[hip hop bunny hop]

This woman has: 15 kids, three babydaddys (<---one word, a wonderful neologism that ghetto culture has given us). She lives with twelve of these kids, as three of them are no longer minors.

[youtube]bavou_SEj1E[/youtube]


What else do you expect when our nation tolerates a ghetto culture wherein welfare queens make their living by spitting out an endless stream of kids in order to collect ever large sums of welfare? Abuse of welfare may well be inevitable to a degree, but ghetto culture has taken it to a such a level that these welfare queens get upset because their payments aren't large enough.

And what about these children? Can we really expect them to turn out to be productive members of society? More likely than not, they'll imitate their mother.

[youtube]icmRCixQrx8[/youtube]

[Wolfman]

You want a stable population, this is how you get it.

[Rilzik]

If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25 ... r%20brains

Which brings us to an unpleasant possibility. “You may not want to hear this,” says cognitive scientist David Geary of the University of Missouri, “but I think the best explanation for the decline in our brain size is the idiocracy theory.” Geary is referring to the eponymous 2006 film by Mike Judge about an ordinary guy who becomes involved in a hibernation experiment at the dawn of the 21st century. When he wakes up 500 years later, he is easily the smartest person on the dumbed-down planet. “I think something a little bit like that happened to us,” Geary says. In other words, idiocracy is where we are now.

Bailey and Geary found population density did indeed track closely with brain size, but in a surprising way. When population numbers were low, as was the case for most of our evolution, the cranium kept getting bigger. But as population went from sparse to dense in a given area, cranial size declined, highlighted by a sudden 3 to 4 percent drop in EQ starting around 15,000 to 10,000 years ago. “We saw that trend in Europe, China, Africa, Malaysia—everywhere we looked,” Geary says.

The observation led the researchers to a radical conclusion: As complex societies emerged, the brain became smaller because people did not have to be as smart to stay alive. As Geary explains, individuals who would not have been able to survive by their wits alone could scrape by with the help of others—supported, as it were, by the first social safety nets.

While there are other theories presented in the article, idiocracy is seriously being considered.

[mikema63]

we will be able to plug chips into peoples brains to make them smarter before that happens.

[SpaciousBox]

Idiocracy is an awesome movie.

On the topic though, I can't help but feel we have had this discussion many times before on every sub-forum. Having seen it happen, we can basically summarise it down to two choices with welfare:

A) Either you accept you have a moral obligation to your fellow man, and you pay for them indefinitely from your own tax pocket. This means they can have as many kids as they want, send them all to college, and buy them birthday presents and a big house from your hard earned cash whilst they sit on a sofa drinking beer and watching their friends on Jeremy Kyle / Jerry Springer.
B) You accept that many people will die who cannot take care of themselves, or their children, or afford expensive medical treatments for easy to cure ailments and live in the knowledge that your hard earned tax dollars could have saved a child's life who was born into a bad family. This includes people who are made redundant, with previously well paying jobs, and would effect a lot of harder working family within the recent recession.

A lot of people often argue that there is a middle ground, but there really isn't. If you set conditions on welfare, you are still going to be faced with an A or B choice when they break those conditions. Do you feel you have a duty to your fellow man? Or do you feel you don't. I guess the other option is you support forced sterilisation, but that really is a different sort of discussion based on rights and morality, rather than money.

[hip hop bunny hop]

Box, not quite. The common thread in determining who does and doesn't receive social services is citizenship. While the USA does send aid overseas and sadlly allows illegals access to our healthcare system, it is a pittance to what we have domestically. We can reduce the problem of the Ghetto culture, which is synonymous with welfare, by either (EDIT)

[Oxymoron]

Get rid of Ghettos no more ghetto culture.

[Arkady2009]

People like that woman should be made to get a job to support the kids, and preventing from pushing them out just to claim welfare.

[SpaciousBox]

People like that woman should be made to get a job to support the kids, and preventing from pushing them out just to claim welfare

How? How will you force her to do anything? And what do you do when she refuses. We're once again back to A or B...

[Sungazer]

That woman should be locked up, she's a danger to society. Hah hah, just kidding...that might end up traumatising the kids.

Still. Indefinite growth (population growth, in this case) is a most preposterously unsustainable concept, so the only sane choice is to cut welfare spending on cases like OP's.

And population growth reducing intelligence, that's one thing I'll readily believe. Makes sense, too.

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

cranial size is not a direct line to level of intelligence. Many pre-human hominids had larger skulls and brains than we do, but they're brains were less...what is the term? Had less squiggly lines in them. The squiggly lines increase the overall surface area of the brain, facilitating quick connections between regions and allowing for more associations/RAM

That being said, from a purely darwinian standpoint, it is easy to see how big tits and horny could replace clever and resourceful, over time, in an urban setting...

[Takkon]

@OP: wouldn't 12 kids have been considered a blessing in most rural societies before say the end of world war 2? For instance, my grandpa is the youngest of 13 brothers and sister, my great grandma on the other side is the youngest of 10, the man she married (great-grandpa) is the youngest of 8... Are you implying that this was a part of the ghetto culture? Also, is the octomom (14 children) also a product of the ghetto?

[mikema63]

but they're brains were less...what is the term? Had less squiggly lines in them.

the ridges are gyri and the crevices sulci

[hip hop bunny hop]

How? How will you force her to do anything? And what do you do when she refuses. We're once again back to A or B...

To finish my earlier post:

Box, not quite. The common thread in determining who does and doesn't receive social services is citizenship. While the USA does send aid overseas and sadly allows illegals access to our healthcare system, it is a pittance to what we spend on welfare domestically. We can reduce the problem of the Ghetto culture, which is synonymous with welfare, by either (EDIT) making massive cuts in general (for the populace), in particular (by denying it to certain groups), or - and here's what I'd prefer - by capping it.

If you compare Red Indians & Blacks relationship to welfare, you'll notice two different approaches. The tribal income which is distributed to its members is roughly static; if tribal membership growth outpaces tribal income growth, the checks received by everyone decreases. Hence, Red Indians have an incentive to both ensure membership doesn't grow to quickly and to steward their own resources (to an extent).

Contrast this with Black Americans; this tribe does not have a static tribal income. This tribe can have dramatic growth, and their checks not only remain static, but are likely to increase as their relative political power increases. Every incentive is for them to reproduce as much as possible and to keep the definition of Black as flimsy as wide as possible; after all, the rest of America's ethnic groups are subsidizing their dramatic population growth.

Therefor, I propose we simply recognize that Black Americans most definitely do act like a tribe, and it is both in our and their interest that we treat them as we do the Indians. Let us officially make their ghettos their reservations. Let them have limited self government. These measures will force them to either adopt different standards for reproduction, or they will learn austerity. Either way, it will mean financial savings for the rest of America, and it will help to keep ghetto culture at arms length (or better)!

@OP: wouldn't 12 kids have been considered a blessing in most rural societies before say the end of world war 2? For instance, my grandpa is the youngest of 13 brothers and sister, my great grandma on the other side is the youngest of 10, the man she married (great-grandpa) is the youngest of 8... Are you implying that this was a part of the ghetto culture? Also, is the octomom (14 children) also a product of the ghetto?

We're contrasting ghetto culture to other contemporary cultures in the USA. This is practical, as it prevents us from having to worry about things such as the how welfare has grown dramatically in the past 100 years, the effects of improved birth control, etc.

Regarding Octomom, while I've heard of her, I've never actually looked into it, so I won't judge.

[Takkon]

We're contrasting ghetto culture to other contemporary cultures in the USA. This is practical, as it prevents us from having to worry about things such as the how welfare has grown dramatically in the past 100 years, the effects of improved birth control, etc.

How do you know that ghetto culture is not simply an extension of rural culture? After all, black ghettos consist mostly of blacks that migrated from the south, so it's not crazy to think that they maintained that heritage.

[Arkady2009]

How? How will you force her to do anything? And what do you do when she refuses. We're once again back to A or B...

Slowly cutting off her welfare payments will mean she will have no choice but to go out and find work. If she doesn't, she starves.

[Jackal]

The mother should be sterilized for good measure.

As for the children... send them all to Liberia.

[hip hop bunny hop]

How do you know that ghetto culture is not simply an extension of rural culture? After all, black ghettos consist mostly of blacks that migrated from the south, so it's not crazy to think that they maintained that heritage.

Because, Takkon, I grew up in 'rural culture'. The only time I've spent living on paved roads is my current location in Montana and the few years I spent in Kansas City. I've worked on a corporate farm repairing dairy equipment. I've sold shit at a farmers market. I've had a piece of land in NE Missouri.

Rural families tended to be large for a few reasons:

-child mortality rates were high, so by having large numbers of children you increased the probability that some would reach adulthood healthy
-children were, in effect, free labour
-lack of birth control
-complete dependence on the farm/ranch for income

Mechanization & improved healthcare made it unnecessary to have large numbers of kids. Birth control made it possible to actually not have large numbers without resorting to abortion. Further, the decline of rural economies and the subsequent trend of wives having jobs outside of the farm made it difficult to maintain large families.

Families with 12 kids are rare, even in South Dakota which is still majority rural to this day. If people who still have farms and ranches aren't breeding like it's 1870, why should we give these welfare queens a free pass?

[Sceptic]

Obviously the parents deseve nothing in these situations and indeed the failing welfare state is at least partially to blame for the flaws of urban ghetto culture, or if not crime rates, immorality, laziness and lack of education at the very least.

However, the children do not deserve to starve either, nor do they deserve to be sent to a children's home. Also, there are accidental circumstances when a single mother with a job becomes pregnant and loses her job, or when the condom bursts for example.

Yes, parents are going to be irresponsible and have children they don't want and can't afford to maintain.

So, the middle ground appeas to be stricter means testing.

Child benefit: As a working parent, you will be granted state support for your first child however you will not be better off financially but you will not be worse off either. For your second child, you will receive less state support and you will be a little worse off. Eventually, you will not receive any state support. Nobody accidentally has six kids, and I believe it is selfish to contribute towards out of control population growth even if you can sustain your family selfish. So at this point, state support is removed and if the parents cannot support their children, they will be taken into care (with the exception of very rare circumstances).

Income benefit: Negative income tax. Everyone, with the exception of parents, disabled people and other exceptional circumstances takes home a certain amount regardless of their work. However they will barely be living at subsistence. If they get a job at minimum wage, they will lose some benefit, but they will still be better off, so there is still incentive to work.

[Kman]

You want a stable population, this is how you get it.

I prefer to keep the population stable without making the average IQ drop 30 points.