Only a thousand bucks? To the employer? Yeah, that'll knock this right off.

Well, it's a cheap way for the government to generate a lot of publicity for the campaign. It could make people think about their actions. It might even have some effect.

It doesn't look as though this is going to cost anything so don't knock it as an entirely stupid idea.

Nah you'd have tons of people cutting off the chastity belts just to get it on

Chastity bomb belts then. Cut the wrong wire and kaboom.

given the rate at which stupid people are reproducing, i can't disagree with this.

Never underestimate the power of hope and that of a monopoly on control of those people who are necessary for a government and a society to exist, let alone function.

Owa?

Wow, way to be hard line.
Though admitedly Im all in favor of removing all the stupid people, Id rather let natural selection do its thing.

I know. What with Totalitarianism having always been so popular with the masses.

Hey, if your going to do it, why stop at half measures? Go all the way as long as it still furthers your ultimate goals.

I mean if your going to torture someone to death, nothing is too extreme.

If you only want to torture them as a lesson or for information and have them survive afterwards well then obviously you want to limit yourself to methods that will not cause their untimely demise.

Hate to break this to most of you (well no I don't, actually), but the difference between "smart" people and "dumb" people is for the very most part, education, environment and opportunity. Genetic differences in intelligence, barring extreme cases, are dwarfed by whether your parents began teaching you things early on, whether you were well nourished as a baby, whether curiousity and imagination were encouraged and rewarded. It might not be reassuring, but if you hadn't received much stimulation, decent schooling or encouragement as a child, you could be one of the "stupid people."

Natural selection isn't going to cure society of stupidity in this universe. Education and wealth distribution will.

-K.

I think that's called "rape." Or are you assuming that the geniuses are all male?

Well legally that is the case, unless you're in Norway where the equality laws mean it applies to both sexes and a man is currently charging a woman with rape for giving him a blow job after he passed out unconcious at a party.

But when you propose forced procreation camps then it's obviously not going to involve male "rape" (unwilling sodomisation) as this isn't procreative. It would necessarily involve rape of the women which is not a good thing. Therefore I inferred that in proposing this as a "good" solution, you had made the assumption that geniuses were male. A reasonable leap. And whilst avoiding rape is a good thing, I don't think that makes forced artifical insemination a plus.

More reasonably, you could offer cash incentives to male geniuses to donate their sperm to fertilise non-genius women. It doesn't really work the other way round because men would be able to sire far more children than genius women could give birth to. Which is unfortunate as recent research shows that the genetic component for intelligence is passed through the maternal line.

All of which is pissing in the ocean, however, as environmental effects in childhood have a far greater effect on adult intelligence than genetic predisposition (barring extreme cases). The exception may be a gene that affects brain development which has really shot through the human population in the last few thousand years. But as a large proportion of mankind already has it, there's not much advantage there.

Even if you did find it worthwhile promoting genius breeding, given that the lower conception rate of the highly educated is voluntary, you'd be faced with the problem of identifying and capturing these people who have already indicated their lack of desire to have zillions of kids. Because they can't be trusted to police themselves as a population, your policies will have to be enforced by non-genius people. Which would be an interesting battle of wits.

So I think all in all it's not going to work, which is probably for the best really, as I have no intention of spending my adult life locked in a bedroom with a succession of unnattractive women with doctorates in quantum field theory.

Urr, no.

Erection is not a voluntary response, it just happens. Any man who has ever caught their mother, sister, grandmother, or male buddy who's kind of hot even though you are not remotely gay in the shower knows this. It is quite possible for a woman to forcibly copulate with a man and most Western jurisdictions recognize this in their rape statutes. Penetratee-on-penetrator rape just isn't discussed very often due to a horrific double standard and it is a subject that needs to be taken more seriously.

The limitation on the number of children a woman can have per year is in the uterus, not in the ovaries. Just double oomphorectomize all non-genius females during childhood and have the genius women donate their eggs. Cloning is also an option as, despite bans on human cloning and silly ethical concerns, the technology is quite viable today.

Which is why you use child quotas for the well educated. Only those who violate the quotas will have to be dealt with.

To each his own. I happen to have a mild quantum field theory fetish.
Smart is sexy.

WTF.

But seriously: Rape applies to both sexes. It's just that it's a tad bit easier for an average man to rape an average woman than the other way around. Hell, a friend of a friend of mine actually has been raped by a girl when he was too drunk to defend himself.

Oh, and to make that story more funny, she was Asian, and he's Norwegian...

Oh, my ass.

No, it is valid. If we educate the generations to freely distribute their wealth according to percieved need, the smart ones will ignore the education and hoard, leaving the indoctrinated masses to starve.

that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard!

(lowest common denominator, represent!)

Well, education does have some advantages. For example, it can improve reading comprehension.

I said that the variations in intelligence due to genetic differences are, excluding a small minority of cases, dwarfed by the differences due to environment and education. Trying to increase the intelligence of the human race by breeding in those traits would be unnoticable compared to increasing it through better education, nutrition and nurture. The difference between the "smart" and the "dumb" is primarily education and motivation. We've a long way to go getting the most out of our current potential before trying to breed higher intelligence becomes a worthwhile return on investment in comparison.