4 ms·

Before someone posts "releveant XKCD,"[2] I'd like to head it off by asking what XKCD thinks is wrong about Idiocracy. Are people with higher IQ really having m

Before someone posts "releveant XKCD,"[2] I'd like to head it off by asking what XKCD thinks is wrong about Idiocracy. Are people with higher IQ really having more kids, unlike the movie says, or is the Flynn Effect[1] pushing IQs up despite people with higher IQ having less kids? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect [2] http://xkcd.com/603/ http://xkcd.com/603/

Retric 14y ago
Evolution is way to slow to be showing significant effects. The Flynn Effect is mostly a consequence of better nutrition and like increased height it's slowed down a lot in the US. Another long term trend in in reverse is people have stopped living longer in the US and life expectancy is decreasing. However, poor and uneducated does not mean genetically dumb. People with really low IQ's are far less likely to have kids. Comparing people with sub 60 IQ's with over 140 IQ's the smarter people have more kids.
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Having kids or not having kids is mostly an issue of: * Money/class * Laws and social status * Time-to-adulthood for your culture Educated, middle-class people in Western countries have stopped having kids en masse largely because the first and last factors on that last have risen, massively. It now takes large amounts of time and money for educated, middle-class parents to raise a child to their own level (ie: an educated, middle-class adult), and the process has extremely many points of potential failure. It's often not even likely enough to succeed; for instance, if you live somewhere with bad schools or need your entire 20s to establish your own career before you can afford to feed a child.
- xyzzy123 14y ago
  Aww it's pretty cheap to feed a child, but raising them in a socially acceptable way for your cohort might be expensive.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Minimally feed one? Yes. Feed, clothe and care for them "properly", so that measures of their total health (like for example, their height) wind up in strong greater-than-or-equal correlation with parents who are already decently-off? Takes a bunch of effort.
    - xyzzy123 14y ago
      I think we're saying the same thing except that you believe it's more expensive to make sure kids have shoes and aren't stunted than I do. > Takes a bunch of effort. 100% with you on that one.
  - jskonhovd 14y ago
    Food is expensive for a large family with a decent mortgage payment. Also, Remember when you have a family your career mobility drops dramatically. I know I won't have kids until I am 30, without going into debt of course.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
I've not seen the film, but I would assume it is using the idea of a future "dumb" humanity to satirize current "dumb" humanity. The fact that lots of people currently believe exactly this theory about societal decline due to the lower classes breeding too much just underlines this.
workbench 14y ago
Only thing worse than people talking about Idiocracy are people who bring up XKCD

Retric 14y ago

Evolution is way to slow to be showing significant effects. The Flynn Effect is mostly a consequence of better nutrition and like increased height it's slowed down a lot in the US. Another long term trend in in reverse is people have stopped living longer in the US and life expectancy is decreasing. However, poor and uneducated does not mean genetically dumb. People with really low IQ's are far less likely to have kids. Comparing people with sub 60 IQ's with over 140 IQ's the smarter people have more kids.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

Having kids or not having kids is mostly an issue of: * Money/class * Laws and social status * Time-to-adulthood for your culture Educated, middle-class people in Western countries have stopped having kids en masse largely because the first and last factors on that last have risen, massively. It now takes large amounts of time and money for educated, middle-class parents to raise a child to their own level (ie: an educated, middle-class adult), and the process has extremely many points of potential failure. It's often not even likely enough to succeed; for instance, if you live somewhere with bad schools or need your entire 20s to establish your own career before you can afford to feed a child.

xyzzy123 14y ago
Aww it's pretty cheap to feed a child, but raising them in a socially acceptable way for your cohort might be expensive.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Minimally feed one? Yes. Feed, clothe and care for them "properly", so that measures of their total health (like for example, their height) wind up in strong greater-than-or-equal correlation with parents who are already decently-off? Takes a bunch of effort.
  - xyzzy123 14y ago
    I think we're saying the same thing except that you believe it's more expensive to make sure kids have shoes and aren't stunted than I do. > Takes a bunch of effort. 100% with you on that one.
- jskonhovd 14y ago
  Food is expensive for a large family with a decent mortgage payment. Also, Remember when you have a family your career mobility drops dramatically. I know I won't have kids until I am 30, without going into debt of course.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago

I've not seen the film, but I would assume it is using the idea of a future "dumb" humanity to satirize current "dumb" humanity. The fact that lots of people currently believe exactly this theory about societal decline due to the lower classes breeding too much just underlines this.

workbench 14y ago

Only thing worse than people talking about Idiocracy are people who bring up XKCD