Would this be possible? Sex ratio

[madd0ct0r]

I know to consult with others on how to mollify the populace,

now i just feel worried. thanks Al.

[Simon_Jester]

That's definitely an interesting read. I'm afraid my intentions were probably misunderstood, though.

Please remember that my main objection was with the poor intelligence nerds being incapable of learning except by accident and this being based on "I'm not sure, but..." The description then went on to liken these people to chimpanzees.

Well, when I was talking about a shit-flinging chimpanzee, I was thinking of Chaotic Neutral, and the comparison works better for him than it does for most people I know.

That bit doesn't generalize very well.

Also, even there I was talking specifically about people with revolutionary CHANGE THE WORLD! ideas... which are retarded, creepy, and evil. Generally, other people won't learn much from watching one of these ideas demolished, aside from "don't be retarded, creepy, and evil."

Even for people on the autism spectrum... well, of the people I know on the spectrum, most of them already have a surprisingly sound grasp of "don't be retarded and evil," and they're working on "creepy" with varying success.
_________

Anyway, Alyrium pretty much nailed it- my point was that the low-intelligence/low-social people exist, and tend to be both frighteningly stupid and frighteningly clueless about human nature. If their efforts are devoted to, say, being football fans, they're just stupid football fans. But when nerds follow this profile... they start thinking of ways to remake the world, because the stories they read for entertainment talk about remaking the world a lot.

And because they're stupid and clueless, their ideas about how to remake the world are very, very bad, and they lack the humility to notice this and fix the ideas. Whereas a stupid person who was sort of clued-in about people would at least know not to try and discuss shit like that. And a smart person who was clueless would learn.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I know to consult with others on how to mollify the populace,

now i just feel worried. thanks Al.

There is no need for you to be concerned, for I am kind

(like Xerxes)

Even for people on the autism spectrum... well, of the people I know on the spectrum, most of them already have a surprisingly sound grasp of "don't be retarded and evil," and they're working on "creepy" with varying success.

I will have to work on the creepy.

Then again, the evil is marginal, I try to be good, but am just so bitter and cynical about the world that sometimes I think humanity needs to be purified with fire.

[Simon_Jester]

Alyrium, you're not the creepiest autism-spectrum person I know.

But, as you pointed out, to an extent creepiness can be neutralized by obvious good intentions: if you can't get everyone to like you that way, you can at least get enough people to sympathize with you that life becomes simpler.

Having been on the receiving end of this (in college I knew a guy who was creepy as fuck because of social miscues, but who plainly meant well and wouldn't hurt a fly), I can testify to the importance of good intentions from the other side.

[Broomstick]

The other stunt would have the extra embryos, and a large ratio of female to male. According to Duchess it could be 40:1, I'd go with 49:1, to make the math easy. Each woman would be expected to have 2 kids, to help the population grow. First generation would be 1M:49F, with 98 children. 1-2 would be M, the rest (96?) F. The next generation is 192 kids, maybe 4 M. Massive population growth, hope the industry can keep up.

Why only 2 kids per woman? Women can easily have 6-10 kids over their fertile period (on average - obviously, women being individuals you'll have the occasional one that can't have kids and the occasional one that has 20).

I was using 2 per woman since 95% of the workforce would be female. I was thinking that would be low enough to reduce interference in their non-child-raising life, but high enough for genetic variety to avoid inbreeding.

While there are exceptions to what I'm about to say, I think you're overestimating how burdensome employment is to a woman raising children. Throughout human history women have worked while raising families, often at quite intensive and demanding occupations such as farming. Yes, during pregnancy and immediately after it is best if the woman can concentrate on the kid(s), but once at toddlerhood one woman can watch over multiple children while their mothers go to work, and it's not unusual for such arrangements to occur or for women to rotate the babysitter role among them. 3-4 children per woman should probably be the average, with a substantial number doing more than that to compensate for those who are infertile or who, due to real job requirements, must be limited to less than that.