No, but it seems that you are saying poor = worthless to society. You seem to say the same type things in the illegal immigration threads. The flaw in your argument though, is that class and success do not equal "more superiorly evolved." It just means that their social circumstances are more favorable. What you deem favorable positions (doctors, lawyers, computer programmers) are finite in number. To think that if all computer programmers died, no one from what you deem an unfavorable position (garbage man, farm hand, janitor) could rise into that position is both egotistical and unAmerican. People aren't poor because they are intellectually inferior. Are some poor people intellectually inferior? You bet. But I've met plenty of people in middle-management white-collar jobs that are as well.
No, but it seems that you are saying poor = worthless to society. You seem to say the same type things in the illegal immigration threads. The flaw in your argument though, is that class and success do not equal "more superiorly evolved." It just means that their social circumstances are more favorable. What you deem favorable positions (doctors, lawyers, computer programmers) are finite in number. To think that if all computer programmers died, no one from what you deem an unfavorable position (garbage man, farm hand, janitor) could rise into that position is both egotistical and unAmerican. People aren't poor because they are intellectually inferior. Are some poor people intellectually inferior? You bet. But I've met plenty of people in middle-management white-collar jobs that are as well.
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Well there is a genetic link to intelligence, so odds are that a doctor's kid will be smarter than a janitor's kid, if you had to place money on it.
That aside, there is a definite correlation between intelligence and money. If you think the average brick layer is as smart as the average fortune 500 CEO you're wrong. I'm talking averages here, so exceptions are irrelevant.
But really the point of this thread is not money in itself but a successful person. In terms of brute abilities being carried on in future generations - these including things like intelligence - from a superior capabilities perspective the human race is better off with smart successful people (such as doctors and CEOs of fortune 500s), and not welfare recipients and grocery store clerks. However, given the tendency of high births in low-end families vs. births in higher-class families this evolutionary enhancement is stunted.
radioouman
Diamond Member
- Nov 4, 2002
- 8,632
- 0
- 0
How about if the smart people of society need to be think of ways to use the dumb people more effectively, since we seem to be getting a lot more dumb people per the number of smart people.
Key statement.
We live within the ultimately tenuous confines of a technological womb. If all our technology was removed the infirm would die out within a couple of generations, the proverbial blink of an eye.
Based on your statements, I believe you're anthropomorphizing evolution. The process of Evolution does not care about IQ or societal worth.
We are bred to reproduce, nothing more.
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
I take it that you believe that the average low-class person is intellectually capable of the same things the average higher-class is? Quite incorrect. And no I never said poor are worthless to society. "It just means that their social circumstances are more favorable. " <- wrong. We are products of environment and genetic predispositions. To argue that the latter has no influence on the outcome of a person is flatly wrong. Are you denying any correlations between class and intellience?
radioouman
Diamond Member
- Nov 4, 2002
- 8,632
- 0
- 0
while this may be a thread that is insulting to some people it is a thread that is very interesting to think about and certainly has arguments for both sides at least this is a free place that we can discuss things like this have you ever heard of punctuation and sentances?
Pedantically, you're correct. Actual cognitive ability probably isn't massively effected by wealth or indigence. But I meant dumb in the sense that the children will be under educated and not well adapted for performing efficiently in our society. There is a very real correlation between poverty and lack of education.
The capitalistic result of this trend is subjugating the poor (as we do now to some extent) and getting rid of the superfluous (again as we do now to some extent).
Analog
Lifer
- Jan 7, 2002
- 12,755
- 3
- 0
not true, many of the top scientists I know came from poor backgrounds. Look at all the foreign PhDs, are you telling me they all came from middle class families? Not so. I'll bet most of them came from large poorer families. Just because you're poor, doesn't mean you're stupid.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Preachin' to the choir here, Skoorb. I think your ideas of forced sterilization may be a little strong though...
Naturally, there will be some who will argue that the scum in the gene pool deserve not only our protection (which I agree to somewhat, the Golden Rule is my life philosophy) but also special favors and some kind of boost up, as though nature could be reversed. Most likely, this will come from the same "lowest common denominator crowd" that tells us that illegal immigrants should be given the right to vote.
edit: I'm no fan of Eugenics, btw. I simply oppose the forced elevation of those less worthy at the expense of those more worthy. Non-intervention would be best.
Yes, I am denying there are SIGNIFICANT correlations between "class and intellience" (sic
).I think the problem is the word intelligence, though. If you mean education and knowledge, then yes, there are differences between classes. That is not the same as intellectual capability. You admit that we are, at least in part, products of our environment. That makes it extremely difficult to determine intellectual capability for those without access to the same advantages as those in favorable social circumstances. Now, if you want to argue that poor people having too many kids is bad for society as we prefer it, then maybe I see both sides of that coin. But to say that it is somehow interfering with evolution. . . I don't think so.
Skoorb. Your correlation between "class" and intelligence/future worth to society is false. I can disprove that by simply pointing to the masses of Asian immigrants that come to the US. They uniformly seem to have higher incomes and better educated and successfull children than even the traditional US "upper classes". Thier being poor or lower class to start out had nothing to do with it.
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Yeah I was just kidding around with that
I really don't like forced sterilization.LakAttack It's difficult to impossible to nail down the root causes of intelligence and how they compare to environment. However there is a combining influence of both affecting one's intelligence and as such you can't ignore that a child from two smart parents is more likely to command a greater intelligence than a child from two dumb parents. here is a decent read on it half way down the page.
Now that I think we can conclude that there is more to intelligence than simpyl environment we need a way to determine which people are smarter than others? And I propose that a child born of two neurosurgeons is probably smarter than a child born of two street cleaners. And, although a smart child can grow up to have a low-end job and by society's standards be a "failure", I can think of no child with a low IQ who is going to lead their field in cardiac research.
So, take the two neurosurgeon's kid and give him to some distant family. Now, do the same with the two street cleaner's kid, and it's safe to predict that the neurosurgeon's kid will be more successful later in life (from a career/prestige/health/money point of view, which is really how society deems success). But the problem is that for every neurosurgeon couple they may have only 3 kids, but the street cleaner couple may have 5 or 6!
radioouman
Diamond Member
- Nov 4, 2002
- 8,632
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: LakAttack
Yes, I am denying there are SIGNIFICANT correlations between "class and intellience" (sic
I think the problem is the word intelligence, though. If you mean education and knowledge, then yes, there are differences between classes. That is not the same as intellectual capability. You admit that we are, at least in part, products of our environment. That makes it extremely difficult to determine intellectual capability for those without access to the same advantages as those in favorable social circumstances. Now, if you want to argue that poor people having too many kids is bad for society as we prefer it, then maybe I see both sides of that coin. But to say that it is somehow interfering with evolution. . . I don't think so.
I have to agree with this. The middle class and upper class may be able to provide a better education to their offspring. A lower class family may end up give their offspring a lower quailty education, but that has nothing to do with their intellectual ability. They may very well be able to achieve a PhD, or work on a cutting edge idea that requires a high level of intellectual ability.
What I see is that a child that is raised in a lower class family sets lower standards for himself for life. He may get great grades in school, but if your parents only graduated high school, then that child may think that a two year degree at the community college is really doing well. In an upper class family, the parents may both be college graduates with masters degrees or PhDs and the child will strive to be equal or do better than the parents. (Obviously in both cases the parents encourage the child to do well, and the child doesn't just thrive on their own.)
EDIT: I made the assumption that college = intelligence. It does not. You can obviously be a very smart person without a college education. There are plenty of examples of that. Typically though, if your social group consists of people that are speaking intelligently about things, you'll probably try to gain knowledge to be able to talk with them. The opposite is probably true too.
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
I find that argument questionable. If a genius is born in cambodia chances are good they're going to be pretty poor and "low class", but drop them into the US and in a few years they may emerge as a success. Were those asians of lowclass in their own countries before they came over? Are asians just smarter than non-asians? There are too many factors in there.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah I was just kidding around with that
LakAttack It's difficult to impossible to nail down the root causes of intelligence and how they compare to environment. However there is a combining influence of both affecting one's intelligence and as such you can't ignore that a child from two smart parents is more likely to command a greater intelligence than a child from two dumb parents. here is a decent read on it half way down the page.
Now that I think we can conclude that there is more to intelligence than simpyl environment we need a way to determine which people are smarter than others? And I propose that a child born of two neurosurgeons is probably smarter than a child born of two street cleaners. And, although a smart child can grow up to have a low-end job and by society's standards be a "failure", I can think of no child with a low IQ who is going to lead their field in cardiac research.
So, take the two neurosurgeon's kid and give him to some distant family. Now, do the same with the two street cleaner's kid, and it's safe to predict that the neurosurgeon's kid will be more successful later in life (from a career/prestige/health/money point of view, which is really how society deems success). But the problem is that for every neurosurgeon couple they may have only 3 kids, but the street cleaner couple may have 5 or 6!
Then how do you explain masses of Indians whose parents are in low subsistance occupations such as street cleaners or shop keepers, taxi drivers, that become Doctors?
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
I don't deny that people can change their place in society, but follow this logic:
1) There is a link between genetics and intelligence (no, I didn't say that genetics is the only determinant of intelligence, but merely there is a link - something the majority of researchers in the field are going to agree on, regardless of what the percentage is).
2) Intelligence relative to your peers is likely to raise your place in society relative to your peers (brainiacs don't clean toilets, and unintelligent people don't cure cancer)
3) We've just established a link between one's intelligence and their class.
Frankly I'm surprised that so many people think that genetics plays no role in intelligence and, further, that one's intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with their lot in life, but rather it's all how they apply themselves and the environment they are brought up in This throws nature right out the window and puts nurture as the only determinant of one's place in society.
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Let's assume that you believe in evolution for the duration of this thread.
I'm sure you've noticed that a middle class family may average 2-3 kids, and yet often lower-class poor families have way more. It's really a shame it's not the other way around because those who are poorest, and least able to cope with life (please don't get philisophical arguing that you don't need money for happiness, etc.), crank out the most kids, so they are continually flooding the population with dummy-kids, whereas from a superior human-race perspective it would be best if the more successful in society were having kids!
I propose that anybody under the poverty line is given forced sterilization. If you are above 18 and below poverty line you have 1 year to get above it and then you're sterilized.
You can ignore my third paragraph freely as I don't really mean it at all (this isn't china afterall
If we weren't in a free society, I would actually agree with this. But your example does reflect why the democrats seem to have kept as much power as they could until now. They shot themselves in the foot when they advocated pro-choice, abortion clinics, safe sex before marriage, etc. Now their only shot is to get elderly votes by promoting as much free drugs and healthcare as possible. But the flaw in their thinking is that the eldery are the wealthiest of the country and most of them don't need free handouts - plus their voter base will die out shortly.
i thought the idea behind having a whole bunch of kids is you have more of a chance that one will go on and succeed hehe
i mean if you have 10 kids, im sure one of em will make it big
i mean if you have 10 kids, im sure one of em will make it big
there are ways to argue with the assumption that poverty -> children -> poor education -> poverty, but immigration is not one. For one thing, you're dealing with a group of people that actively came here, which immediately removes the people who didn't have the resources and motivation to come over. Secondly, as some one else pointed out, the third world is predominately poorer than the first, so transplanting objectivly poor people doesn't properlly correlate to the relativism of this argument.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter