4 ms·

The fact that first world countries/ wealthy people are not having many kids and that third world countries/ poor people are having a lot of kids is very proble

The fact that first world countries/ wealthy people are not having many kids and that third world countries/ poor people are having a lot of kids is very problematic. Natutal selection is seemingly going in the opposite direction to were we want it. Though to argue against this point, humans every year score on average better than they did last year on old IQ tests. The size of human skulls and brains are also increasing too, so natural selection may be working, just in a different way than we would expect.

com2kid 8y ago
> Natutal selection is seemingly going in the opposite direction to were we want it. You have to compare childhood mortality rates. Countries with high rates of childhood mortality see mothers having more children. The cost of having a child also factors into it, in Western countries each child is really expensive. (30k for birth in the US! And that is just the cost to get started!) Also you are making the implicit assumption that people in poorer countries are having "worse" babies than people in developed countries. Off the top of my head, a few countries that used to be looked down upon by everyone else include England, Germany, Ireland, and the US. Also all of northern Europe, all of SW Asia, and all of East Asia. The fact that China thought the same thing about Europe that Europe thought about China is also a good indicator that "undeveloped" is a rather crude benchmark. Every major study has shown that if you correct for environmental pollution, childhood nutrition, and childhood health care, IQs between regions of the world are all within spitting distance of each other, and human potential falls along a nice bell curve. tl;dr clean up the air, feed the kids, get them to doctors, and everyone thrives. Also stable environments means there be less pressure to have lots of kids, so the population will stabilize than decline.
volkl48 8y ago
The Idiocracy hypothesis you're basically expressing is false. I only follow US data somewhat closely, so this is a US-centric claim, but I suspect the same is true elsewhere. Teenagers, the poor, and the less educated are seeing much sharper fertility declines than the wealthier or better educated. Teen births are down 55% since 07. Statistically poorer minority groups are seeing the sharpest fertility declines, more than double the decline that White or Asian groups are seeing. (I can't find income-based data, just racial) Likewise, fertility has fallen for the college-educated (bachelor's degree) by only half as much as for the less educated. Birth rates are getting less like the "Idiocracy hypothesis" than they were before, not more. ---------- I don't agree with many of the political views of this organization, but they do wrap up all the data in a nice article with good graphs here: https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-...
HappySweeney 8y ago
> Though to argue against this point, humans every year score on average better than they did last year on old IQ tests This is called the Flynn effect. It unfortunately peaked in the mid 80's, and is now on a steady decline.
- maceurt 8y ago
  Did not know that. It makes sense though, because a lot less people are malnuiroshed than before.

com2kid 8y ago

> Natutal selection is seemingly going in the opposite direction to were we want it. You have to compare childhood mortality rates. Countries with high rates of childhood mortality see mothers having more children. The cost of having a child also factors into it, in Western countries each child is really expensive. (30k for birth in the US! And that is just the cost to get started!) Also you are making the implicit assumption that people in poorer countries are having "worse" babies than people in developed countries. Off the top of my head, a few countries that used to be looked down upon by everyone else include England, Germany, Ireland, and the US. Also all of northern Europe, all of SW Asia, and all of East Asia. The fact that China thought the same thing about Europe that Europe thought about China is also a good indicator that "undeveloped" is a rather crude benchmark. Every major study has shown that if you correct for environmental pollution, childhood nutrition, and childhood health care, IQs between regions of the world are all within spitting distance of each other, and human potential falls along a nice bell curve. tl;dr clean up the air, feed the kids, get them to doctors, and everyone thrives. Also stable environments means there be less pressure to have lots of kids, so the population will stabilize than decline.

volkl48 8y ago

The Idiocracy hypothesis you're basically expressing is false. I only follow US data somewhat closely, so this is a US-centric claim, but I suspect the same is true elsewhere. Teenagers, the poor, and the less educated are seeing much sharper fertility declines than the wealthier or better educated. Teen births are down 55% since 07. Statistically poorer minority groups are seeing the sharpest fertility declines, more than double the decline that White or Asian groups are seeing. (I can't find income-based data, just racial) Likewise, fertility has fallen for the college-educated (bachelor's degree) by only half as much as for the less educated. Birth rates are getting less like the "Idiocracy hypothesis" than they were before, not more. ---------- I don't agree with many of the political views of this organization, but they do wrap up all the data in a nice article with good graphs here: https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-...

HappySweeney 8y ago

> Though to argue against this point, humans every year score on average better than they did last year on old IQ tests This is called the Flynn effect. It unfortunately peaked in the mid 80's, and is now on a steady decline.

maceurt 8y ago
Did not know that. It makes sense though, because a lot less people are malnuiroshed than before.