Should an IQ of at least 90 be a requirement for breeding?

Why do you think it would be bad?
t.factory owner

staying off of welfare should be a requirement for breeding.

this isn't a eugenics program, it's a cost saving program. If breeders are on welfare, then their kids will collect too.

On the other side, breeders who support themselves should be given a subsidy to have more kids to help the birthrate.

>Why do you think it would be bad?
Because limiting the human rights of individual based on something as old-fashioned and absurd as IQ as an indicator isn't the formula for the type of society I'd like to live in.

are you kidding me? thats way too high

Try to post in a way that doesn't reveal your own shortcomings next time

Like man you literally re writing nazi ideology that got proven wrong
Many people with high iq were born to normal couples
And many geniuses had less than average iq kids

>something as old-fashioned and absurd as IQ
>got proven wrong

Attached: biggestgrin.gif (512x512, 697K)

Shows how little you understand of the IQ distribution.

An IQ of 90, by definition, disqualifies 25% of women from breeding.

If you take a random sample of 4 girls in a classroom, you would have to prevent 1 of them from having children.

Try an IQ of 75 or something. That's 5%, so the lowest IQ female in a random sample of 20.

90-110 is like the average, iq measurement doesn't mean anything.

Too low. And here should be other requirements that show aptitude for parenting.
>eugenics
consensus is that IQ is socioeconomic. Maybe OP doesn't care but it's not really a eugenics argument unless we sort by genetic traits.
I don't tend to argue about eugenics so if we just take this example what's wrong with it? Aside from the most practical factors like the rampant corruption in the testing system. What's wrong with the core idea?

Negros would die out in a generation. Lovely plan.

It's mostly genetic, only like 15 IQ points can be gained from non genetic factors, most out of that 15 is nutrition so it's basically genetics nutrition and then education.

>human rights
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Attached: 1536323360404.gif (600x335, 1.6M)

Watch the sharp corners there, user.

100 should be the cut-off point for even being alive.

60 percent of the IQ variability within a group occurs as a result of hereditary factors

not sure how to telegraph this to you but you don't have any rights except those you can defend yourself

How can you believe this when you have never actually stood up for anything?

That would be the end of the negroid race

90 is surprisingly high for average.

>consensus is that IQ is socioeconomic
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

Why is it so bad that the bottom 25% of smart people do not get to breed?

Attached: 1400968790845.gif (245x170, 1.06M)

nah, make that 110

should be a requirement that you understand logic to be alive. everyone should be tested on their logical abilities at 18 and executed if they don't get that simple fucking shit

no. 120 IQ minimum

90 is a bit too tight of a noose. I wouldn't want it in general, even if in the end it would benefit humanity. Other ways to go about it. If it did go through, I'd reduce it to 80. That is the current baseline to be fairly productive in society usually. That is also usually the cutoff for the roundabout IQ tests the military gives for applicants (AVSAB in US) to even enter.

However, good luck enforcing it. It would also probably cause age demographic problems like what is currently being seen in Japan, used as an excuse for migration in Europe, and what is going to be seen in China due to the one-child policy. Seeing as how IQ is shifting average, the base line would get skewed as well.

No government in reality would apply this.

IQ of 90 is too low. Make it 100 and we have a deal

No, that's too difficult to enforce. Instead we should just make mandatory snipping for anyone who wants welfare. The effects would be largely the same but also deal with the mental illness problem anti social problems as well.

World IQ is dropping and it's going to fucking wreck us.

How so? Was not the idea of idiocracy debunked?

Attached: not desu.jpg (620x414, 51K)

No. No it was not. It's simple evolutionary theory that those who breed more will genetically overtake the rest of the population and in our society the low IQ and the uneducated are our top breeders. Girls with PHDs average under 1 kid per woman while high school drop outs is almost double that.

I'd say 100 IQ, good general health condition without any hereditary diseases, acceptable mental health and stable living conditions. For both parents of course. Also no racemixing with negroids.

Something will need to be done rather soon about the rampart overpopulation and drop in living conditions and it will be violent.

And then the low IQs end up as cleaners and drive buses, like always. I'm not sure what kind of apocalyptic scenarios you're painting out of all this, it's not like societal structure will collapse.

why stop at 90? Let's set the limit at 130, halfway between average intelligence and einstein's score of 160.

something like sparta, except intellectual

thank you for your service anonymous man or woman

Try 110.

If that was the thing, all niggers and muslims would've been extinct by now.

Considering that women are six times less likely to be a genius than men, and those with an IQ of 130+ represents ~2.275% of the population, you would have only ~2.275% / ~6 = ~0,379% of the female population allowed to breed. They would need to breed basically all of their lives, from their early teenage years until menopause, to sustain the population. At least the first few generations.

Attached: 1546272696598.jpg (1080x1349, 92K)

Something about this math seems untrustworthy

No because Democrats would run out of voters

that's pretty fucking racist dude
not cool you can't just say that

What is an actual biochemist doing on Jow Forums?

Attached: 1393799996242.jpg (674x720, 42K)

It's not practical. You have to start small. Work your way up.

We can't just snap our fingers and have twice as many cleaners and bus driver without it effecting the economics of our society. The main problem is that it effects the supply and demand of low skilled wage jobs, thereby debasing wages and spiking up income inequality. Low IQ people have little capacity to work anything but simple jobs so having a higher relative number of them reduces the wages for those jobs. Similarly it take high IQ people to run businesses and do complex tasks which is what winds up funding and creating more jobs so with less high IQ people around there's also lower low skilled job availability. Like I said earlier more supply of low skilled laborers and lower job availability debases wages. Now combine that with:
>our move towards automation of easy jobs
>globalization, the movement of people and manufacturing jobs
>IQ is going down world wide
>low IQ people are more likely to be violent and commit crime
>low IQ areas correlate strongly to being more violent and less safe
>wealth inequality in an area is also a strong correlate to violent crime in an area
>governments are going to collapse in the West at the current rate, eventually they'll collapse or we'll have to massively cut back welfare spending, both of which mean lot's of hungry low IQ and violent people and there's a long history of plebs rioting and protesting austerity
It's not fucking good. Not fucking good at all. We might already be on a irreversible trend line where we're just fucked.