The former CEO of the activist group ACORN called the Republican party’s ongoing voter-suppression efforts a response to what she called the “browning” of America Sunday.The Raw Story
“This is about demographics,” Bertha Lewis said on Up With Chris Hayes. “Their base just swallows this whole. Who is that base? That is a base that is shrinking in this country. This country is browning. People of color are going to be the new majority in this country. Then, you have folks out there who see this as an absolute threat.”
Ex-ACORN CEO: Voter suppression a response to ‘browning’ of America
Arturo Garcia
Sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious.
The ironic thing is that people lower down the socio-economic scale tend to have more children. Moreover, the more intelligent people are, the fewer children have have. Natural evolutionary forces along with the march of time become the great leveler.
15 comments:
"Moreover, the more intelligent people are, the fewer children have have"
Firstly, I think you mean "they have".
Secondly, WTF?
Intelligence is largely irrelevant. Beliefs, cultural norms and socioeconomic circumstances are relevant.
y,
Perhaps if they are un/under employed they have nothing else "better" to do?
rsp,
Bad election of words there Tom.
It has nothing to do with intelligence, maybe you meant educated. The more educated people is the less children they tend to have.
Economic well being is an other important factor (and anyway, education is tied with this), as well as other socio-economic and cultural factors.
OFC some social services systems in some developed nations favour having more children to access these systems, but I doubt this is the prime reason in the dynamic.
"Moreover, the more intelligent people are, the fewer children have have"
Firstly, I think you mean "they have".
Yes, should be, "The more intelligent a mating couple is, the fewer the offspring."
Secondly, WTF?
Intelligence is largely irrelevant. Beliefs, cultural norms and socioeconomic circumstances are relevant.
"Intelligent" doesn't necessarily mean well-educated although that figures in.
What the hypothesis states is the people with under IQ 100 have more offspring than people with IQ over 100 and the higher you go up the scale, the fewer the offspring.
That means evolution favors the propagation of genes of lower intelligence potential. The "lower classes" eventually replace the upper classes because they are both more numerous and more robust.
I don't think that is the case, Ignacio. People with lower IQ do not have the educational opportunities that people of higher IQ do, so it is not just a matter of education. Moreover, people of lower IQ tend to more menial positions and people in more menial position have more children, since they know they need to be cared for as they age. People higher up the socio-economic scale can save and build wealth and are less needful of offspring for their survival and well-being.
"That means evolution favors the propagation of genes of lower intelligence potential. "
Survival of the unfittest?
Sorry, but that theory is just ridiculous. If it were true, it would mean that human beings have been growing less intelligent over the millennia. Classic white hysteria crackpottery.
Survival of the unfittest?
What it says is that nature is heavily discounting what we call "intelligence." By nature's standards, the better off can afford more children and if they were really more intelligent would be having them to dominate the gene pool.
Sorry, but that theory is just ridiculous. If it were true, it would mean that human beings have been growing less intelligent over the millennia. Classic white hysteria crackpottery
More resilient. Resilience is what is required in a complex adaptive system.
Let's say due to sun spot activity, or a war on the homeland, the electrical grid goes down indefinitely. You know who are most likely to survive? Rural people close to the land who know how to survive. City people will be toast in a few weeks if not a few days. After a few months, they will be eating each other.
Tom, those that will survive will be those with the most weapons, if the shit really hits the fan.
Dan,
"human beings have been growing less intelligent over the millennia."
I have prima facie evidence that our ancestors from millenia ago knew they were not "borrowing from the grandchildren" by running a fiscal deficit... just sayin'.
Our current situation is pretty bad and imo has NO precedent in all recorded history over 1,000s of years .. rsp,
Tom, those that will survive will be those with the most weapons, if the shit really hits the fan.
You can't eat bullets.
The survivors will be resilient communities, just like always, because that's how nature works. Complexity is a disadvantage in extreme adversity.
Tom,
There are no significant differences over difference social strata of the population when it comes to "intelligence" (the whole notion of intelligence is an other deep discussion btw).
The whole notion that IQ of 'poor class' is generally lower is false. So yes, is education and economic well-being the prime reason here, not IQ (and IQ is not intelligence anyway, but that's for an other discussion).
Some serious mixing up of what 'intelligence' is going on this thread.
Knowledge (contextual) is not intelligence. You can carry around a Wikipedia in your head, have practical knowledge of rural works, or understand how monetary systems operate that does not mean you are more or less intelligent.
I absolutely agree with that, Ignacio. The problem is with the definition of intelligence as IQ, which is a cultural construct, and that is why nature heavily discounts it.
The supposedly more intelligent people are dooming their own genes by voluntarily limiting their own reproduction, even though they have superior means to support offspring.
By nature's standards, the most intelligent people are those that have lots of offspring and raise them successfully to reproductive age while teaching them to survive in a competitive environment of scarcity and uncertainty.
"The meek shall inherit the earth."
Post a Comment