Are Childless Career Women Saving Civilization As We Know It?
27 09 2007My, my. Talk about ASSHATTERY. When I read this, I thought, is it really possible for someone to publish such rubbish bullshit and actually indicate it is scientific? Apparently so. Read on childfree people. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. Actually it is giving me a laugh – that people can actually think folk buy this. And of course I have to share.
The comments are great so do have a read of them especially DreamerMarie, Skinnybone and whoneedslight). Thanks for this link Carisa!
Are Childless Career Women Saving civilization as we know it?
Here’s an excerpt:
According to Aarssen, ladies who “would rather forgo parenthood in order to have a career, lavish vacations and leisurely lifestyles will of course leave no descendants at all”.
Wow, sounds like a jet-set adventure! Where do we sign up? But wait – what happens to this kind of female?
“Over time,” Aarssen says, “those genetic traits that influence women away from motherhood will necessarily be ‘bred out.’”
Bred out?! Riiight…
Then what?
Well, Aarse sorry Dr Aarssen, says
“in this way future generations of women will inherit a stronger genetic disposition for mating and having children as a priority in their lives. Dr (Dr?)
AarseAarssen predicts that an increased desire for marriage and having children, in both men and women will be an inevitable product of evolution within the next few generations”.
As has been helpfully paraphrased in the article, what Aarsse Dr Aarssen is saying is that the fact that we don’t have kids means that future women will have a boatload, thereby saving humankind…
Is it April 1st or something? Or are we really expected to buy this “scientific” tripe?
Technorati Tags: childfree
this is so much crap, …. he is linking concious knowledge to genetic imperatives.
does that mean there will be less atheists because quiverful will out breed them. so we are all part of the genetic heritage, and we dont actually make a conciouse desire. his name is right a arse.
how will having hundreds of kids save the planet.
That makes about as much sense as saying that there will be no more gay people since (many) gay people don’t have children. Meanwhile, they were born to heterosexual people, so I’m guessing they didn’t get the gay gene from their parents (unless their father was a republican politician, in which case he was a closeted gay. lol).
Considering we all came from “breeders”, how could parents who wanted children pass on some gene they didn’t even have? Hmmm, I’m going to take a wild stab at it and guess that “childfreedom” isn’t a gene.
All the problems we have with genetic disorders, and all they can blather on about is childfree genes. If you really want to make a scientific breakthrough, go find a cure for hemophilia, and stop wasting my oxygen.
Seriously, do my taxes FUND this sort of garbage?
I liked how this dip$hit said that personal goals distract from parenthood. Funny, I always thought it the other way around. The way Doc Arse puts it, it’s like “how dare women have personal goals! Their brains are good for nothing except sensing when they’re at the peak of ovulation!” Barf.
There are so many things wrong with Dr. Aarssen’s theory, I don’t even know where to begin. I hope this “Doctor” gets laughed out of the medical biology field, or whatever the heck else Aarssen “specializes” in. Talk about talking out of your “arse”!
He deserves a Nobel Prize - obviously he has found definitive proof in the dilemma that has been facing scientists for ages: Nature vs. Nurture. Curious that his breakthrough evincing the genetic basis for the desire to have children is left out in favor of much lesser pursuits.
Wow! Aparently I didn’t know I was a mutant. Thankfully this mutant gene will be bred out of people so our race will survive. Oh, that is such a relief here I am thinking that I was actually making a life choice - turns out it is a defect.
These kind of people are retarded. It makes me laugh.
I can’t stop laughing at this idiotic deluded nonsense long enough to give it the credibility of a response.
There. Are. No. Words. For this tripe.
Um… I thought scientists (he is a “Dr”, is he not??) were trained in basic logic (”a implies b” sorta stuff)… so let’s see. His assumption is that because the CF women/men will be “bred out” (which is so charming a term in itself :), then the future generations will not be CF. Ok, that’s all good and fine if we were the first generation of human beings… but wait… I read somewhere that we are a result of about a million successive generations… so.. technically we should have been bred out for some time now… Maybe he can explain that gaping whole in the (ahem) logic he uses to arrive at his conclusion?
I’m guessing either he is also assuming that we *ARE* the first generation of human beings, or he hasn’t really thought this through. But I’m thinking it’s the former with this guy.
True it’s dumb but if this quackery were true, I wouldn’t care if future women did have a boatload of kids. As long as I’m in my little canoe, I’m happy.
Extrapolating from this theory, is it safe to say we will continue to breed stupider children due to the advent and proliferation of child safety devices that inevitably keep the stupid ones alive, thus promoting anti-Darwinism?
Just a thought…
The thing that you all hate about the Doctor’s statements are that they’re extremely persuasive.
If there is a genetic factor which affects the choice to be childfree, that factor will be very, very, very strongly selected against. So strongly that it may take only a few generations for the trait to be substantially reduced. This is simply how genetics works. Ask any farmer or horse/cat/dog breeder; if animals with a specific trait don’t breed at all, that trait disappears from a herd fairly quickly (3 - 20 generations). We are no different.
Even if (and that’s a big if) there is no genetic factor, even on the basis of ‘meme’ theories, your opinions will become less prevalent. In the long run, the ideas that parents impress upon their children will eventually win out, as parents have more opportunity to impress their kids with pro-family ideas than you do.
Someone mentioned gays. I’m prefacing this with the usual pointless disclaimer, which is ‘being gay is OK’, ‘I have gay friends’, yada, yada… the disclaimer is irrelevant anyhow, but it’s there for when people say ‘you hate gays’.
If (and again, that’s a big if) homosexuality has a strong genetic component, it will be strongly selected against. Such selection hasn’t occurred much until recently because most cultures for the last 2000 years did rather horrible things to homosexuals (except the Greeks of old, you know the ones I mean), causing them to mask their homosexuality; many of them married and had children; the most effective way to mask it. For example, Cole Porter, a genius and thoroughly brilliant fellow, was clearly homosexual, but married to the same wife for 34 years. The only reason that he had no children was because his wife miscarried. Even considering this factor, the majority of the population are currently heterosexual.
Also, someone mentioned stupid children. If genetics is the major contributor to stupidity, then yes, we will generally produce more and more stupid children these days, unless sexual selection causes a divergence in the race (smarter people breed with smarter, stupid breed with stupid), or some other factor beside accidents reduces the rate of propagation of thickies.
In evolutionary terms, the ’stupidity argument’ doesn’t matter, as if the race becomes stupid enough, industrialised society will collapse, thus removing the support mechanism for the stupider people, which will reintroduce selection for the more intelligent (and ruthless).
The thing that really steams you guys, I think, is that ‘breeders’, as you like to call us, produce more voters who agree with our ideas. This means that numerically, and in the long run, we will inevitably win, while you will disappear, being an evolutionary dead-end.
CaptainReality…
“lawl” You’re so funny.
Fact of the matter is, not wanting children isn’t genetic. It’s a decision. So it won’t necessarily breed out.
Further, you’re not taking into consideratin environmental factors.
Stupid people survive because other people take care of them. If you watch a herd of zebras while there is a predator (big cat) watching them, there is an innate animal sense, fear, that they’re being stalked. Human beings get that, but so many of us rationalize it away.
So anyway… if you watch a herd of animals while being stalked by a predator, as you know, predators go for the ones they know they can catch. And if a member of the stalked herd is slow, maimed, or gets lost, they are most likely snagged, eaten, and taken out of the gene pool. By nature standards, that’s a ’stupid’ animal - survival of the fittest, etc. etc.
I believe elephants are animals who will actually defend a weak member thereby scaring off predators thereby allowing the weak member’s genes to continue to in the gene pool and not get selected out.
The difference with human beings is rationalization and religion. Religion instills in its members (in order to keep its organization growing) that we *must* procreate and it is God’s will.. blah blah blah. There’s no rationalizing with someone who is irrational about that.
Secondly, human beings are another species that will come to the aid of a weak member. I’ll give a very harsh example here.
If a parent is not smart enough to teach their kids not to drink Drano, and the kid drinks Drano, well then, their “stupid” genes should have been weeded out. But they’re not. Why? Because more and more people (some of which are lazy parents and say it’s toooooo hhhhhhaaaaaarrrrrrrrrdddddddd to raise their children - who ARE their responsbility by the way!) force manufacturers to create products that make it difficult for children (and some adults, btw) to open. This is one less responsibility the parent has - not to teach their children to drink Drano. Therefore, “smarts” - don’t drink poisons, don’t jump off of high places (like roofs), don’t play with objects that kill you (like guns), etc. etc. - things that if you were actually *smart* would helpyou to survive, are no longer really needed. Why? Because the need to be smart to survive is being taken care of by the current products we produce.
What ends up happening? Stupid people breed.
There has always been danger - even before our modern conveniences. If a woman in a tribe was not watching her children and one of them ran off and got eaten by some wild animal, then she wasn’t “smart” enough to watch her children. But “back then” it was also different. Families were closer knit and grandmothers and aunts were around to help watch and babysit. Hrm. Sort of like meerkats.
At anyrate, you’re not taking into consideratin environmental factors. I have lupus. It can be DIFFICULT for me to open up my mouthwash, my prescription medicines, and various other items because they’re all manufactured to protect stupid children and irresponsible parents who don’t teach their kids not eat or drink poisons. I have to specifically tell my pharmacist NOT to put a childproof cap on my prescriptions. I have to sign a WAIVER releasing my pharmacist of responsibility. Why is this default? Why don’t parents request them? But I have no choice when it comes to over the counter items.
We have set up our environment to protect stupid people from themselves. In any other situation weak or stupid people wouldn’t survive. It’s not all about genetics, but the environment as well. And as with tribes who have the grandmothers and aunts and sisters around to help care for *all* children, their environment is set up to help ensure their survival - just like we did in industrialized society.
Your last statement:
That’s not what steams us. What steams us is by the mere fact that you stupid people out number us we’re forced to help you to survive (pick up the slack at work so you can take time off for the brats), endure difficult to open products so you don’t have to teach your brats not to drink poisons and take drugs.
And while, evolutionary speaking, we may be a “dead end” because we don’t breed, what you, you moron, don’t realize is that being childfree is a decision. Not a genetic trait.
A genetic trait is the inability to conceive. And those people who use fertility drugs to conceive are selfish and stupid enough to not realize that genetically speaking, they’re not meant to conceive and continue on with their gene pool. But noooooooooooooooooooo, we who have consciously decided not bear children have to support those who shouldn’t be having children by paying higher insurance rates so that wanna-be-breeders get to “fullfil their natural instincts” of having children.
Oh, one more thing. It’s also easier for stupid people to start to overwhelm others because, statistically speaking (and no, I won’t dig up the stats for you, you can do that yourself) smarter people tend to have less children. Less enough to not even have children. Also, stupid people are easier to convince and sway - since they don’t have the smarts to think things through. (Just look at all the people with ARMs that are adjusting.) ETc. Etc.
I think my point was made. If, after all this, you still don’t get it, well then.. you’ve just made my point about stupid people.
I wanted to add this to the second to last paragraph but could not save my edited comment:
Oh, one more thing. It’s also easier for stupid people to start to overwhelm others because, statistically speaking (and no, I won’t dig up the stats for you, you can do that yourself) smarter people tend to have less children. Less enough to not even have children. Also, stupid people are easier to convince and sway - since they don’t have the smarts to think things through. (Just look at all the people with ARMs that are adjusting.) Etc. Etc. By convincing them that GOD MEANS FOR THEM TO BREED, or that they don’t know what they’re doing or want and all those other bingos. A person who has made a conscious decision NOT to breed, to go AGAINST the accepted “norm” of HUGE societal pressures, more often than not has actually THOUGHT about not having children and come up with well reasoned answers to “why don’t you want children?” Most parents don’t have well reasoned answers to “why do you want children?” And they’re usually selfish answers anyway.
(Disclaimer: I’m not saying all parents are stupid. But I am saying many are.)
Captain “Reality” - whatever it is you’re smoking it’s addled your brain somewhat. The leap from what is a decision to being a genetic trait is quite the leap. But you can swallow the nonsense if you like. I think we’re a little brighter thantthan that. As CFSinceSix has said.
Read it and get real. Oh, and you might take note of this very important point made above…
“A genetic trait is the inability to conceive. And those people who use fertility drugs to conceive are selfish and stupid enough to not realize that genetically speaking, they’re not meant to conceive and continue on with their gene pool. But noooooooooooooooooooo, we who have consciously decided not bear children have to support those who shouldn’t be having children by paying higher insurance rates so that wanna-be-breeders get to “fullfil their natural instincts” of having children.”
I hate it when armchair philosophy is treated as if it were science.
It makes nuts disbelieve (real) science on things like climate change and evolution - because these nuts think that all science is unfounded blather such as that referenced above.
i could say a lot about false science, but in part your true liz, science is no longer fact based, its all speculation based. (dont want to get into the climate change thing will take this off topic) best case, worst case. with no real detials. wheres the absolute proof that it happens.
i missed the captain reality comment last time i read this board. and i have to say COMPLETE GARBAGE. childfree is a concious decision, we THINK. if childfree is a genetic component, then there would be no childfree.
its all been said..