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

[KrazyHorse]

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.

This is the point; it may be a pure meritocracy which is nonetheless (as you measure intergenerational mobility) virtually fossilized.

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.

Measurements which try to disaggregate inheritance from upbringing and luck seem to suggest relatively high correlation coefficients.

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.

This is, of course, a true description. My point is that we are, and will continue to see greater stratification of romantic unions. Therefore the mobility we've heretofore presumed to be inherent in a meritocratic system (which is actually far lower than people realize) will be reduced. Everything I've said here is a matter of degree. But I think the change may lead to some very qualitative changes in society.

[KrazyHorse]

KH is right historically.

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

I am not talking about evolutionary effects (at least not in the sense of changing the average intelligence of a population; I am talking about the distribution broadening)

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Interesting, ok.

[notyoueither]

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?

I'm not sure how much it matters how fathers value their offspring.

One of the side effects of the greater equality you have observed is that mothers are much more capable of supporting themselves and their offspring.

[KrazyHorse]

Note that this broadening comes from a behavioural change, not evolutionary pressures.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not sure how much it matters how fathers value their offspring.

It matters because high-status fathers who do not value their (likely) middle status bastard children will not want to sacrifice in order to provide greater economic equality for society overall.

In this scenario extramarital affairs will both increase the average intelligence of the population as well as somewhat reduce the stratification. But I'm not sure if you can plausibly assert that this will be sufficient to significantly affect the course of affairs.

[Cort Haus]

It does not follow that working class people are stupid, which seems to be the sub-text here. They might lack opportunities, but we should remember that the phrase 'Upper Class Twit' exists for a reason.

Social mobility happens.

[notyoueither]

I'm not sure how much it matters how fathers value their offspring.

It matters because high-status fathers who do not value their (likely) middle status bastard children will not want to sacrifice in order to provide greater economic equality for society overall.

In this scenario extramarital affairs will both increase the average intelligence of the population as well as somewhat reduce the stratification. But I'm not sure if you can plausibly assert that this will be sufficient to significantly affect the course of affairs.

Our legal systems say how much they want to sacrifice is not really an issue.

Our society says it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to bear a child out of wedlock without losing any status or much earnings.

Men are not the most important cog in this wheel.

[notyoueither]

It does not follow that working class people are stupid, which seems to be the sub-text here. They might lack opportunities, but we should remember that the phrase 'Upper Class Twit' exists for a reason.

Social mobility happens.

His frame of reference is what seems to be a fairly classless society.

He is positing that that society will turn to resemble something closer to what you refer to. I think.

[Jon Miller]

As long as we allow immegration, then the time scale of this being a big deal is defined by china/india/etc, not by behavior in the US.

JM

[DanS]

My sense is that the genetic lottery will come to a screeching halt one of these generations anyway. Our understanding of how traits can be chosen is increasing rapidly.

[Jon Miller]

That's not quite a singularity, but cloes enouh as far as humanity goes.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

KH is right historically.

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

Yes. The history of agriculture/animal hubandry shows that artificial selection can be many orders of magnitude more powerful than natural selection.

[Jon Miller]

So you think it can occur in <6 generations?

But as I said, it will be heavily diluted by the effects of India/China/etc. If we ended immegration to america... maybe.

I put 6 generations because I forsee some sort of singularity happening within 200 years (really, within 100 years, but I figure I will play it safe).

JM

[Victor Galis]

Postulates/observations:

1) The returns to human capital (education and intelligence) have been increasing and will continue to increase over time

Yes, but human lifespans are finite. Unless they start growing without bound, there is an upper bound on human capital.

4) The more human capital one possesses the greater is the marginal value of human capital in a spouse. i.e. an intelligent and educated man places more value on acquiring an intelligent and educated spouse than does an unintelligent and uneducated man. This effect is increasing over time.

I'm not sure this is universally true (see: Trophy Wives)

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?

As long as those supposedly intelligent people realize the safety net is the only thing that keeps the masses from rising up in your scenario.