Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
Advertisements
Throughout human history there was no government safety net and thus more intelligent people were more likely to have more surviving offspring than less intelligent people. Today in the richest nations the opposite is true: the higher the level of education and income a person has the fewer children they have on average. People who would not be able to afford a single child without welfare programs are enabled to have as many as they want.
It is reasonable to theorize that over time this trend will cause the national average IQ of today's richest nations to become lower over time. That means lower IQ voters electing leaders. Could this mean that eventually democracy will be unsustainable? Could it allow today's poor nations - that almost universally lack welfare programs - could surpass today's welfare states in level of development?
There’s no correllation at all...in fact, countries with much great safety nets rank higher than the USA in education. The thing that makes democracy unsustainable is having corporations effectively buy the loyalty of elected officials via uncapped campaign contributions and then offering said official a comfy “advisory” position once they are out of office. But back to the topic, Sweden is higher than the USA in Math and Reading and provides free college, free health care, pensions, social security, and more.
Lastly, the richest nations ARE NOT getting dumber...China for instance, has a technical workforce that we can’t even mirror in the USA. The richest countries are not getting dumber, the USA is getting dumber and it’s because greed is causing the upper class to siphon all the money it can from every aspect of government which is why we have so much money but crumbling infrastructure, terrible schools, and etc. We also can’t forget all the trillions that are being taken to support perpetual war!
Modernity lowers IQ, a greater human-base-of-knowledge lowers IQ......I couldn't math my way out of a a wet paper bag.
I am sure many things about living in a modern society lowers IQ. Lots of slow people, like me, would not have survived long ago. And most of those Idiocracy-types are having oodles of kids, yikes.
Throughout human history there was no government safety net and thus more intelligent people were more likely to have more surviving offspring than less intelligent people. Today in the richest nations the opposite is true: the higher the level of education and income a person has the fewer children they have on average. People who would not be able to afford a single child without welfare programs are enabled to have as many as they want.
It is reasonable to theorize that over time this trend will cause the national average IQ of today's richest nations to become lower over time. That means lower IQ voters electing leaders. Could this mean that eventually democracy will be unsustainable? Could it allow today's poor nations - that almost universally lack welfare programs - could surpass today's welfare states in level of development?
Natural selection is not "survival of the fittest." It is death of the absolute least fit. This is a relevant difference because natural selection doesn't typically work by "promoting" those at the top. It works by removing those at the very, very bottom. I'm not sure that isn't still happening. Is there any evidence that people with an IQ below 75 are having more children than the average person?
Democracy has issues, but it's unlikely that any of them make it unsustainable. An interesting study a couple years ago (https://blog.sfgate.com/politics/201...acy-to-thrive/) found that people are probably too dumb for democracy to thrive. This isn't surprising. People of average intelligence are very bad at recognizing when someone is smarter than them or even when that person has more subject-specific knowledge than them. People who are bad at math, for instance, are the most likely group to overrate their math ability. This leads to politicians with ideas that appeal to the average person having a better chance at success than politicians with ideas that appeal to those with high IQs.
I personally witness this sort of thing all the time. I have a significant amount of education in philosophy, and I've actually been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But I probably couldn't count on both hands the number of times people who have very little or no philosophical education have told me that I know nothing about philosophy. Considering that government is a technical undertaking, it shouldn't be surprising that the average Joe is bad at figuring who would be good at such a task.
There’s no correllation at all...in fact, countries with much great safety nets rank higher than the USA in education. The thing that makes democracy unsustainable is having corporations effectively buy the loyalty of elected officials via uncapped campaign contributions and then offering said official a comfy “advisory” position once they are out of office. But back to the topic, Sweden is higher than the USA in Math and Reading and provides free college, free health care, pensions, social security, and more.
I agree with most of your sentiments, but I think the OP's question is not so much about who is smart now and who has safety nets now as who will get smarter or dumber based on their safety net policies. This is a long-term, natural selection question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuterion
the USA is getting dumber and it’s because greed is causing the upper class to siphon all the money it can from every aspect of government which is why we have so much money but crumbling infrastructure, terrible schools, and etc. We also can’t forget all the trillions that are being taken to support perpetual war!
1. The US is not getting dumber. In fact, due to what's known as the Flynn Effect, it has gotten significantly smarter over the last 100 years.
2. None of the things you mentioned (infrastructure, etc.) affect IQ. Schools probably don't affect IQ much, either.
Modernity lowers IQ, a greater human-base-of-knowledge lowers IQ......I couldn't math my way out of a a wet paper bag.
I am sure many things about living in a modern society lowers IQ. Lots of slow people, like me, would not have survived long ago. And most of those Idiocracy-types are having oodles of kids, yikes.
People are far more intelligent than they were long ago. This is measurable and objectively true.
I agree with most of your sentiments, but I think the OP's question is not so much about who is smart now and who has safety nets now as who will get smarter or dumber based on their safety net policies. This is a long-term, natural selection question.
1. The US is not getting dumber. In fact, due to what's known as the Flynn Effect, it has gotten significantly smarter over the last 100 years.
2. None of the things you mentioned (infrastructure, etc.) affect IQ. Schools probably don't affect IQ much, either.
Well if it’s true that the US is getting smarter than that is great news.
It could be that people are mixing up IQ with intelligence though. IQ (unless the meaning has changed) is a measure of ability to learn and is defined by a test score. The link says that the test scores have risen. It does not mean that people are getting smarter, that they have better brains.
For instance, you can take a group of very intelligent people from a different culture and they probably will not score well on an American IQ test. They will be said to have a low IQ. No matter how hard anyone tries, it's almost impossible to create a test that is neutral and not influenced by the culture in which one is raised.
If we are speaking of intelligence and not IQ, I can see the point in the original post. But you'd have to know that the low income people are low income because they are less intelligent. There are probably studies out that that show some correlation but definitely not every person using a safety net is unintelligent.
In an ideal society where there wasn't the huge gap between rich and poor that we have here, a society with safety nets that resulted in people being more equal, I don't think you'd see much difference in intelligence levels aligning with the richer or the poorer. The better off people could afford to have kids and they wouldn't have to work so much and so hard to afford them. The poorer people wouldn't be living in miserable poverty so they're probably have better things to do that just keep on having kids. That's just my guess. Should be interesting to see what others think.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
"Let them eat cake" is a quote attributed to a certain French queen. We all know what happened shortly afterward.
Keeping welfare lessens the chances of social revolution, and keeps us from having a huge mass of people who are starving/malnourished, and more likely to start a revolution or otherwise destroy a lot of property. Even Scandinavian welfare states have a means test.
You're also assuming intelligence is mostly hereditary. It isn't. It's also heavily influenced by environment, upbringing, nutrition, just to name three. Seriously, do you think if you took a small child from Grosse Pointe and put him or her in a family living in inner city Detroit, he or she would be just as prepared for the working world?
IN addition, it's pretty hard to better yourself if your education system is so expensive that you have to choose between working two jobs and school/training. That's a good way to keep lots of naturally intelligent people from reaching their potential. Besides, why does a billionaire need another yacht (said Bud from the 1987 movie "Wall Street")?
Throughout human history there was no government safety net and thus more intelligent people were more likely to have more surviving offspring than less intelligent people. Today in the richest nations the opposite is true: the higher the level of education and income a person has the fewer children they have on average. People who would not be able to afford a single child without welfare programs are enabled to have as many as they want.
It is reasonable to theorize that over time this trend will cause the national average IQ of today's richest nations to become lower over time. That means lower IQ voters electing leaders. Could this mean that eventually democracy will be unsustainable? Could it allow today's poor nations - that almost universally lack welfare programs - could surpass today's welfare states in level of development?
Just because someone is on the dole, doesn't mean they are stupid. You get subsidized housing, free child care, free food, free medical care, and subsidized or free transportation.
I live in a state that has no income tax, and the political pundits are always talking about how regressive the tax bite is, citing the 16% tax rate of the bottom quintile. But that's because they spend their money on booze and cigarettes, which are highly taxes.
If you're smart, you learn to live well, low on the food chain. You have free time to do under-the-table work, you have time to meet people and make connections, and live a real life.
I lived for many years in what might be called desperate poverty, but I had a good time, was very busy and had a productive life. I didn't waste my money on drugs, alcohol, tobacco, cars, restaurants, fashion. That changed when I had a kid, but I still had housemates (the best way to save money) and was able to save money, eat wholesome food, take care of my family's health, working part-time.
The real issue is how much of your life are you commodifying?
If you have to pay cash for everything, and you're a working stiff, you're screwed.
Besides, all these statistics that people are quoting are ignoring the massive immigration into countries with a good safety net of people who have ten kids per family - that will really throw off the statistics!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
