10% of the population has an IQ lower than 83, what this means

I prefer a monetary reward for people to do that. I don't believe in sterilization under duress.

Modern implantable contraceptives and IUDs work quite well and give people a chance to mature emotionally so they can be more deliberate and better parents. This is why I favor publicly financed contraception...and legal and social services should be mandated so that mentally incompetent people could also utilize such services. Right now, since they are legally incompetent, they can't authorize the services themselves. .. and some MR people can eventually parent younger children at least marginally well if themselves given more time to mature first.

IMO a sliding scale going downward for more than one child would be OK if adequately publicized, but I feel connecting that to required sterilization would be unwise even if it could be legally imposed. It takes responsible decision-making away from those it most directly affects.
I have seen people of limited IQ base their reproductive decisions based on welfare requirements.

There are also grandparents out there hoping and incentivizing reproduction by their special needs children in hopes of acquiring a normally functioning grandchild....

 

My goodness, you leap quickly to character assassination, don't you?

Apparently you are unaware that in the US it is already necessary to provide a good deal of personal information to receive various forms of financial assistance. Lengthy forms regarding financial, social, medical, and work history need to be completed.

Applying for assistance is a voluntary action. It appears you feel the provision of assistance should be an involuntary one on the part of those providing it. This is an irrational expectation which forces societies to act against their own best interests, and if carried out to the fullest would lead to the devolution of that society.

Just because humans wish to soften the blow of the "survival of the fittest" rule of thumb that Nature goes by does not mean that we are obligated to ignore it entirely. In Nature, there is no free lunch at all.

 

And where I live that information is protective by privacy laws.

Look beyond the three-mile limit, will you. The US is NOT the only advanced country on earth.

And it allows a lot of things other countries do not. (First and foremost of all is hallucinatory low-taxation for people earning megabucks!)

 

Yep, certainly aint "you 'n me". You are pissing into a debate-forum.

Moving right along ...[/QUOTE]

 

Nope. It's about ten-percent of the population that gets the lion's share of the income generated; which, in any country with a sense of Economic Justice, would not be allowed to happen.

I live in a country that has plenty of millionaires and even a couple of billionaires. They would never dare mess around with a government to obtain a higher than normal share of the income generated.

They would not be able to sleep nights ...

 

Wow. Haven't read such a tortured rebuttal in a long, long time

And that comment stretches the meaning of historical evolution to the breaking point.

What happened is that "democracy" changed the ground-rules of country management. The 20th century was spent mostly with two very stoopid world-wars and test of communism that should the idiocy of that political premise.

Except in America, where the rich continue to manage manipulating laws such that they get most of the monetary-value generated by those who work. And these latter obtain picayune amounts, remain somewhat stoopid about the sharing, and watch football games to amuse themselves.

Whilst the players they are watching are making millions*. THAT is the US of today ....

*PS: European footballers all make celestial salaries as well, but they also face far higher taxation of said salaries.

 

What I'm saying is, I don't have to "defend" my remark. You don't understand the context, even when it was explained to you. So it seems pointless for me to go any further.

 

Piffle 'n drivel.

M ... r ... a ...

 

Applying for assistance is a voluntary action. It appears you feel the provision of assistance should be an involuntary one on the part of those providing it. This is an irrational expectation which forces societies to act against their own best interests, and if carried out to the fullest would lead to the devolution of that society.

Just because humans wish to soften the blow of the "survival of the fittest" rule of thumb that Nature goes by does not mean that we are obligated to ignore it entirely. In Nature, there is no free lunch at all.

 

OUR "INSTALLED MONARCHY"

The range of government services that are necessary for basic-living by the larger part of any population of any developed country exist. It's taken a while, but both the US and Europe have stable governments at both national and local levels.

My point is that National Governments in Europe provide (without asking!) far, far more services that are essential to our existence than does the US. Namely, free or nearly free National Health Care and National Post-secondary Education.

Any developed nation should not have people "requesting such services" - they are as essential to living as are water and roads (and a smartphone ;^).
.

Yes, but so what?

We humans are the peak-evolution of life on earth. We should be the more evolved element of "Nature". In fact, our nature is Human Nature and distinguishes itself readily from Animal Nature - because WE THINK, AND THEN ACT. Which most animals do only in terms of self-preservation.

Besides, there are plenty of free-lunches in Nature as well. The rain, the sun - without which there would be no life at all. Like on Mars or Jupiter.

Moreover, a nation must progress and nowadays that progression has taken the form of two very evidently essential Public Services. That is, Education and Healthcare. I live in this place called the "European Union", and both Tertiary Education and National Health Care are considered "Public Services". Like the police-force or fire-fighters or low-cost housing.

All such services are the bottom-rungs of the (psychologist) Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. So, a nation is required to assure their provision in a "fair and decent manner" throughout its population.

Not all. The police and fire-fighters - they are "voluntary"? Not by a long-shot - they are requisites to living decent lives.

And all I am saying is the same necessity should be extended to Education and Health Care. Why?

Because I live in a place that's done it, and it works! The stats prove it. Those who live with National Health Care insurance live longer lives than those who do not. And more of their children get the Higher-lever Education that the Information Age is imposing upon all economies on this planet - and thus they live better lives today and will do so tomorrow.

Just because the US - in its mindless bent for muney-muney-muney - has not seen these societal-benefits is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to think that they are not fundamental necessities to any advanced nation.

MY POINT?
*America's Income Disparity (and thus unfairness) has been proven in multiple examinations by economists of "who finally gets what and how much" out of the nation's economic-pie.
*We Yanks have come historically full-circle. We started out revolting against a "privileged class". And now we have an Upper-class that is milking the lower-class in EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER that European monarchies did up to the 19th century!
*The US needs another "revolution", this time against its own homemade "installed monarchy"!

 

In the US, many of us still understand that real freedom requires a certain amount of self sufficiency--and that a truly safe society has many such individuals.

I will point out, though, that you have retroactively narrowed the definition of "assistance" to basic services automatically provided, whereas I WAS REFERRING TO CASH PAYMENTS THAT REQUIRE APPLICATION--a voluntary action.

 

Machs nixt.

"Cash payments" of a Minimum Income provided by the state have been experimented here in the EU. Just have a look at that of Finland. It works! So, the Finns are likely to expand it to the entire nation. In the US, that means you'd take it with you wherever you go - and once your income is above the Minimum Level of the cash-payment annually, it would stop.

But, at the very least, below that Minimum Level of existence, it would probably go a long way to ending the personal-aggression in most common crimes across the nation - and reduce that of the US that is amongst the highest world-wide. (See infographic here.)

But there are other considerations specific to the US:
*It could also be financed by cancelling all other family payment-schemes, as long as the Minimum Level Income took into consideration the number of children in the family.
*In the US, there is no National Healthcare Service as there is in the EU. But, with the runaway costs of healthcare in the US, that simply opens up the highly politicized discussion of the necessity for a NHS in the US. One that can be solved only at the polling booth by changes in the Executive and Legislative branches in LaLaLand on the Potomac.

Other Minimum Income experiments have been launched in Europe, but the Finnish one is the most concrete in application. If all the subventions made to those below a certain Income Level (and not just unemployed) were substantial, it would necessarily provoke enhanced Demand in any market-economy. And, very like, reduce common-crimes made.

And if that provision were available solely to those below a given Income Level, it would assist those most in need. Would it work in America?

Probably so, but America's MAJOR DRAWBACK is a lack of a vigorous system of national identification - that would be universal from state-to-state. With a solid identification-card (given at birth) and registered nationally, then there are a good many different areas (mostly as regards common-crime) that would benefit. (And it would replace the hodge-podge in place that passes for a "national identification system" employed nationally.)

But we can't have that can we because it would undermine state-rights! Since when was "identity" a state-right? It is first and foremost a personal-right of the individual regardless of where they were born ...

 

Finland is giving that up.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finland-to-end-basic-income-trial-after-two-years

 

Why not just assure everyone who wants one gets a job just say if the private sector won't give you a job the government will arrange one, give access to Medicaid and a base salary of the minimum wage for thirty hours of work and add in a requirement for affordable housing initiatives so people earning that much can afford a place to live even if very modest. I mean work is a good thing and I frankly even though disabled would prefer a job where I earn a wage than handouts.

 

IMO most normal people would agree with you on this...and IMO we do a grave injustice to the intellectually challenged among us to advocate anything else.

 

Note affordable housing on the minimum wage roughly would be $350 a month, maybe a bit more, so the housing would need to be that or double for a two income household far less than many spend now in may populated areas and people might need to move to where the government jobs are so that might need to be factored in. Of course I would add we need practical trades education in secondary schools not after and reforms for education along the lines of readying people to work. We do a poor job here.

 

My position at this time, which seems to be reinforced for me more each day, is that humans have critical limitations when it comes to identifying and solving complex problems/issues. I believe the level of our problems and their complexity have evolved much faster than humans. No wonder we don't have much civility today because too many people have these limitations which makes it impossible for public debate and consensus. We can't make people smarter unless we're talking over a couple of generations. Even then we're too stupid to plan and implement a program to provide better education, etc. Therefore, I say we're doomed to be exposed to our current crap, not forever, since we will annihilate ourselves first...

 

the problem I see is tribalism...many people blindly identify with a political party for no other reason than "my parents voted that way so I will too", willing to forgive any transgression by "their team" and unwilling to concede when another political party does something good...what they're doing is no different than supporting their favourite sports team, regardless if they're incompetent or cheat...politics isn't sport no one owes any loyalty to any politcal party and no politcal party deserves blind unquestioning loyalty...

 

Yes, this is a problem. On both sides.

But there is a bigger problem: If someone is certain that their political perspective is 'always morally right', you can safely dismiss them as an ideologue and possible lunatic. Doesn't matter whether or not it's not the politics of their parents ... it's all in the attitude. NO politic is 'always morally right', therefore belief in such is absolutely damning.

 

1) yes we can. we can make anyone (in reasonable neurological health) more intelligent, very quickly. the human brain is astonishingly plastic.

2) it's not a result of 'programs and better education'. those are adjuncts, and after the fact.

 

your right and wrong...learning/education does make you more intelligent...I have the knowledge of my Neurologist buddy to back me up...you have X amount of potential when you're born but how it's developed is important, the brain like a muscle needs to be exercised/challenged, your IQ is not fixed it can be raised with educational stimulus...my buddy says to help delay senility never stop learning, preferably something unfamiliar to you to stimulate the development of synapses

 

Learning is what makes you more intelligent, not education. Education is the result of learning. And your buddy is both right and wrong. There is no X amount of potential, unless you're brain injured. And the brain is nothing like a muscle in terms of its limitations, but everything like a muscle in that it needs constant use to remain 'strong'.

Once again, the human brain is incredibly plastic. Any of us, at any time, can 'become more intelligent' than we are. It requires no special tools, no special knowledge, no 'minimum IQ', and no expert assistance. All it requires is determination.

 

agreed, here in Canada there are multiple parties each with it's die hard irrational core...I'll try strike up a conversation with all of them but often their blind loyalty "their" party makes that futile...

the Conservative right can't have my vote because they amalgamated with a hard right party complete with it's religious and socially intolerant and assorted fascists in the core support in order to gain power...without a moderate right wing party I can't support the Conservative party...

the Liberals in power now could've had my vote but Trudeau made a ludicrous lie about why he wasn't fulling a much repeated promise of reforming the voting laws...

the left leaning NDP where I'm usually happy has an environmental policy which I sympathize with but aren't realistic economically at this time and the Green Party is even more rabid...so now I have no party to support in the next federal election...