View Full Version : Idiotic obsession with 'selfies' ends in tragedy...
Sad but true:
vyfJBYORrvQ
Terrible tragedy, and one must feel really sorry for the kids, but perhaps that is what it might take to rid folk of the current idiotic obsession with 'selfies'? What on earth is the attraction with this pish? I just don't get it..... :confused:
It's certainly another valid example of technology being used for all the wrong reasons!
Marco.
Stratmangler
13-08-2015, 00:22
The parents were a bit too late to be nominees for the Darwin Awards.
It's tragic for the kids. I hope whoever brings them up has more common sense than Mum and Dad. :(
Gordon Steadman
13-08-2015, 05:04
Another 'social media' thing I'm too old to understand. I don't even look in the mirror. What on earth is the fascination of pictures of yourself? Plain wierd.
I can see how daft kids would carry out this type of brain-dead nonsense, but adults? :doh:
Sheep-like following of 'trends', and an obsession with technology, really can have some nasty consequences.......
Marco.
Not nessesary daft. If you want a pic of the 2 of you in a place and dont have anyone to take it then it is handy i think. Like a timer on a camera really. Not for me but I guess younger folk have less inhibitions of taking pics of themselves. I dont have too many pics of myself and very few good enough for pubic consumption:eyebrows:
As far as I can see the only technology being misused in that clip is CGI.
The CGI 'reconstruction' was somewhat tasteless and unnecessary. The selfie fad is just that - I think it will dwindle with time, just as all fads do.
Not nessesary daft. If you want a pic of the 2 of you in a place and dont have anyone to take it then it is handy i think. Like a timer on a camera really. Not for me but I guess younger folk have less inhibitions of taking pics of themselves. I dont have too many pics of myself and very few good enough for pubic consumption:eyebrows:
Sure, but you see folk (and I'm not just talking here about kids) continually doing this stuff all the time, sometimes umpteen times in the one place, as if they've got nothing else better to do - and of course that nonsensical obsession about being constantly 'captured' everywhere you go, has led to the death of two people.
I just think some folk should get a grip and learn that there are more important things in life than snapping pictures of yourself all the time... Perhaps that time could be used more constructively? Such as TALKING to each other instead, and switching off their bloody mobile phones for two minutes, which these days seem to be permanently fixed to folk's hands, almost like an additional limb...! :rolleyes:
Marco.
As far as I can see the only technology being misused in that clip is CGI.
Yes, I agree. But it does rather brutally hammer home the sheer idiocy of the parents' actions, and *hopefully* sends a warning out for others not to do the same.
Marco.
apparently a lot teenagers are sending nudie selfies now which i suppose had to happen. kids just dont see dangers of theircactions...like some auduts alas.
i get my daughter and her hubby to take them for me as i like to see them enjoying themselves and kids are still a bit young for decent pics. am i bad:(
Yesh, you're a very, very bad man, so much so that Bev's going to give you a spank... :spank: :spank:
Marco.
oooh...i can get worse if thats the rewards:eyebrows:
apparently a lot teenagers are sending nudie selfies now which i suppose had to happen. kids just dont see dangers of theircactions...like some auduts alas.
i get my daughter and her hubby to take them for me as i like to see them enjoying themselves and kids are still a bit young for decent pics. am i bad:(
Only if you meant they were helping you take pics of you nude;)
lol...that didnt come over very well on second reading:doh: no. no nudies here or with the daughter lol.
like this one the forth bridge when they were puting a remembrance padlock on for me.
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/08/13/a542b32444787e57e04667d486f12f4e.jpg
Ninanina
13-08-2015, 18:26
... so much so that Bev's going to give you a spank... :spank: :spank:
Marco.
:rfl::rfl:
However this is really tragic, the poor children :(:(
Firebottle
13-08-2015, 18:59
and switching off their bloody mobile phones for two minutes, which these days seem to be permanently fixed to folk's hands,Marco.
It's like people have become mono handed, the other is always gripping the lump of plastic.
I always think if only people would disconnect themselves from the 'virtual' world for a moment and look around at nature/friends/life, as in the real world.
So many instances of being addicted to 'connectivity', very sad really.
:mental:
I always think if only people would disconnect themselves from the 'virtual' world for a moment and look around at nature/friends/life, as in the real world.
So many instances of being addicted to 'connectivity', very sad really.
:mental:
Precisely. The problem is that for a lot of folk, the virtual world has become THEIR real world, simply because of an unhealthy obsession with technology. How sad is that?
I had to laugh, while listening to Radio 2 the other day, about a family giving up accessing all forms of social media, including texts and emails, for one week, to see if they could do it, and them being praised to the hilt and feeling 'proud' for having succeeded... BIG DEAL!
FFS, how did we manage to survive before all that shit existed?? :doh:
Somehow, life went on - and perfectly well, too! Honestly, I sometimes despair for humanity.
Marco.
Everything in its place. Wouldnt like to be broadbandless now, but would survive(ive still got data) :eyebrows: women seem to be the worst actually. Just about every young to middle age woman you see out is on their phone. as you say its a bit depressing
Yes, from the evidence I've seen, undoubtedly women are the worst offenders.
Marco.
walpurgis
13-08-2015, 23:21
The problem is that for a lot of folk, the virtual world has become THEIR real world, simply because of an unhealthy obsession with technology. Marco.
I reckon most of them know bugger all about technology. It's the fake world created by it that is the problem. Dunno about internet, more interunreality! (did I just invent a new word? Or even spell it properly? :scratch:) :lol:
Yes, from the evidence I've seen, undoubtedly women are the worst offenders.
Marco.
Yep! - I can speak from experience! However it would be unseemly for me to go into details.
I reckon most of them know bugger all about technology. It's the fake world created by it that is the problem. Dunno about internet, more interunreality! (did I just invent a new word? Or even spell it properly? :scratch:) :lol:
Cyber pseudo-reality?
walpurgis
14-08-2015, 09:52
Cyber pseudo-reality?
Ah. Glad you put me right on that one Barry! :lol:
It would seem that the couple who stepped over the cliff were experiencing some form of 'detachment' from the real world in that they seemes to be unaware of the physical danger or the potential consequences.
Most of us over 40 grew up in a real, physical world and we learnt at an early age that it could bite back - we start as little kids jumping down the stairs or trampolining on the bed and graduate to climbing trees and walls and other daredevil stunts. So we gradually build up a picture of what is safe, what is dangerous and what is downright stupid.
But if your formative years were instead spent in the world of video games, what is a cliff to you? Yes, you can fall off a virtual cliff but that means you just start the level again, no further consequences.
But if your formative years were instead spent in the world of video games, what is a cliff to you? Yes, you can fall off a virtual cliff but that means you just start the level again, no further consequences.
if that *really* is true, and an accurate reflection of what's happening, then it's the most damning evidence so far, confirming that an obsession with technology is both unhealthy and stifling human development. We're creating a nation of dim-witted idiots!
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
16-08-2015, 06:56
I will of course be accused of being elitist or ignoring the fact that it has always been this way but isn't it all just the march of the proles? The gene pool is slowly but surely headed down towards the lowest common denominator. More breeding in a certain group inevitably leads to that group dominating. When there are too many lemmings.......
Smarter people tend to have fewer children it seems so isn't the result inevitable?
I wish I thought that Macca was wrong about the virtual world but it has a horrible ring of plausibility:doh:
I will of course be accused of being elitist or ignoring the fact that it has always been this way but isn't it all just the march of the proles? The gene pool is slowly but surely headed down towards the lowest common denominator. More breeding in a certain group inevitably leads to that group dominating. When there are too many lemmings.......
Smarter people tend to have fewer children it seems so isn't the result inevitable?
Let's just say that you and I are very much on the same wavelength, Gordon. We need to implement some form of population control, as the 'zombies' are taking over! :rolleyes:
Marco.
The Black Adder
16-08-2015, 07:44
I will of course be accused of being elitist or ignoring the fact that it has always been this way but isn't it all just the march of the proles? The gene pool is slowly but surely headed down towards the lowest common denominator. More breeding in a certain group inevitably leads to that group dominating. When there are too many lemmings.......
Smarter people tend to have fewer children it seems so isn't the result inevitable?
I wish I thought that Macca was wrong about the virtual world but it has a horrible ring of plausibility:doh:
+1 Your damn right there, Gordon.
if that *really* is true, and an accurate reflection of what's happening, then it's the most damning evidence so far, confirming that an obsession with technology is both unhealthy and stifling human development. We're creating a nation of dim-witted idiots!
Marco.
I'm sorry, but this is just bollocks. Did people never do stupid things before computers came along? Were there not safety films about the danger of doing obviously stupid things like climbing electricity pylons or trespassing on railway lines? Presumably those films were made because people were being killed or injured, or were those deaths OK because no computers or mobile phones were involved?
I will of course be accused of being elitist or ignoring the fact that it has always been this way but isn't it all just the march of the proles? The gene pool is slowly but surely headed down towards the lowest common denominator. More breeding in a certain group inevitably leads to that group dominating. When there are too many lemmings.......
Smarter people tend to have fewer children it seems so isn't the result inevitable?
I wish I thought that Macca was wrong about the virtual world but it has a horrible ring of plausibility:doh:
Your remarks are worryingly reminiscent of ideas prevalent in Germany in the 1930s, and we all know what they led to. People always have, and always will, do stupid things (I've even been known to do them myself). You can't legislate against stupidity, though you can legislate to mitigate its effects.Population control based on whatever random method of assessing intelligence you choose (IQ tests? exam results?) could only be imposed at the cost of draconian government intervention in people's private lives.
They don't show those films anymore though, haven't for years. Maybe that is the problem?
I mean when Donald Pleasance was telling you not to go swimming in some dirty quarry-hole in 'The Spirit of Dark Water' you f'kin well paid attention. No better way to stop kids doing something dangerous than to traumatise them about it from an early age...
I for one would welcome the return of 'The Public Information Film'. And Pearl And Dean, Football Focus and Pages From Ceefax. Soon get those kids off of their tablet-thingies and back to reality - Seventies-style reality of course.
'Another chance to see...'
I'm sorry, but this is just bollocks. Did people never do stupid things before computers came along? Were there not safety films about the danger of doing obviously stupid things like climbing electricity pylons or trespassing on railway lines?
Yes, but none were related to an obsession with 'selfies'. Folk are indeed daft enough already (as your post above proves) without yet another gadget or idiotic trend to further showcase their stupidity...!
Marco.
Your remarks are worryingly reminiscent of ideas prevalent in Germany in the 1930s, and we all know what they led to. People always have, and always will, do stupid things (I've even been known to do them myself). You can't legislate against stupidity, though you can legislate to mitigate its effects.Population control based on whatever random method of assessing intelligence you choose (IQ tests? exam results?) could only be imposed at the cost of draconian government intervention in people's private lives.
We'll have to agree to disagree. There's a balance to be had with everything. Trouble is, right now the balance is way out of kilter, and we're simply allowing too many stupid people to breed, without any form of proper education. Harsh, but true!
Marco.
They don't show those films anymore though, haven't for years. Maybe that is the problem?
I mean when Donald Pleasance was telling you not to go swimming in some dirty quarry-hole in 'The Spirit of Dark Water' you f'kin well paid attention. No better way to stop kids doing something dangerous than to traumatise them about it from an early age...
I for one would welcome the return of 'The Public Information Film'. And Pearl And Dean, Football Focus and Pages From Ceefax. Soon get those kids off of their tablet-thingies and back to reality - Seventies-style reality of course.
+1. Along with educating adults on how to be responsible parents. I believe that should be part of the school curriculum.
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
16-08-2015, 09:22
Your remarks are worryingly reminiscent of ideas prevalent in Germany in the 1930s, and we all know what they led to. People always have, and always will, do stupid things (I've even been known to do them myself). You can't legislate against stupidity, though you can legislate to mitigate its effects.Population control based on whatever random method of assessing intelligence you choose (IQ tests? exam results?) could only be imposed at the cost of draconian government intervention in people's private lives.
This is bollocks of course as it suggest a mind set that is very far from the truth. The ideas that the Germans appropriated were as old as the hills already back to Plato's time at least. Eugenics is not a new idea and I wasn't condoning the idea of culling, merely suggesting that the gene pool is inevitably being biased towards those who have large families, whoever they may be. I didn't mention population control or any kind of intervention - unless you can point out where I suggested it.
Hmm. Ugly folk dont have to have ugly kids just as thick folk dont have to have thick kids or criminals dont have to breed a bunch of thieves! Parenting is the key. not the gene pool. Maybe some of the so called intelligent should actually have kids if they are so worried;)
Gordon Steadman
16-08-2015, 09:29
Hmm. Ugly folk dont have to have ugly kids just as thick folk dont have to have thick kids or criminals dont have to breed a bunch of thieves! Parenting is the key. not the gene pool. Maybe some of the so called intelligent should actually have kids if they are so worried;)
Nah, not me. There are enough of our family's genes out there to sink the ship without me adding to the problem. Anyway, I have a hi-fi habit to support. How could I devote enough time, attention and money to offspring?
However, whilst I agree that parenting is the key..... how do you expect the thick ones you mention to do the job properly? Thus the gene pool has an effect.
Hmm. Ugly folk dont have to have ugly kids just as thick folk dont have to have thick kids or criminals dont have to breed a bunch of thieves! Parenting is the key. not the gene pool. Maybe some of the so called intelligent should actually have kids if they are so worried;)
Eugenics is not a new idea and I wasn't condoning the idea of culling, merely suggesting that the gene pool is inevitably being biased towards those who have large families, whoever they may be.
The key is in there, Grant - and you only need to look at the benefits scroungers in our society to see who it is that generally has the largest families - and they aren't usually responsible for breeding brain surgeons.....
Marco.
The old nature verses nurture argument. Genes must have some input. And we don't know what the couple who fell off the cliff did for a living or what academic qualifications they had. They could have been nuclear physicists, or rocket scientists.
Such a complete lack of spatial awareness would seem to point to factors other than stupidity I think.
The other thing that Gordon said is true, and that's that smarter (more educated) people tend to have fewer kids. Look at the stats.
That's generally because their professional careers take up so much of their time, especially all the studying and training required to launch their careers in the first place - and then the long working hours afterwards.
It's rather easier popping a few sprogs out when you've got nothing else better to do! ;)
Marco.
Not so sure that is true outside of the Anglo-Saxon world. Plenty of Asian professionals with large families. More of a cultural thing really. It used to be the case in this country that you would get large working class families because of the mortality rate. You had 10 kids since only 3 or 4 might make it to adulthood and they would have to keep you once you were too old to work. Some would get lucky and all 10 would survive.
Sure, Martin, but I'm talking about the state of play here in the UK. You can guarantee that there are few doctors or lawyers in the 'five brats or more' brigade! ;)
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
16-08-2015, 09:58
Not so sure that is true outside of the Anglo-Saxon world. Plenty of Asian professionals with large families. More of a cultural thing really. It used to be the case in this country that you would get large working class families because of the mortality rate. You had 10 kids since only 3 or 4 might make it to adulthood and they would have to keep you once you were too old to work. Some would get lucky and all 10 would survive.
I tend to look at my own bit of the world when forming opinions. Like most I guess. As the west appears to be outgunned educationally by many other places now maybe there are different gene pool effects. Big families represents wealth in some cultures so the opposite might be happening elsewhere.
This is bollocks of course as it suggest a mind set that is very far from the truth. The ideas that the Germans appropriated were as old as the hills already back to Plato's time at least. Eugenics is not a new idea and I wasn't condoning the idea of culling, merely suggesting that the gene pool is inevitably being biased towards those who have large families, whoever they may be. I didn't mention population control or any kind of intervention - unless you can point out where I suggested it.
Fair play, the words 'We need to implement some form of population control' were Marco's, not yours.
And by that I meant, in terms of EDUCATION.
Like I said, being educated on how to be a responsible parent should be part of the school curriculum. The fact is, good parenting is undoubtedly a skill, the same as anything else, and not necessarily something that you're born with.
The more informed/better educated our future adults are, the better parents they're likely to become, thus improving the quality of the gene pool. Simples! :)
Marco.
Like I said, being educated on how to be a responsible parent should be part of the school curriculum. .
These days in between the climate change lessons and the visits to mosques they haven't even got time for the most important subject - History. Never mind classes in parenting.
And what would you teach them anyway and would they even listen? I'm reminded of the 'sex education lesson' from The Meaning Of Life: 'Oh, watching the football were we, Jones?!'
It seems to me that what we have here is a bunch of (mostly) childless middle-aged men complaining about 'kids today', just like middle-aged childless men have done for several millennia. Of course, if they could be arsed to father a few children themselves, at the cost of some stuff that they don't actually need, they might be doing something constructive to address the decline in the gene pool which worries them so. But it's easier, and cheaper, to lecture the poor, who, understandably, couldn't give a flying one about some middle-class childless men pontificating on the internet.
There are lots of things you could teach them, Martin. I could go into the matter in great detail, but right now don't have time. I think it's also getting to the stage of there being a real need to teach kids how to use 'technological gadgetry' responsibly (and not allowing it to control your life)...
Let's face it, they're leaving school now hardly knowing how to spell or count, so if academic subjects aren't 'hitting home', maybe ones involving teaching them invaluable life skills will!
Marco.
As a population we actually dont have enough children being born to service the growing ranks of pensioners and pensioners to be. During the baby boom after the 2ww women were having about 3 kids each now its less than 2. add to this the age folk now live to has increased by over 30 years during the 20th century and you will see we need more kids being born or more immigration to help pay for our oaps pensions.Trying to tap into the pensioner pool of knowlege would be a good too but folk want to retire ......
now back to idiocy :eyebrows: we need a good number of less than perfect minds in a population or who would you have to boss around or get to empty the bins?
:eek:
Hey! I'm not middle class or middle-aged. And I don't have kids because they are a noisy pain In the arse, not because of a cost/benefit ratio.
But otherwise true ;)
Gordon Steadman
16-08-2015, 10:20
It seems to me that what we have here is a bunch of (mostly) childless middle-aged men complaining about 'kids today', just like middle-aged childless men have done for several millennia. Of course, if they could be arsed to father a few children themselves, at the cost of some stuff that they don't actually need, they might be doing something constructive to address the decline in the gene pool which worries them so. But it's easier, and cheaper, to lecture the poor, who, understandably, couldn't give a flying one about some middle-class childless men pontificating on the internet.
No agenda:eyebrows:
These days in between the climate change lessons and the visits to mosques they haven't even got time for the most important subject - History.
I dunno. I studied history through to A level. What can we learn from history? Basically, that it's not really possible to learn anything from history, except maybe to avoid allying yourself with France under any circumstances.
It seems to me that what we have here is a bunch of (mostly) childless middle-aged men complaining about 'kids today', just like middle-aged childless men have done for several millennia. Of course, if they could be arsed to father a few children themselves, at the cost of some stuff that they don't actually need, they might be doing something constructive to address the decline in the gene pool which worries them so. But it's easier, and cheaper, to lecture the poor, who, understandably, couldn't give a flying one about some middle-class childless men pontificating on the internet.
You sound irritated, Joe? Is that always the case when views are being expressed you don't like? ;)
The main reason why we don't have any kids is because both of us were (at the time) too career-focussed, and then later, when we had a bit more time on our hands to think about having kids, it was too late...
However, that doesn't preclude me from observing the behaviour of others and commenting on it - or indeed offering my opinion on how things could be better - especially as I watch the effects of my wife teaching kids every day! :ner:
What should I do, just shut up because you think I'm not qualified to comment? Dream on, sweetheart!
Marco.
Hey! I'm not middle class or middle-aged.
You're defo middle-aged! ;)
Marco.
No agenda:eyebrows:
Indeed. If I had five or more children and/or was on benefits, I might have an agenda here. As it is, I'm merely amused/bemused by childless men lecturing everyone else on how to raise their families.
You sound irritated, Joe? Is that always the case when views are being expressed you don't like? ;)
Marco.
Pot. kettle, black quote of the year!
Gordon Steadman
16-08-2015, 10:24
As a population we actually dont have enough children being born to service the growing ranks of pensioners and pensioners to be. During the baby boom after the 2ww women were having about 3 kids each now its less than 2. add to this the age folk now live to has increased by over 30 years during the 20th century and you will see we need more kids being born or more immigration to help pay for our oaps pensions.Trying to tap into the pensioner pool of knowlege would be a good too but folk want to retire ......
now back to idiocy :eyebrows: we need a good number of less than perfect minds in a population or who would you have to boss around or get to empty the bins?
:eek:
http://jonimitchell.com/music/song.cfm?id=221
Indeed. If I had five or more children and/or was on benefits, I might have an agenda here. As it is, I'm merely amused/bemused by childless men lecturing everyone else on how to raise their families.
For gawd's sake, give it a rest. It's a discussion. If you don't like what's being said, ignore it and post on other threads.
Marco
As a population we actually dont have enough children being born to service the growing ranks of pensioners and pensioners to be. During the baby boom after the 2ww women were having about 3 kids each now its less than 2. add to this the age folk now live to has increased by over 30 years during the 20th century and you will see we need more kids being born or more immigration to help pay for our oaps pensions.:
Yeah they keep saying that but I've never seen any figures or anything to show that it is true. What about after the 1st world war, two million working-age men removed in a stroke, and the population was a lot smaller then but we muddled through. I'd say the true measure of whether there are too many people or not enough is long-term (over 6 months) unemployment. If that is say 2 million then you have 2 million over-population.
For gawd's sake, give it a rest. It's a discussion. If you don't like what's being said, ignore it and post on other threads.
Marco
You sound irritated, Marco.
Pot. kettle, black quote of the year!
I'm not in the least irritated. It's you who appears to be irritated by my remarks about parenting, judging by the sarcastic tone of your posts. So, give it a rest.
Marco.
You sound irritated, Marco.
The only irritation is being caused by you implying that I don't have the right to an opinion on parenting because I'm not a parent myself, so give that up, as it's old hat and tantamount to invoking censorship.
Marco.
Anyway we may be childless but we grew up in a family and we observed other families - like when you went round your mate's house after school or something. It's not like we have no experience at all.
It was a needless tragedy !!
Trying not to be flippant , but I was reminded of a gypsy chap I knew a fair few years ago . His daughters were at school with our 2 kids.
He used to paint barn roofs and had the habit of spraying the sheets and inching backwards as he did so.
He fell through a rotten bit on my mates small shed roof (his wife saw him disappear in a cloud of dust and paint spray ,but didn't hurt himself - just his pride!
A few years later he was doing a barn roof on a showground somewhere and they say he counted the bays and then worked backwards .
He fell off the end bay as he backed up having lost count I presume . Fell 20 feet of so , didn't do him much good
I suppose the moral of the story is ,not backing up whilst busy concentrating on something else!! :)
Anyway we may be childless but we grew up in a family and we observed other families - like when you went round your mate's house after school or something. It's not like we have no experience at all.
Precisely! Also, the way to conduct a gentlemanly debate is to either agree with the majority, or offer alternative views, not to denigrate/condemn someone's legitimate opinion because its sentiments irk you. I will not tolerate the latter on AoS.
Besides, when has not owning a modified Technics turntable, or a pair of vintage Tannoy DCs, prevented ignoramuses from slagging them off?? ;)
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
16-08-2015, 10:36
Interesting discussion between Isaac Asimov and some others in one of his books.
He calls it 'On the Marching Morons"!!!
MY MISSION—STATED CORRECTLY by Isaac AsimovNow, now, Larry: in your very first paragraph you throw a curve ball. You say about me, “For many years he has been trying to persuade humanity (or the subset of humanity that reads or hears Isaac Asimov’s words) to impose birth control on itself.”
Inserting that parenthetical phrase, Larry, is uncommonly like a kick aimed at the groin. I have always made it quite plain that limiting the birth rate is for everyone, and not just for the subset of humanity that reads or hears me.
Here, for instance, is what I said in my article “Stop!” in the October 1970 issue of F & SF: “If the population increase must be halted, let everyone agree to and voluntarily practice the limitation of children. Everyone might simply agree to have no more than two children.”
Do you notice I say “everyone”?
I mean exactly what I say. Everyone. I don’t want any exceptions. I don’t want special dispensations for college graduates, or for nice suburban types, or for my friends and relations. Nor do I want to impose special restrictions on people who are different from myself and who don’t share my physical appearance and culture.
And if that is done, and if the birthrate is dropped for everyone, then this whole bit about the Marching Morons does not apply. It is a red herring designed to frighten the xenophobes.
Ah (I can hear Larry say), Asimov may feel that everyone should limit the birthrate, but Asimov only speaks to and writes for the few highly intelligent and rational individuals who listen to him,, read him, and understand his arguments. They are the ones who -will have fewer children, while all the fools will breed like rabbits and the Marching Morons will overwhelm us even if Asimov doesn’t intend them to.
Suppose that’s so. And suppose that (in accordance with Sturgeon’s Law) the human race divides into five percent intelligent and 95 percent fools. (I suspect that people who worry about the MarchingMorons and who are very proud of their own superior intelligence would be willing to agree with this figure and would be likely to feel that if anything, I am overestimating the percentage of the intelligent.)
In that case, if the 95 percent who are fools breed like rabbits, they will destroy civilization in a generation or so, not so much because they are fools but tbrough~all the ills that will beset us through an impossible overpopulation, regardless of the IQ of those making up the crowds.
What the remaining five percent will do will then be entirely irrelevant. If the five percent who are intelligent stop breeding altogether and intelligence diminishes rapidly, civilization will not be destroyed any sooner. If the five percent decide to stem the tide-and to provide plenty of intelligence by having fifteen terribly bright children each, then, insofar as this will contribute still further to overpopulation, the breakdown of civilization welcome even sooner. It makes no sense therefore to worry about the ill effects of selective birth control and about the intelligent people being outbred by the fools. That is like worrying about a cold in the nose when there is an atom bomb about to explode in the vicinity.
Larry realizes this; and he doesn’t suggest, for instance, that intelligent people engage in a baby-race with the fools. Instead he talks about the various scenarios that might serve to limit population for everyone. He doesn’t think that trying to limit population on purpose will help. It will have to be done automatically, even while people are not particularly trying to do it, and his recipe is to “make the whole world rich.”
That is very nice, if it could be done; but it can’t. Nations have become rich in the past, but always at the expense of other nations who became the poorer for it. The current example of the process are the oil-producing nations. They are becoming rich—but at the cost of threatened bankruptcy for almost everyone else.
We have never tried making everyone rich, and we don’t know if we can. My own feeling is that we can’t possibly unless we limit population first. Trying to make the whole world rich while giving the whole world carte blanche to breed will be like trying to catch a racehorse by mounting a turtle.
Mind you, I’m not against making the whole world rich. I’m as keen on it as Larry is. But, I think that while we’re trying to make the whole world rich, we should also try to persuade them to lower the birthrate.
It is with that in mind that I am talking and writing about the problem and urging everyone to limit children. I intend to continue to do so day in and day out.
Fortunately, I’m not the only one who’s doing this. There are many other people who are also spreading the message.
It is true that I (and others like myself) reach only a very small fraction of the world’s population, but if I am reaching the intelligent, it is they who are likely to be the opinion-makers and the fashion-mongers.
One reason for high birthrates, after all, is the social pressure in favor of it. Think about all the people who think it is wonderful to have children and that it is a tragedy to be childless. Think about all the sermons and TV programs and greeting cards and movies and common clichés that all unite in getting across the idea of how wonderful it is to have babies and be a mother and how miserable it is to be deprived of it. Every person who participates in this pronatalist propaganda does more harm than ten times his weight in Marching Morons.
Suppose we release that social pressure and begin to praise small families. Suppose we liberate women and draw them into every phase of running the world on an equal basis with men. Suppose we convince the governments of the world that a high birthrate means their destruction.
In that case, the birthrate might drop because it would be fashionable to have few children and people will do anything if it is fashionable. And the birthrate will drop because women will have other things to do than have babies. And the birthrate will also drop because governments will, out of self- protection, so arrange their tax structures as to put the power of the pocketbook behind lowered birthrates.
Is this-an idle dream? It is not! It is working! Birthrates are dropping everywhere and small families are coming more
and more into style; It is doing so not only in western Europe and in the United States and Canada, it is doing so in the Soviet Union and in China. It is doing so in much of the Third World, and I hear reports that in the last few-years the birthrate has dropped substantially in Mexico, of all places.
In fact, the overall rate of world population increase has dropped, I am told, from 2 percent in 1970 (when I wrote my article “Stop!”) to 1.6 percent in 1980. Not enough, goodness knows, but the change is in the right direction.
And the reason for it is that I, and others like myself, have endlessly and tirelessly drummed away at the world concerning the dangers of overpopulation, and that more and more people are beginning to understand, and that the word is spreading and the fashion is being set and that it may take hold—
And who knows, maybe we’ll make it, despite Larry.
To Mr Asimov's publishers. Apologies for quoting from one of his books without permission but perhaps it will encourage more readers!! I'll take commission.
walpurgis
16-08-2015, 10:53
Hmm. The mention of intelligence is interesting. What is 'average intelligence'? What I see around me each day leads me to suppose that 'average intelligence', i.e., an I.Q. of 100 is not not much to brag about.
If the mean average level of intelligence is taken as being what 50% of people achieve. That means 50% of the population are of below average intelligence. Gawd help us!
Having a drink in my local one night. Just for fun, I asked a woman if she realised that up to 50% of women were of below average intelligence. She would not accept that and argued the toss for ages :D.
No doubt some mathematically minded soul will come along in a minute and point out that my suppositions are all wrong.
Gordon Steadman
16-08-2015, 11:58
Hmm. The mention of intelligence is interesting. What is 'average intelligence'? What I see around me each day leads me to suppose that 'average intelligence', i.e., an I.Q. of 100 is not not much to brag about.
If the mean average level of intelligence is taken as being what 50% of people achieve. That means 50% of the population are of below average intelligence. Gawd help us!
Having a drink in my local one night. Just for fun, I asked a woman if she realised that up to 50% of women were of below average intelligence. She would not accept that and argued the toss for ages :D.
No doubt some mathematically minded soul will come along in a minute and point out that my suppositions are all wrong.
:)
I'm not sure of the date of the discussion but probably in the 60s sometime. Not much has changed since then perhaps but perhaps we are seeing more of what goes on in the world these days and it just seems a hell of a lot worse.
Gordon Steadman
16-08-2015, 11:59
You're defo middle-aged! ;)
Marco.
I am definitely not middle aged dammit:(
iq tests show a points increase of about 3 per decade over twentith century apparently.. Not done one befors so i just did on line. i expected to do averagely not liking all those diagrams and especially number sequences but I got 122 which apparently puts me in the top 10 % of the planet:eek:
Gordon Steadman
16-08-2015, 12:50
iq tests show a points increase of about 3 per decade over twentith century apparently.. Not done one befors so i just did on line. i expected to do averagely not liking all those diagrams and especially number sequences but I got 122 which apparently puts me in the top 10 % of the planet:eek:
Whilst I don't doubt for a moment that you are within that top 10%...or even higher:)..I'm not really into IQ tests as a judgement on intelligence. Back in the 60s when it all started to be taken seriously, I used to do the things all the time and found that the more I did the better my scores were. You get used to how they think rather like you get used to the way crossword designers think. If I believed what my results showed, I would be a member of Mensa and that is nonsense, I was regularly getting scores in the high 140s. It meant I was good at IQ tests and that is all.
Intelligence is far more than just education - important though it is, holding onto facts and being good at tests. My wife is far smarter than me and she left school at fifteen with no qualifications whatsoever because she hated the system that went with it and wanted to get out into the real world.
A common sense test might be useful though!
Intelligence is far more than just education - important though it is, holding onto facts and being good at tests. My wife is far smarter than me and she left school at fifteen with no qualifications whatsoever because she hated the system that went with it and wanted to get out into the real world.
A common sense test might be useful though!
Hear, hear - on all counts!! :clap: :clap:
There's far too much emphasis placed on academic qualifications, in terms of using them as a barometer for gauging how intelligent a person is. Like you say, IQ tests (which I've always done well in) are largely bullshit. You've sussed exactly how they work, Gordon. It's simply a matter of understanding the process.
It always rips my knitting, for example, how the 'maths/scientific set' look down their noses at others, who may not be as technically or academically gifted are they are, but just as intelligent, simply in different ways. For example, how many foreign languages do most scientists speak? Can they paint or draw, or play a multitude of musical instruments? Can they build things?
In my experience, their artistic/creative, and often practical/common sense side is distinctly lacking, yet they often consider themselves as 'intellectually superior' to those of a more creative/artistic bent, when the reality is often that the latter are just as intelligent, but in other ways. It's that left side/right side of the brain thing.
The fact is, it takes all sorts of folk to build a world, using a multitude of different skill sets - and there is always *something* that YOU are better at than someone else. The most successful people [often self-made millionaires] are those who can recognise what *that* is, and utilise it to their best advantage! ;)
Marco.
I got 122 and I am a thick farmer :scratch:
Gordon Steadman
16-08-2015, 17:58
Einstein and I..........:lol:
Reminds me of one of my fav (loopy-loo) tracks from the early 80s:
rn8jPj9g_CM
Anyone else here remember it? :)
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
17-08-2015, 07:54
Reminds me of one of my fav (loopy-loo) tracks from the early 80s:
rn8jPj9g_CM
Anyone else here remember it? :)
Marco.
I was lucky enough to be doing something else during the 80s:doh:
Deflowering young maidens?
1981 was my fav year - epic on various levels!
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
17-08-2015, 08:22
Deflowering young maidens?
1981 was my fav year - epic on various levels!
Marco.
Ah, thinking about it...in 81 and 82 yes indeedy. After that it all rather went downhill and I have only really just recovered:doh:
It always rips my knitting, for example, how the 'maths/scientific set' look down their noses at others, who may not be as technically or academically gifted are they are, but just as intelligent, simply in different ways. For example, how many foreign languages do most scientists speak? Can they paint or draw, or play a multitude of musical instruments? Can they build things?
In my experience, their artistic/creative, and often practical/common sense side is distinctly lacking, yet they often consider themselves as 'intellectually superior' to those of a more creative/artistic bent, when the reality is often that the latter are just as intelligent, but in other ways. It's that left side/right side of the brain thing.
The fact is, it takes all sorts of folk to build a world, using a multitude of different skill sets - and there is always *something* that YOU are better at than someone else. The most successful people [often self-made millionaires] are those who can recognise what *that* is, and utilise it to their best advantage! ;)
Marco.
Interesting discussion, but I must take issue with the idea/experience? that scientists are lacking in creativity - what an old chestnut!
Science is arguably the most creative of human endeavours. The generation of ideas and ways to explain them are (to my mind) some of the most creative products of human kind.
Also, interestingly enough, in my experience (working with scientists from various disciplines, for over forty years) there seem to have been quite a few talented musicians in their number - surprisingly high number of mathematicians seem to be musical, perhaps due to both skills being involved in the understanding/insight in to number and patterns :confused:
Back on topic though, the increasing need for selfies is very depressing. Particularly those who go to concerts and need to take a selfie with the performers as the backdrop. Do people do this just to prove (on social media - what the hell is social about it?) that they were there? How sad.
Gordon Steadman
17-08-2015, 09:40
Interesting discussion, but I must take issue with the idea/experience? that scientists are lacking in creativity - what an old chestnut!
Science is arguably the most creative of human endeavours. The generation of ideas and ways to explain them are (to my mind) some of the most creative products of human kind.
Also, interestingly enough, in my experience (working with scientists from various disciplines, for over forty years) there seem to have been quite a few talented musicians in their number - surprisingly high number of mathematicians seem to be musical, perhaps due to both skills being involved in the understanding/insight in to number and patterns :confused:
Back on topic though, the increasing need for selfies is very depressing. Particularly those who go to concerts and need to take a selfie with the performers as the backdrop. Do people do this just to prove (on social media - what the hell is social about it?) that they were there? How sad.
Seen both sorts. I've played (musically that is) with some friends from the science professions and, as you say, they certainly lack for nothing on the artistic side. On the other hand, you get people like my brother who was a rocket scientist (no really) who has the common sense of a lesser spotted toad (we know this as we conducted far reaching, carefully controlled and extensive parallel tests)
As in all things, it is possible to over generalise although Marco's general point about intelligence agrees with mine so it must right....right?
Hi Guy,
Sure, I take your point, and of course there will always be exceptions.
I guess my point was directed more at the self-appointed 'pseudo scientists', rather than the real variety, who often snootily consider themselves as intellectually superior to others of a non-scientific bent, with considerable intelligence in other areas. In my experience, there exists a biased mindset that favours using academic qualifications as almost the sole arbiter for how intelligent a person is (or not), and for me that's wrong, as it doesn't tell the full story.
I've often heard it said that if you're not technically-minded, you're thick and know nothing. What utter nonsense!
I've not met many scientific-minded people, though, who can speak (and write fluently) in multiple foreign languages, but I'm sure that there will be exceptions somewhere. Like I said, it's that left side/right side of the brain thing, and so for me, someone who is fluent [orally and written] in, say, four foreign languages is just as 'intelligent' as someone with a degree in nuclear physics - they're simply intelligent in different ways, that's all...
Yet - it's usually the latter who are given more credit for their level of intelligence. I don't that's fair; nor does it paint an accurate picture of reality.
Back on topic though, the increasing need for selfies is very depressing. Particularly those who go to concerts and need to take a selfie with the performers as the backdrop. Do people do this just to prove (on social media - what the hell is social about it?) that they were there? How sad.
Absolutely. If I were in charge, I'd rid the world of that moronic idiocy, as 90% of it is utterly pointless and fulfils no worthwhile constructive purpose whatsoever!
Marco.
My old boss was a scientist and also very knowledgeable about classical music. He adored Bach, but thought Mozart was 'trite', because, in his words 'you always know which note is coming next'.
walpurgis
17-08-2015, 09:49
Mozart was 'trite', because, in his words 'you always know which note is coming next'.
Bit like Status Quo then. :D
My old boss was a scientist and also very knowledgeable about classical music. He adored Bach, but thought Mozart was 'trite', because, in his words 'you always know which note is coming next'.
Cool. Was he fluent in any foreign languages?
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
17-08-2015, 10:08
Cool. Was he fluent in any foreign languages?
Marco.
I'm still struggling with French after ten years Marco. I managed to write my name on the top of my Spanish exam at school. I have a complete blank spot when it comes to languages other than English.
On the other hand I got all the right answers to the IQ test!! What does it all mean? Bugger all.
Gordon Steadman
17-08-2015, 10:10
My old boss was a scientist and also very knowledgeable about classical music. He adored Bach, but thought Mozart was 'trite', because, in his words 'you always know which note is coming next'.
:cool:
There might be those that disagree but who cares about them:lol:
Gordon Steadman
17-08-2015, 10:11
Bit like Status Quo then. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opmkFdMyiTc
I'm still struggling with French after ten years Marco. I managed to write my name on the top of my Spanish exam at school. I have a complete blank spot when it comes to languages other than English.
On the other hand I got all the right answers to the IQ test!! What does it all mean? Bugger all.
Indeed, although it does highlight how difficult it can be to master the use of other languages, and those who show an aptitude for it, but perhaps didn't do so well in their physics exams, or can't build hi-fi equipment [count me in], aren't necessarily thick! ;)
Marco.
Cool. Was he fluent in any foreign languages?
Marco.
Fluent in French and German; working knowledge of Swedish and Norwegian, where he was based for several years as a glaciologist.
He was a talented guy, then. Not many are so good at using both sides of their brain.
Marco.
I tend to enjoy variety (I have Science background; my wife, silver smith /3D product design; eldest daughter English language/linguistics; youngest, whatever she wants, seems to be a good musician/linguist/science student - be interesting to see which way she goes).
However, I think that Douglas Adams got it right:
"Yes, so anyway," he resumed, "the idea was that into the first ship, the 'A' ship, would go all the brilliant leaders, the scientists, the great artists, you know, all the achievers; and into the third, or 'C' ship, would go all the people who did the actual work, who made things and did things, and then into the `B' ship - that's us - would go everyone else, the middlemen you see."
He smiled happily at them.
"And we were sent off first," he concluded, and hummed a little bathing tune.
The little bathing tune, which had been composed for him by one of his world's most exciting and prolific jingle writer (who was currently asleep in hold thirty-six some nine hundred yards behind them) covered what would otherwise have been an awkward moment of silence. Ford and Arthur shuffled their feet and furiously avoided each other's eyes."
.................................................. ................"And they made sure they sent you lot off first did they?" inquired Arthur.
"Oh yes," said the Captain, "well everyone said, very nicely I thought, that it was very important for morale to feel that they would be arriving on a planet where they could be sure of a good haircut and where the phones were clean."
"Oh yes," agreed Ford, "I can see that would be very important. And the other ships, er ... they followed on after you did they?"
For a moment the Captain did not answer. He twisted round in his bath and gazed backwards over the huge bulk of the ship towards the bright galactic centre. He squinted into the inconceivable distance.
"Ah. Well it's funny you should say that," he said and allowed himself a slight frown at Ford Prefect, "because curiously enough we haven't heard a peep out of them since we left five years ago ... but they must be behind us somewhere."
He was a talented guy, then. Not many are so good at using both sides of their brain.
Marco.
He was also good at writing, except he was a bit obsessive about split infinitives. He built and repaired sports cars, too.
One of my school friends was only good at languages. He failed all his science O levels, and failed maths O level three times before the teachers gave up on him, but he could master any language very quickly. German wasn't taught at our school, so he did it in his spare time and got an A level in it to add to his Russian, French and Spanish A levels.
Gordon Steadman
17-08-2015, 11:01
He was also good at writing, except he was a bit obsessive about split infinitives. He built and repaired sports cars, too.
One of my school friends was only good at languages. He failed all his science O levels, and failed maths O level three times before the teachers gave up on him, but he could master any language very quickly. German wasn't taught at our school, so he did it in his spare time and got an A level in it to add to his Russian, French and Spanish A levels.
I admire people with the flair. My sister could pick a guy up in the pub and in five minutes would be talking to him in his own language - almost. I can't remember how many languages she spoke but as she always said..."I've known a lot of men you know"
Our family seems to be entirely split. I'm the 'artistic' one. Liz was a linguist and bright as a button, Alan is a scientist and Rosemary has had lots of babies!!
Good one, Guy! :eyebrows:
One of my school friends was only good at languages. He failed all his science O levels, and failed maths O level three times before the teachers gave up on him, but he could master any language very quickly. German wasn't taught at our school, so he did it in his spare time and got an A level in it to add to his Russian, French and Spanish A levels.
Yes, in my experience, that's often the way of it. I got my physics, biology and chemistry O-Grades (as they were up in Scotland then), but only managed one of them as a higher , narrowly failing the other two, mostly because the subject matter bored me to tears. The same with maths, although I managed an O-Grade and Higher (just) in it. When you're not really interested in something, it's hard to be good at it.
Conversely, I flew through all my language exams (English, French and Italian) with straight A passes, and went on to do Sixth Year Studies exams (the equivalent of 1st year uni) in all three, and passed them. It just depends on how your brain is 'wired'. Show me a load of graphs and scientific formulas, and my eyes glaze over, but I'm perfectly at home translating reams of prose in Italian or French, or writing an essay in English.
One test I find useful, in audio, for assessing how your brain works, is explaining how hi-fi equipment [B]sounds, using descriptive language that successfully 'paints a picture' of what a listener is hearing - and I'm not talking about writing meaningless bollocks. I can do the former quite happily [and the latter too, lol], yet many baulk at it (often the scientific-minded fraternity) and simply wouldn't know where to start! ;)
Marco.
I admire people with the flair.
Me too - flair and creativity, and it's something in my experience that not all, but much of the 'scientific/engineering fraternity' lacks, as they often exhibit rather rigid 'black or white' thinking, and tend to get too bogged down on 'facts and proof', based on measurements. Whereas, someone with more creative flair, and the ability to think laterally, can often come up with an effective solution to a problem, using their natural aptitude in that area.
The reality is that takes both 'types' to build a successful world, and so neither are automatically more intelligent than the other, therefore both should be acknowledged equally for their respective skills :)
Marco.
walpurgis
17-08-2015, 14:39
I worked in engineering with a Sri Lankan chap who was an absolute mathematical wizz (seems to be a trait with Sri Lankans, to be outstanding with figures). He could do all sorts of complex maths in his head, never mind what he could do on paper. There's no denying he was a real genius, but his only other interest was pottering about in his garden.
Life and soul of the party, eh? :eyebrows:
Yes, 'intellectuals' can often have little sense of humour, and be rather too serious! Maybe, however, what he was 'pottering' about with in his garden might have been quite exciting (growing cannabis, perhaps)? ;)
Marco.
He was a talented guy, then. Not many are so good at using both sides of their brain.
Marco.
"If only I had a brain."
Try shoving a pipe cleaner in one ear, and see if it goes all the way through to the other side! :D
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.