[Skybird]

You said we need mor babies, period. But that is wrong. You must make the destinction between later net-payers and net-receivers. Net-payers will be those getting good education and get well-payed jobs so that they produce tax revenues (as long as they are stupid eniough to stay in Germany). Net-receivers will be those that are raised in social wellfare conditions, will have Hauptschule as school diploma only, and have good chances to end up as unemployed social wellfare receivers. Our society is overaging, pensions will rocket through the ceiling. In this situation you currently have the circumstance that more social "loser" babies get born than social "winner" babies, that is demographical fact. That means the ratio n between payers and receivers is shifting towards the reciever. Few and fewer peopled need to pay for more and more peoplke - those being old and those being in social wellfare circumstances.

We need more babies. But the right ones. "Right" means: having access to b etter eudcation, thus better jobs, thus better poayment when they had grown up, and so: tax incomes for the state instead of ripping off the state.

Thilo Sarrazin aimed at the same direction with his disputed statement that our society by average becomes more stupid in a natural way. He was about the discrepancy between the raise in low educated population groups both due to migration and births, and the decline in well-educated population groups. People may not like his provocative style, but by content he get things right.

Gunnar Heihnsohn is specialised on these issues of demographic developement and the consequences for our societies in the West, I urge you to read some of his books, they are science-statistic fact-bombs. His other "hobby" is the so-called "youth bulge" theory by him, showing that there is a link between the outside-bound, expansive aggressiveness of a society and the ratio of young adult men in its population. The more there are, the more aggressive and expansive that society is. Main focus here is on Islamic societies, of course. Heihnsohn therefore predicts that our current confrontation with Islamic challenges will continue for the next two generations, or 50-70 years. Not before thenh their socieites will be as overaged as ours are topday, and the ambitious expansive energy of them will decline.

Political very incorrect he is, and so he has many enemies and critics. But it is hard to argue with his numbers and demographic and financial statistics. He knows his stuff, and very well.

A correction on your claim that there is the claim that social class is linked to intelliegence. At least that is not what I am after. What can be shown is that there is a link between social class, success chnaces in the edeucation system, and later job chances. That is no claim, it is a statistical link that has been shown so reliably that most sociologists do not deny it. Whether or not this effects intelligence, depends on your understanmding of the term (and as a former psychologist I can tell you that if you ask 10 differfent psychologists what intelliogence is, you will get at least 6 or 7 different definitions). But intellectual activity trains or "degenerates" intellectual capacities. So a class where people do hard labour or live oin wellfare, are dealing with depression, unemployment, boredom and do not get challenged intellectually, is very prpone indeed to score lower IQ value on avwerage. Hell, we even have been shown that there is a highly significant link between social class and eating and food habits. The higher your education level and social class, the lesser meat you eat. The lower your social cvlass, the worse is your food and the more meat you eat! Which may also be the reason why the lower the social class, the more fat people you seem to see on average

Statistics are about trends, mean scores and generalised average statements about groups, so do not cite the individual case you happen to know, that is pointless when dealing with statistics.