Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
It's been long known that fertility rates are inversely proportional to economic well being. As prosperity increases birth rates fall.
Now comes a new study out of the London School of Economics suggesting that maternal instinct is also inversely proportional to the IQ of the woman.
"Smart women don't breed."
NOTE: the link is to an article about the study, not the study itself.
This follows an article I read a month or so ago about the avg. IQ falling in the industrialized world. (I'll try to source that article later today.)
This provokes several questions in my mind the first being, 'Are the intelligent selectively removing their genes from the gene pool?' If so the long term consequences for the human race are ominous.
The second question is, so what? Horse breeders continually talk about the prepotency of the stallion. Mares are given some credit as to quality of the foal, but not nearly as much as the stallion. The implication of this, if it indeed has any credibility and the genetic propensities of horses are also valid for humans, is that relatively unintelligent women can bear highly intelligent offspring as long as the father is intelligent. Off course buying into this model causes even more questions concerning the "falling IQ" situation. It might also imply that 'smart men' aren't siring children either. (No study done on that yet as far as I know.)
There is also the various studies that show that while women tend to have the same statistical IQ as their male counterparts, the female IQ distribution falls into a much tighter band meaning that in any population distribution you will find far fewer genius level women than men. On the other hand in that same population distribution you will find far fewer idiots among female population than among the male population. A finding that may tend to support the 'horse breeders' notions of prepotency.
And in the end, in the coming age of genetic engineering will it make any difference at all? Smart women can insure their genetic posterity via the use of surrogates and genetic manipulation (Men as well). Of course in the initial rise of this propensity only the wealthy will be taking advantage of the science. But that brings up the question as to whether the decision not to breed is based on the the actual bearing of the child or the long term investment required to raise the child?
Ishmael
Now comes a new study out of the London School of Economics suggesting that maternal instinct is also inversely proportional to the IQ of the woman.
"Smart women don't breed."
NOTE: the link is to an article about the study, not the study itself.
This follows an article I read a month or so ago about the avg. IQ falling in the industrialized world. (I'll try to source that article later today.)
This provokes several questions in my mind the first being, 'Are the intelligent selectively removing their genes from the gene pool?' If so the long term consequences for the human race are ominous.
The second question is, so what? Horse breeders continually talk about the prepotency of the stallion. Mares are given some credit as to quality of the foal, but not nearly as much as the stallion. The implication of this, if it indeed has any credibility and the genetic propensities of horses are also valid for humans, is that relatively unintelligent women can bear highly intelligent offspring as long as the father is intelligent. Off course buying into this model causes even more questions concerning the "falling IQ" situation. It might also imply that 'smart men' aren't siring children either. (No study done on that yet as far as I know.)
There is also the various studies that show that while women tend to have the same statistical IQ as their male counterparts, the female IQ distribution falls into a much tighter band meaning that in any population distribution you will find far fewer genius level women than men. On the other hand in that same population distribution you will find far fewer idiots among female population than among the male population. A finding that may tend to support the 'horse breeders' notions of prepotency.
And in the end, in the coming age of genetic engineering will it make any difference at all? Smart women can insure their genetic posterity via the use of surrogates and genetic manipulation (Men as well). Of course in the initial rise of this propensity only the wealthy will be taking advantage of the science. But that brings up the question as to whether the decision not to breed is based on the the actual bearing of the child or the long term investment required to raise the child?
Ishmael
(Unless the Prince married an idiot... 
