[FRIAM] death

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

On 10/30/2017 12:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Odd that some conservatives give embedded worth to lives that have demonstrated none yet (pro-lifers), and change the rules as life progresses.   Why the act of faith in the first place?  Why no conservatives advocating one-child-per-family, or income requirements for reproduction?

Our universality depends fundamentally on babies.  In order for progress to be made, the old farts, with all their outdated ideas, must die so the young turds can do things their way.  Sure, we want to keep the old farts around and exploit them as best we can.  But at some point, those fossilized thoughts need to be forgotten.  We need those babies.  Pro-lifers never seem to be reflective enough to make this sort of argument against abortion.  They're so strangled by  their individualism.

The trick is, as you point out, we don't need so many from the same gene pool(s)!  Again, perhaps my Bastard status biases me.  The (socialist?) idea that we all end up rearing the kids the breeders produce was built in from the start.  What we need are large incentives to steer the coming generations according to policy.  If we want more STEM, then encourage more STEM couples to have more babies.  Never mind the income requirements, split things like the SAT (or IQ) tests into variously weighted incentive programs.  If you (and your mate) score in the top quartile in analogical thinking, you get 7 baby vouchers.  Good math scores gets you 5 vouchers.  Good language scores get you 3. 8^)  And vouchers are non-transferable and temporally limited.  If you have more than 7 babies, then you're on your own for the remainder.

Of course, it has to be incentive based, or we'll retread some of our past mistakes.

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ