NSD, Digs, Wade - you guys rock. I didn't want to hijack the other thread, so opened up a new one. Zero can move this to the Back Alley if he thinks it's better as this topic is not politically correct at all.
My research mentor and I had a discussion about this the other day. I think a compelling case can be made, based on the procreative habits of our species, that intelligence and artistic ability are not expressions of biological/reproductive fitness and may in fact be the opposite. With intelligence and talent come indecision and self-doubt, traits that are antithetical to reproductive success.
Think about it this way. Put two men -- a brilliant intellectual and a grimy mechanic -- on a desert island. Who's more likely to survive? I say the mechanic, because he's practical and knows how to work with his hands. The intellectual will be clueless when it comes to performing basic survival tasks and will probably starve to death while he spends his entire time making grand plans for escape.
Intelligence only really becomes an advantage in a society where the gritty details of survival and existence are cared for by the hands-on people, freeing the more inept intellectuals who are devoid of survival instincts the chance to stand on their shoulders and envision creature comforts that make life more pleasant but less biologically viable.
"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:
We live in a capitalistic society. The best and the brightest are the ones who create the corporations that employ thousands of people. You know that nerd that spend most of his high school free time knocking from the inside of a locker screaming to let him out? Well, he just created a corporation with a thousand employees.
Who do I want reproducing? That guy.
Basic survival skills? There are classes you can take. ROTC offers them. I took one with a Native American group. Loved it. Of course, you can also learn stuff on your own by doing a little bit of studying then just going out there in the bush and applying it.
I do agree with you that smart people need to be more practical.
Ironically, our approach to population growth (start with the rich having fewer kids, and then try to convine the ppor to do the same) is exactly the wrong one. We ought to be encouraging the best and brightest to be fruitful and multiply.
"Wade" wrote:
I have seen studies that backed me up on this but will have to do hours of research to find them. Lower IQ families tend to have more offspring. Higher IQ families tend to have less. And intelligence is hereditary.
This is a BAD thing, very, very bad. I've had many an argument with a politically correct moron who got butt hurt with what you said. I don't see how this isn't obviously a grave problem.
I too am a bit of a Darwinist, and maintain that the human race is doomed because, unlike ANY creature found in nature, we facilitate the existence of our most ignorant and incapable...who happen to breed much more prolifically than the productive class. Granted, some people are truly victims of circumstances and need a hand, but most are victims of their own repeated bad decisions and conduct. For the latter, my sympathy is virtually non-existent...in fact, I feel disdain, if I am to be completely honest.
Yep...three generations from the end of society as we know it!!
"Digsthepack" wrote:
Yup. Civilization is doomed because it doesn't clean itself up. Everyone survives to reproduce, including too many people who SHOULDN'T. The average intelligence level will continue to fall.
Mike Judge, the guy who brought us Office Space and Beavis and Butt-head, did a good spoof on this concept called "Idiocracy." Not a great movie, but worth seeing because the premise is true. Exaggerated, but true.
My man Donald Driver
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷