Again, this may be true, but correlation does not imply causation. Farmers have more children for practical reasons (help with labour) and not due to any inherit trait. The amount of children decreases however as the nation advances and farming becomes more mechanized. One historical factor that you also are neglecting is that all Iranian's (in fact all people around the world) be they doctors, engineers, blue eyed film stars etc, come from families who were farmers just a few generations back.
Barberry, all our ancestors were farmers or unskilled laborers at some point in time. This is simply a result of the fact that the industrial revolution is a relatively recent thing. There wasn't always as large a market for scientists and engineers as there is today. It's natural that as an economy modernizes, many people will move to these new positions. But does everyone have the innate capacity to reach the same potential in all fields?
It's ok, it really is, because we can improve the chances that a higher ration of those individuals our nation needs out breed others. We can fix our economy real nice, our nation's intellectual climate can skyrocket. Don't these wonderful prospects excite you?
Not everyone is born with the intelligence or the physical endurance to make them ideal for every position.
Everyone has something to contribute that is uniquely their own, because everyone is an individual.
I don't want to tell people what they are good at. Nobody knows better than you what you want to do with your life. But I know intelligence, as well as many other traits, are significantly hereditary, there have been many studies on this matter.
You are the one bringing up ethnicity and inherent traits. By your logic the birth of Iranians should be limited as their genes correlate to their lack of success. Brown and hairy Iranians < White and Smooth Anglo-Saxons. Simple reasoning, right?
Our genes are transcribed into the proteins that make every organ and tissue and bone structure within our body. This includes our brain. You know what? if we were to ensure that only white skinned, blue eyed, hairless Iranians had the most children, after a few generations, there would indeed be many more hairless, blue eyed, pale Iranians than there are today. And if we ensured only the Iranians that do hard labor, with the most muscle mass today, had the most children, we'd probably notice Iranians in general have more muscle mass in a few generations. Because there will of course be a tendency that only physically stronger individuals will be employable in such positions. Ethiopians are famously fast runners. If you notice their legs tend to be spaced further apart than in other individuals. There are exceptions, but the physiological differences that tend to make them superb marathon runners are undeniable.
Why bother arguing genetics don't affect who we are? That our genes are carbon copies from one individual to the next? Why deny humanity's rich biodiversity when it is so obvious we are all physiologically different, and our brains our different, and our hearts and lungs are different?
You know, I wouldn't want Iranians to look like Europeans, because our skin tone is ideal for our climate and our physique has formed through natural selection over countless generations since our ancestors arrived in Iran to best compete for the resources in our particular niche. However, natural selection does not occur any longer. Western medical science has done away with it. No matter how impossible it would have been for a disabled individual like myself to survive even a few centuries ago, I can easily do it, with modern science. Industrialized nations have no mechanism for natural selection to take place in order to propagate genes that provide a tendency for more marketable skills, intellect, physique, any adaptation. This is why I do believe the most intelligent Iranians, those with the most marketable skills, should have the most children. Over the course of a few generations, Iranians will tend to be more intelligent on average and will tend to posses more marketable skills.
It's ok if we are all not there just yet, it really is, because we can improve the chances that a higher ration of those individuals our nation needs out breed others. We can fix our economy real nice, our nation's intellectual climate can skyrocket. Don't these wonderful prospects excite you? We can make it better, so that we can out compete all the competition, and help save Iran.
Indeed, and as farming becomes more mechanized more people will move to the industry. This is how things have been in the developed world, and how things are turning out in Iran.
Every population, every nation, has been subject to its own selection factors. Those that have experienced long periods of war, plague, famine, strife in general, (including Iran) will have a population where the people that have survived tend to be constituted differently culturally, and in the frequencies of different genetic traits that were selected for in those times of great environmental pressure to compete for resources.
I don't think reproduction is a civil right anyhow. I have seen too many families with too many children to support. Many people don't think before they have children how they will send them all to school and support them. Iran in the past made the right choice by providing incentive for couples to have no more than two children per family. This helped Iran, the ration of children to poorer, unskilled laborers to those with more marketable skills was decreased as a result.
We shouldn't tell people what they want to do with their life, that is their right. But, don't you think the government can incentivise certain people to have more children, and others fewer children, so that our nation can enjoy a biocracy and all individuals can benefit from an improved intellectual climate?