I am nervous about the long-term future of the human race

[notyoueither]

I was thinking of the Freedom French with long term extramarital relationships (based on stereotype).

But children born out of wedlock is not uncommon in many places. That at least rolls the genetic dice, as you might say.

[KrazyHorse]

I was thinking of the Freedom French with long term extramarital relationships (based on stereotype).

a) This is true of QC French too (and QC English as well! I am one of the youngest of the group of my cousins on the English side, but I was also only the third to get married out of 32 people)

b) Why would this significantly change the value people place on the long-term partner being intelligent/educated?

[KrazyHorse]

But children born out of wedlock is not uncommon in many places. That at least rolls the genetic dice, as you might say.

Only if this extramarital relationship is short-term do I see why people would be less picky about their partner's intelligence.

[notyoueither]

Other than wife/commited relationship.

Men with cash and power have the opportunity and the means to excercise the genetic imperative.

In plain English, ****ing around.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Have you seen Idiocracy? Because they cover this pretty well in the first 5 minutes, and it scared the bejeesus out of me...

[notyoueither]

But children born out of wedlock is not uncommon in many places. That at least rolls the genetic dice, as you might say.

Only if this extramarital relationship is short-term do I see why people would be less picky about their partner's intelligence.

I would think the on the side relationship would be more related to physical qualities.

[notyoueither]

There are also women who choose a partner for breeding on mainly physical grounds.

[KrazyHorse]

Have you seen Idiocracy? Because they cover this pretty well in the first 5 minutes, and it scared the bejeesus out of me...

No. Idiocracy was about idiots outbreeding smarties. I've made no assumptions about relative birthrates.

[KrazyHorse]

I would think the on the side relationship would be more related to physical qualities.

Ahhhhhh. I get it. You're not referring to long-term monogamous relationships. You're discussing extra-marital affairs.

Sorry, didn't understand before.

I'm not sure this strongly impacts my analysis. How highly do men having affairs value the children of those affairs relative to how highly they value their "real" children? Is the only hope of the lower class to provide their pretty, stupid daughters as concubines to rich elite in order that they might have a grandchild who is middle class?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

No. Idiocracy was about idiots outbreeding smarties. I've made no assumptions about relative birthrates.

But you absolutely should. The poor outbreeding the rich is a world historical constant and if, in your model, wealth will increasingly be correlate with intelligence (or vice versa), then you're looking at a definite Idiocracy scenario.

[KrazyHorse]

But you absolutely should. The poor outbreeding the rich is a world historical constant

No.

[Solomwi]

How much "elite" support for the social safety net is based on the worry (or fact?) that their own children might not (do not) have the same luck as them? How long can the welfare state compromise be maintained as more and more productive power is placed in the hands of this elite?

Good question, though one difference from what the Time Traveler saw may be that there's no significant barrier to social mobility outside of an individual's inherent abilities. Overall, mobility could be expected to decrease, since unintelligent pairs would tend to produce unintelligent offspring (and the same for intelligent pairs), but there would still be nothing stopping the occasional (or rare) intelligent child of unintelligent parents from moving up in the world. Going back to your original postulates, the key question they don't answer seems to lie in #5: how faithfully/completely intelligence is passed from one generation to the next.

The lower that measurement is, the more society should resemble a capped bottle of water. There are distinct liquid and gas phases, but at the interface, plenty of individual molecules moving between the two. Of course, that assumes that the society remains meritocratic, rather than treating descent from intelligent parents as prima facie evidence of intelligence.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

No.

Explain.

[KrazyHorse]

Explain.

Through most of history the poor have been unable to afford large families. It is only in the last couple of centuries in the developed world (and more recently in the undeveloped world) that large numbers of infants from the lower classes could be expected to survive to adulthood. The rich could afford to:

a) Feed their children enough that a significant number survived
b) Spread their seed further afield than their own wives (and ensure to some extent that these children survived as well)

In fact, to prevent a rapid overbreeding (thus dilution) of privilege, many of the offspring of the rich had to be pruned off the tree into either the military to die before breeding or into the priesthood.

[Jon Miller]

KH is right historically.

But in any case, will evolutionary effects be so strongly correlated on such a short time scale?

I am expecting some sort of mind/matter interface or other singularity before 200 years pass.

JM
(I also think a religious siingularity is possible, but ignoring that there are plenty of technological/physical ones)