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

[KrazyHorse]

working class people are stupid

I think that as the meritocracy has been extended this has become more and more true.

[Victor Galis]

I'm also not convinced that the smartest will actually run this society. They don't now, what will cause that to change? Unless you're assuming that we will cease to have democratic societies, I fail to see how your scenario emerges.

[KrazyHorse]

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

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about how much an INDIVIDUAL father sacrifices for his bastards. I'm talking about how much redistribution high-status fathers are willing to vote for in order to provide for their bastard children as a group. When the genetic lottery for children you care about is more random then you have more reason to insure them by accepting higher levels of redistribution.

[KrazyHorse]

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

Immigration in the US is indeed a source of intergenerational mobility. In fact, if you examine the numbers, the US is even MORE stratified than it appears to be at first glance, once you disaggregate the effect of 2nd & 3rd generation immigrants exceeding their parents significantly.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

This may be true. At which point the question becomes: how expensive will it be?

[KrazyHorse]

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

This is behavioural. Not evolutionary. I think you're talking 2-3 generations (we may have ALREADY undergone this change and not yet noticed the effects!) for a real "phase change"....

[KrazyHorse]

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

This does not follow. There is no upper bound on productivity per year of a human being.

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

I think it's not universally, but is generally true.

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.

You presume that numbers will continue to prevail. I foresee a future where the elite do not NEED the numbers of the non-elite which currently exist.

I'm also not talking about a situation where the non-elite live as animals by today's standards. Simply one where they stagnate (relative to the elites) in comfortable lives (relative to previous periods in history).

[Jon Miller]

I also know a large number of smart people who don't go anywhere due to drugs/etc. Wouldn't this also be a retarding force?

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I'm also not convinced that the smartest will actually run this society. They don't now, what will cause that to change?

a) I'm using "intelligence" as a proxy for "inherent human capital". Social ability etc. are all rolled in there

b) I think that as history progresses we ARE actually seeing a greater and greater meritocracy. Think about it: if the returns to human capital increase and the returns to physical capital decrease then the value of an inheritance of brains (again. meaning a whole host of traits) increases relative to the value of an inheritance of cash.

[Jon Miller]

Honestly, as we see from the current economy in the US, about the one thing that there is unlimited demand for is service. This also can only be done with people (despite what some claim). So having a large servant class, and a large 'elite' servant class, is useful for the extremely wealthy.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I also know a large number of smart people who don't go anywhere due to drugs/etc. Wouldn't this also be a retarding force?

JM

Please see my post above. "Brains" is shorthand for intelligence + propensity for work + social ability + ...

some portion of this is inheritable. Some is learned (but is strongly correlated with the quality of parenting, which is strongly correlated with the parents' abilities). Some is "luck" (individual circumstances, genetic lottery)

[KrazyHorse]

Honestly, as we see from the current economy in the US, about the one thing that there is unlimited demand for is service. This also can only be done with people (despite what some claim). So having a large servant class, and a large 'elite' servant class, is useful for the extremely wealthy.

JM

Service IS, indeed, saving the lower classes.

Is this what we're doomed to, however? A lower class in personal service to the highly-educated elite?

[Jon Miller]

Human's are domesticated yet, so the evolutionary process will still be slowish.

Because of that, there will still be occasionally people who pull themselves past their parents levels (they have good genetics,etc and their parents failed at some point). This will ******, we both agree.

Will it ****** enough so that there isn't some great shift? Note that this is similar to how things were 100+ years ago where elite meant wealthy and they had the access to education/etc to make more wealth while those who weren't born into wealth didn't have what was needed to transfer into the elite.

I think that as long as there isn't some sort of genetic strafication, that it will be just various levels (and shifts in what is needed to shift between nonelite and elite) and no dramatic phase change larger than what we have seen previously.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Human's are domesticated yet, so the evolutionary process will still be slowish.

???

This is NOT EVOLUTION.

This is a simple choice of men and women to find the highest "intelligence" mate available to them.

I don't know why you keep harping on evolution

???

[KrazyHorse]

Note that this is similar to how things were 100+ years ago where elite meant wealthy and they had the access to education/etc to make more wealth while those who weren't born into wealth didn't have what was needed to transfer into the elite.

What's changed in those hundred years is that we've:

1) Lowered the economic and social barriers to entry into the educational process
2) Increased the payoff to being smart and hardworking relative to the payoff to being born with a lot of money

My point is that BY OUR VERY SUCCESS we've increased the rate of the filtering process. How hard is it for even a disadvantaged youth in North America (assuming his parents provide merely the basics like sufficient nutrition and a roof over his head for him) to do well in school, enter university, etc. given an innate intelligence and propensity for hard work? Not very hard at all. What's happened? Those who are intelligent and hard-working (much of which is inborn and IS NOT a moral choice on their part, by the way; I'm not claiming any justice in this) have lifted themselves to the middle class and beyond. Previously they were unable to do so (at least not quickly; it might have taken generations). What happens? The average poor person becomes stupider, the average rich person becomes smarter. This is not evolutionary; it is simply societal. The last couple of generations saw unparalleled social mobility. What happens now? If the traits which allow mobility are largely inheritable then the movement drops significantly. Rich people's children are smart because rich people are smart and vice versa. The poor and stupid become an alien race to the elite.