Hacker News Reader

>Observing that money is a proxy for many desirable traits, and helps, and has helped, in bettering survival chances is not social Darwinism. To assume that the unintelligent wealthy are somehow more lucky, and that morons must be filtered out is.

The unintelligent wealthy are more lucky, because they don't have to struggle. The letter writer struggled his whole life doing things he appears not to enjoy very much to get into the right school, make the right deals, etc, so that he could retire and go live on a diamond-studded houseboat and smoke weed or whatever he's going to do with his life now. If he had been born extremely rich, he could have done what he's doing now from the start. If he had been born moderately rich or an Ivy League legacy, he could have done it with less difficulty.

>Here's a statement: On average, the wealthy are smarter, prettier, and taller, than the not-wealthy.

If you want to select for smarts, looks, or height, then select for smarts, looks, or height, not some proxy which will never be as good as direct measurement.

Money is a proxy for other evolutionary factors. Is there are a good reason to disagree with this?

Yes, there is: wealth doesn't imply a greater number of offspring. Survival is a relatively low economic hurdle, as is raising and nurturing children. By asserting any real similarity, you're conflating survival with some modern concept of success.

Here's a statement: On average, the wealthy are smarter, prettier, and taller, than the not-wealthy. Do you disagree with that?

I agree that wealth is a social signal. It might even imply things that aren't immediately apparent (though you'll know someone is tall and attractive before you'll know they're rich, most of the time). But even the facile comparison of a peacock's feathers and a rich person's designer clothing doesn't really hold water in my mind. I think a lot of our evolutionary urges might be sublimated in our struggles for success, but that doesn't make them the same things.

wealth doesn't imply a greater number of offspring

It did in preindustrial times, which is to say for practically all of human history. I recently read a quite impressive study of birth records in a scandinavian country (forget which) that showed a significant difference in the number of surviving children of rich and poor women.

I would argue that in preindustrial times the rich and the poor were on different sides of a subsistence level income. This was a huge distinction until recently, but in the present day Warren Buffet doesn't have a harem, nor does he have several hundred children. Wealth and progeny don't scale.

I agree, but the correlation also applies to adopted children of the wealthy. Would you attribute that to happenstance, or dispute it?

The children of the wealthy are also richer than the rest of the population. Would you dispute that?

On average the wealthy attend better schools, receive tons preparatory courses, are providing with learning assistance, receive better health care and endure more plastic surgery than the not-wealthy. Do you disagree with that?