Polls

I say refined because I asked a similar question before but this is refined.

I believe that all races are equal in intelligence, but I also believe that once someone of a race reaches pioneer level intelligence, the intelligence in expressed in different ways.

For example, I believe black people, when they reach a pioneer level of intelligence, tend to live a less materialistic life compared to other races. Think of the very smart tribe leaders in Africa who have knowledge of cells and science, but still choose to live that life.

I believe Asians (particularly from oriental regions) have a bit of a balance

And Europeans are most likely to use materialism like technology to satisfy their happiness, when they are that smart, (unlike other groups)

Just to be clear it isn’t that I don’t believe they are intelligent in those fields at that stage? But with Africans for example the information on how to make technologically mostly exists as knowing the concept, and maybe imagining the technology without actually coming down to needing to build it.

I also believe that the reason why European and Asians tend to be more technologically than blacks at pioneer level intelligence is because their native lands are colder. So they have materialism (like shelter, and material conveniences to compensate to survive.)

I also believe that’s why Europeans look the way that they do, it’s because they are expressing survival in a more primitive way, like more tangible to people, because of their colder land. And primitive survival ties to reproduction in the primitive part of the brain.
While blacks and Asians (and those in between the scale) tend to have a look that is more like they are holding ancient knowledge of the rhythms of the earth.

Also non white races do contribute to society even in their tribal states, it’s just that most people are blind to how to help’s because it taps into natural rhythms rippling through collective humanity.

I am completely burned out.

Ever since I was a kid, I was passionate about careers. For a long time, my career was a huge part of my identity, but having worked 25+ jobs and not being able to hold a job down for at least a year, it really just unmotivated me.

It isn't just going to work and working hard anymore. You always have those co-workers or middle management that throw you under the bus. You have to navigate through all the workplace politics and drama with colleagues. You have to appease your co-workers and deal with micromanagement and co-workers that want to boss you around so they get promoted. There is also this emphasis on being the right "personality fit".

I have already changed careers once. My industry has been decimated and is now oversaturated. I am just tired at this point, and I have been happier lately collecting NEETbux (social security disability). I get $1,800 a month after deductions!

One of the major topics in medical science today is about "Bodyoids."

These are human bodies born in artificial wombs, that are not conscious used to harvest their organs to make up for the tremendous shortage of organs for people who need transplants, to get stem cells from, to harvest for their body parts and to do research on instead of using animals.

It's the stuff of science fiction movies but we might not be too far away from being able to make it a reality.

The question is should we?

Is it a good idea? Or is it a bad idea?

Hey men on here, I wanted to get your thoughts on something - would you own a gun for protection if you had a family with a wife and kids?

I know this is a pretty controversial and sensitive topic, but I'm really curious to hear a range of perspectives. On one hand, I can see the argument for wanting that extra layer of security and the ability to defend your loved ones if something terrible were to happen. But on the other hand, the risks of having a deadly weapon in the house, especially with kids around, also seem really concerning.

What do you all think about this dilemma? Would you feel safer and more protected by having a gun in your home to guard against potential threats? Or do you think the dangers and drawbacks of gun ownership outweigh any potential benefits, especially when you've got a family to think about?

I'm sure there are valid points on both sides of this debate, so I'd really appreciate hearing your honest thoughts and experiences. How would you weigh the pros and cons if you were in that situation? Do you think there are better ways to secure your home and protect your loved ones besides owning a firearm?

For me, I’m thinking I might get one to hold for protection for my future family or even myself, probably before I have a family, because knowing the world we live in nowadays and the current state we’re in, people are crazy and try anything, so we try to be safe, aware, and cautious with our surroundings, especially in our homes. I’m not sure yet.

Bonus question: if you were to own a gun… what kind of gun would you get?

Let me know what you think! I know this is a super complex and personal issue, so I'm really curious to get some insights from the GirlsAskGuys community. Appreciate you sharing your perspectives!

The Vances oppose abortion for religious reasons, but tends not to mix that subject with the birthrate conversation except to say that with all the new restrictions on reproductive choice, it would make sense to do more for young mothers financially.

Rather than religious belief, Musks supporters are motivated by a fear that humanity will not replace itself. They dismiss immigration as a remedy, arguing that it can weaken the culture of the receiving country.

This Musk aligned group, which embraces assisted reproduction, is most visibly identified with Malcolm & Simone Collins, a media-friendly couple with 4 children born through IVF. They favor using genetic selection to pick embryos with desirable characteristics, an approach that Christian groups typically oppose. The Collinses said they recently composed a suite of suggested executive orders and sent them to allies in the White House. They include deregulating child care businesses to bring down the cost, and loosening car seat laws, which can now require buying larger vehicles to accommodate more than two children. Another would create an award for women who have six or more children, versions of which exist in a handful of countries, including France.

An agenda that prioritizes large families makes plenty of people queasy. Groups like Population Connection worry that the tactics required to raise birthrates can verge on authoritarianism, and believe that the consequences of population loss aren’t as catastrophic as pronatalists make them out to be. And increasing numbers of young people do not want to burden the planet by having children of their own.

Nevertheless, pro-natalists want the administration to establish a commission to elevate and study the subject, as well as to infuse their priorities across the federal government. The Biden administration screened many policies and grant applications for their impact on climate change and racial equity, they point out; the same could be done for procreation.