another theory holds that humanity's genetic capacity for intelligence is in decline because of a phenomenon called dysgenic mating. Since the mid-1800s, IQ and reproduction have been negatively correlated, studies have found. To put it bluntly, people who are more intelligent have fewer babies. Because intelligence is part genetic, some researchers argue that, if anything, IQs should be dropping.

>stupid people then
In the belly of a lion

>stupid people now
A trailer park full of kids

>>10531612
You don't need much smart people to rule a place anon.

>>10530638
False. Industrialization when first done by Britain took like a century and was polluting as hell. Now countries after them did it quicker and with less damage.

Look at Japanese urban design vs city urban design made by nations with old cities who didn't have firebombing to start a new slate (Japan wasn't theo nly one).

>>10529403
Nope anon. "pure" Africans. IQ is low but not that low.

maybe smart people are better at controlling their urges to breed. Maybe we don't think with our dicks. Also, dumb people have more kids and have them earlier. Have you watched the movie Idiocracy?

>>10528588

This is the third-dumbest post I've seen on 4chan ytd. Of course children are expensive. You sound like someone who has never had children, and I myself am someone who has never had children, and hope that I never will.

>>10534905

This is the fourth-dumbest post I've seen on 4chan ytd. You're doing this idiotic fashionable thing of thinking that Africa and Africans can be trusted to not be as dumb even though such-and-such technoloigcal adavancements, even with the backing of the Chinese or whoever. Trust me on this: African people will find a way to fail. It is literally inscribed both in their genes and in their history. I know this, because I interact with Africans on a daily basis. The only things on the continent that matter are the non-human resources.

>>10535130
Despite what you are saying Africa is making developing a ton and will continue to do so despite you autistic rant saying otherwise lol.

Seriously
>Trust me on this: African people will find a way to fail. It is literally inscribed both in their genes and in their history.

Is so cringe as fuck anon. I can understand you trying to posture with your posy but this just SCREAMS impotent butthurt.

>>10535126
>Of course children are expensive.

If you don't manage costs well they can be expensive but good planning mitigates that.

>>10525660
I think there's a lot of reasons, some possible ones:
>Development and adoption of contraceptives, obviously more likely to be used by responsible intelligent people
>Increased costs of child rearing, which discourages those with foresight
>Changes in inheritance - primogeniture inheritance means the eldest male gets everything, it doesn't matter how many kids you have. If you have shared inheritance then you split the estate and it's beneficial to have fewer children in order to give them a bigger advantage. Doesn't really apply to the poor.
>Decreased religiosity. A number of religions place emphasis on raising lots of children, which is obviously a good way to get more members. Smart people have become the least relgious.
>Female education and entering the workforce, obviously delays first birth. If you only have your first child at 32 you've only got a few more years to have another one. I think this is the biggest factor today.
There's only two strategies that pay off in terms of fertility today - being a religious conservative and being an irresponsible dumbass, so that's pretty much what the future is going to look like, to the extent that those things are heritable.

>>10535433
Oh and also improved health care and nutrition. Most of human history the population was on the edge of famine if there was a bad harvest, which would probably be much worse for the poorest. Child mortality is just too low now in order to provide a eugenic advantage for the rich/clever.

>>10529450

Literally this board is full of brainlets who cannot interpret data.

>>10535452
But 2050 most of them had like 3 kids which isn't bad.

>>10535455
Their population continues growing even when it hits a TFR of 2.1 because the average age is under 20. Barring famine, plague or war, it will take a long time before it reaches a steady state where the same number of people are dying as are being born. This is taken into consideration in the UN projections. This is why China is still growing despite having sub-replacement level fertility.

>>10535455
>>10535462
All of Africa looks like the left side.

>>10528588
Fearmongering for what, exactly?