Smart and Childfree: Must We Breed?

History is full of theories that have not been fully thought through. Let's add to that list the idea that intelligent people have a responsibility to procreate.

I have heard many times that those with low intelligence are outbreeding us.  There is some substance to this: the more education a woman has, the fewer children she has, and the more likely she is to have none at all.  Now I am not contending that education is synonymous with intelligence, (I know some brilliant people who founded successful companies with a high school diploma) but there is at least some correlation there.

And from this problem, people immediately jump to the conclusion that intelligent people should go out and have (more) kids.  Even taking for granted the (disputed) idea that intelligence can be so readily passed on genetically, and ignoring the possibly offensive eugenics overtones, this conclusion still has serious flaws.

First of all, what is the point of having smarter kids? Theoretically, it is so that society as a whole will improve.  Future generations can break cold fusion, cure cancer, debunk string theory, and craft a better government.  They can move us forward, or at least keep us on track better than a less-intelligent populace can.

The problem with this is that the theory here will never go away. Instead of encouraging young girls to get joint MD-PhDs and devote their lives to medical research, they will face the same exact pressure to have children (for the same reasons).  Where does it end?
It is like arguing that a branch should create more branches, instead of leaves, so that there will be more branches to make leaves. Somewhere along the line, there has to be a leaf-maker.  Why not us?

Now this rests on the theory that one cannot 'have it all', (I do hate that phrase) that women cannot crack cold fusion while nursing two infants.  I would say that while working mothers can indeed make contributions to society, some of the really big advances will need to
be made by someone who is married to their work.  Perhaps it can be done by someone whose spouse watches the children, but unless our culture changes dramatically, this will be the women.  So intelligent women will exist in a Handmaid's Tale, as incubators for their own superior DNA while brilliant hubby saves the world.  A disturbing prospect.

And yet the even larger flaw of this 'solution' is that it rests on a conclusion regarding nature v. nurture that is far from settled science.  Is passing on superior genes enough?  Do people really think that a brilliant couple who has no interest in having children, but do so out of a sense of obligation, will make good parents?

The therapy culture we live in is not going to fade anytime soon. I have serious doubts that my own theoretical offspring will make any great contributions when they're appearing live on Dr. Phil working through the psychological scars of being unwanted.  And yes, a child
will know that they are unwanted.  A child will notice the fact that she was raised by a nanny, or a mother constantly grumbling under her breath about all she had to sacrifice. I reject the assumption that this child is anymore prepared to change the world than one who was loved and nurtured by parents who really loved her.  Even if the latter child has a slightly lower IQ.

The next time someone espouses this theory, ask them whether they have thought it through to its logical conclusion.  In the meantime, I will firmly reject the notion that I am better off passing along biological material than I am just contributing directly to it myself.  After
all, my own parents sacrificed what might have been far-reaching careers to educate the young minds of America, including mine.  I am not making the best of their contributions by being just another link in a seemingly endless chain.