One man’s masturbatory war against idiocracy

The opening sequence from Idiocracy is, imho, one of the greatest pieces of cinema ever created.

And it has always seemed to be an ominous and accurate prediction of where our species is headed. With no natural predators to thin the human herd, the process of natural selection seems to have ground to a halt. In fact, given that homo walmartus (example) seems to reproduce earlier, more often, and with greater genetic diversity than homo sapiens, it seems certain that homo sapiens will, one day, be extinct, and homo walmartus will inherit the earth.

But then, I read about this guy who jacked himself 400 offspring.

I never considered that artificial insemination might save us from a devolutionary slide.

16 Responses to One man’s masturbatory war against idiocracy

  1. jmdevoy says:

    The article’s subject doesn’t have the force of numbers, though. Here’s a quick thought experiment. Who are more likely to use donated sperm for its children:

    A) yuppie parents who have one, maybe two children and regard them as their most important investments in life, or

    B) mothers with three or more children from different fathers, who may or may not be married, and may or may not be or have been on welfare.

    The answer should be obvious. Making the assumption that parents using donated sperm had two children, they could be outbred by half as many parents having four children at significantly less personal expense. This slows the decline into Idiocracy, but isn’t decisive in any way; there are far more people dumping their children onto public services than there are parents using sperm donations for the future, who are outbred by the former by multiples.

  2. jfischer1975 says:

    There was a time in this country, a long time ago, when reading wasn’t just for fags and neither was writing.  People wrote books and movies — movies that had stories, so you cared whose ass it was and why it was farting — and I believe that time can come again!

    • jmdevoy says:

      Frito: Yeah I know this place pretty good, I went to law school here.
      Joe Bowers: In Costco?
      Frito: Yeah I couldn’t believe it myself, luckily my dad was an alumnus and pulled some strings.

    • jfischer1975 says:

      Don’t worry, scrote. There are plenty of ‘tards out there living really kick-ass lives.  My first wife was ‘tarded.  She’s a pilot now.

  3. Clint says:

    “Yale University researchers believe that if evolutionary pressures of sexual selection and reproductive fitness continue for another 10 generations, the trends detected in their study may mean that the average woman in 2409 AD will be 2 cm shorter, 1 kg heavier, will bear her first child five months earlier, and enter menopause 10 months later. ‘There is this idea that because medicine has been so good at reducing mortality rates, that means that natural selection is no longer operating in humans,’ says Stephen Stearns of Yale University. ‘That’s just plain false.’ Stearns and his team studied the medical histories of 14,000 residents of the Massachusetts town of Framingham, using medical data from a study going back to 1948 spanning three generations, and found that shorter, heavier women had more children than lighter, taller ones. Women with lower blood pressure and cholesterol were also more likely to have large families as were women who gave birth early or had a late menopause. More importantly, these traits are then passed on to their daughters, who also, on average, had more children. The study has not determined why these factors are linked to reproductive success, but it is likely that they indicate genetic, rather than environmental, effects. ‘The evolution that’s going on in the Framingham women is like average rates of evolution measured in other plants and animals,’ says Stearns. ‘These results place humans in the medium-to-slow end of the range of rates observed for other living things.'”

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/11/01/0027242/Evolutions-Path-May-Lead-To-Shorter-Heavier-Women?from=rss

    • Uggg says:

      Jesus, how depressing. As if we somehow have a need for more short and fat women.

      Maybe god doesn’t roll dice with the universe and instead it’s just some big fucking cosmic practical joke.

      • It takes all types. Some guys find short fat women to be hot. And not too long ago, “rubenesque” was the standard for beauty.

        • jmdevoy says:

          As to the first point, there’s no accounting for taste. However, men with options generally don’t end up with beasts or develop the fetishes that create such an unusual attraction.

          As for the second matter, there’s growing evidence that naked women were not sexually desirable, but evocative of social class. Thorough analysis can be found at http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/the-myth-of-the-medieval-bbw/

          Think about the puritanical mores of the middle ages – would naked images of actually attractive women who aroused men be allowed? Though sows were upper class, they remained sows and thus there would be less objection to displaying their naked form. Many of Reuben’s contemporaries depicted non-fatties in their work, see http://www.femininebeauty.info/medieval-body-size-preferences, and Goya, who depicted particularly attractive women, was summoned before the inquisition to account for his actions. If anything, the Ruben “ideal” of women is perpetuated by fat people and shielded by the cultural norm against criticizing obese individuals. Criticism of their condition must instead be done in the abstract, such as lamenting the problems of “obesity” without attributing blame to the individual.

  4. Admiral-Bell says:

    Hmm. I’ve never seen Idiocracy. I watched the opening, and I laughed. It’s an interesting premise, but we aren’t in any danger of a declining national intelligence. Why? Simple: The Flynn effect. http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

    For as long as records have been kept, for every country in which they have been kept, and for both crystallized and fluid intelligences, IQ scores go up over time. Far from our country and the rest of the world getting stupider, we are getting smarter at a rate of 15 IQ points a generation.

    But if “stupid” people breed more, why are the next generations still smarter? Well, intelligence has only a small genetic factor. Instead, things like education and nutrition play a far larger role in our ability to think. If we can feed and educate everyone decently and continue the trends observed by Flynn we have nothing to worry about.

    We are, as a people, getting smarter. Stop praying for WWIII and planning eugenics programs. It’s all rather unnecessary and, quite frankly, barbaric.

    (@jfischer: Reading is more important now than it was in the past. Current US literacy rate: 99%. 1900 US literacy rate: 89%)

    • Recently there’s been some troubling evidence that the arrow of intelligence is pointing downward. A British study found that the intelligence of British 11-year-olds has actually declined during the last 20 years. Data from the Danish draft board indicate that intelligence peaked in the late-1990s and has now fallen to levels not seen since 1991, when MC Hammer-inspired parachute pants were all the rage. If that’s not enough to make you slit your wrists, I don’t know what is.

      (source)

  5. Robert O'Brien says:

    Sorry, but vapid pettifoggers like you do not positively contribute to the gene pool.

  6. […]  While never targeted at the problem of overpopulation, these policies at least promoted a less idiocratic society by preempting the reproduction of the most criminal and least productive.  This in turn would […]

%d bloggers like this: