"... in modern society, natural selection has become indifferent toward intelligence, so that in a society in which intelligence is systematically debased, stupid people easily out-breed the intelligent, creating, over the course of five centuries, an irredeemably dysfunctional society. Consequently, the children of the educated elites are drowned in a sea of sexually promiscuous, illiterate, alcoholic, degenerate peers." Source.

As far as I know, Stephen Hawking doesn't have any kids. Neither did Einstein, Newton, Alan Turing, Dawkins and a bunch of other intellectual notables. The average middle class westerner probably has 2 kids max, in contrast to goat herders, slash-and-burn cultivators and dictators from the other parts of the world where some can have up to 14 children. Yup, the dumb ones are outbreeding the smart ones by as much as 10 to 1.

If you've been to the UK, you'll know that the best selling newspaper is The Sun. To put it bluntly, its a paper that smart intellectuals don't usually buy.

Do you think over time, we will become a planet of idiots as the smart ones die out and don't reproduce?

(Btw you guys put up some new topics lar... boring leh, not many topics to discuss.)

Haha, I sure did.

Glad you saw the joke.

On a more serious note, one real implication of the shrinking intellectual pool is seen in how a society like America developed after their civil war. You see periods of time a population of high intellect is managed by someone of mediocre intellect, with deadly consequences that will take generations to undo.

This sort of ties in with my other threads about AI/robotics and the human killing machine in a scenario where people of mediocre intellect are more keen to press the nuke button than, say, someone like Sir Isaac Newton. Well maybe we'll never see an intellect run a nation. That's why they're smart. But with a sizeable per capita number of intellectuals, the theories of Hamilton and Dawkins suggest a moderating influence that lowers the likelihood of society developing self-destructive characteristics.

Put another way, the lower the number of intellectuals per capita, the lower the likelihood you'll find one in a position to influence tech development positively. This shrinkage reaches a tipping point and triggers a precipitous a brain drain. Societies become intellectually polarized, leading to a situation that we have today where the rich nations become richer and poor nations become poorer.

I'm just looking at this from a behavioural/social science perspective not political and trying to see how the lines might move forward in the two directions - one with intelligent machines and one without.

---

Added on June 1, 2010, 4:14 pmNo lar.... from the comments I know the seniors here all clever clever one. Dun be shy.

This post has been edited by Beastboy: Jun 1 2010, 04:16 PM

Really? Thanks for the tip!

True. Intellectuals grow old & I am banking on the hope old intellectuals have a higher chance of turning wise than old fools.

Yup. There's a nice treatise of it here with excellent citations:

http://www.eduquo.com/management/the-relat...and-wisdom.html

Err.. let's try to keep the discussion as religion free as possible.

If you clicked on Source in the original quoted text, you'll find it to be the summary of a movie called Idiocracy. If it sounds corny, it is, but I think the message behind it is worth a second look because if you spend enough time traveling as I do, you begin to see a pattern. How many countries have you been to where an intelligent population is shackled by idiotic policies, where the intelligent is sometimes sacrificed so that the not-so-intelligent* will live.

So on the one hand, we have this idea that natural selection has clear rules to ensure the survival of the species. On the other hand, we humans have been cheating that process for centuries with artificial intervention, creating imbalances that has no doubt changed the course of our history. How it will pan out from a social evolution standpoint is the question.


*I don't deny that everyone is capable of being intelligent, just like everyone is capable of being a millionaire. But just because I am capable of being a millionaire doesn't mean that I am one so I am speaking in the present tense, describing what is rather than what could be.

This post has been edited by Beastboy: Jun 2 2010, 10:23 AM

Becoz I haven't got an answer yet to the conflict in that popular concept of evolution. Do you have an answer?

Ok, so rather than say this doesn't work that doesn't work, how about sharing with us a theory that does work?

Cool, when you've thought about it then do come back and tell us what works.

Umm.. he does have children as pointed out. Welcome to the club, yay!!!

Wow faceless.