Hacker News Reader

Comment by vog | Hacker News Reader

> It's kind of a joke, but also really not. It's frightening.

It is a joke.

Idiocracy relies on the assumption that the "more intelligent" people are snobs and too busy and too perfectionist with their life to have children, while the "less intelligent" people are mostly having sex and are too lazy to apply contraception properly.

Essentially, the first half of the movie is a justification for elitism.

I'm less afraid of Idiocracy to become true, but more afraid of politicians acting as if they believed in this movie.

The second half of this movie is more interesting, though. It may be interpreted as an analogy of how the most gifted people (in the sense of "intellectual giftedness") may feel living in today's world. (by putting today's "normal" people into a dumb world) But even that is, of course, a funny hyperbole, and nothing to take too seriously.

View on HN

Have you ever heard the phrase "there is truth behind every joke"? It is relevant here.

The joke is in the exaggerations and charicatures. The truth is what is real that would cause this joke to be made in the first place.

Obviously smart does not equate to "snobbery" or "perfectionism". And less smart does not equate to "more horny". It is a comedic layer added by the directors to make you laugh, because it is a comedy.

But the truth beneath the funny is that less smart people generally make poorer life decisions. For many people in many contexts, less children for a longer time is a smart life choice, and more children more quickly is not. Because more children more quickly is, in most contexts, in the category of poor decision, it tends to happen more with less smart or educated people.

I don't see how it is an argument for elitism at all. It's an argument for promoting education.

> I don't see how it is an argument for elitism at all. It's an argument for promoting education.

I see it the same way, as an argument for promoting education, throughout the whole population, not just some "elite".

However, I've also seen people arguing for the opposite direction: That the "elite" must be protected from the "mob", must be socially more separated than it already is, or it will die out. And that it must become more attractive especially for the "elite" to become children, while the "mob" will take care of themselves. (The argument wasn't phrased with exactly those words, but the sentiment was essentially that.)

But do you have evidence for the assertion that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and reproductive success? I read somewhere (can't find the source) that smart guys on average actually have more children than stupid ones, and that for women fertility is about the same.

I've seen multiple sources showing reduced fertility in high-IQ females (across multiple countries.)

The culprit, however, doesn't seem to be raw intelligence as such, but modern western education, which seems to have a dose dependent sterilizing effect on females. In that light, high IQ isn't fertility-reducing in itself, rather low IQ is protective against modern western education.

It's not just modern western education. Basic education for girls in third-world countries is associated with lower birth rates. Additionally, comparatively minor decreases in poverty in undeveloped countries correlate with declines in birth rates -- possibly because declining poverty usually goes hand in hand with declining infant mortality. The latter being one of the biggest reasons that the average birth rates in developed countries have dropped from 30-40 per thousand to 10-15 per thousand in just the past 150 years.

Would love to see some proper evidence for these claims. One can easily see that clever ladies tend to focus much more on long education/career, rather than jumping straight on babies-making bandwagon. Also, finding good partner to have kids with seems much harder for them (well, for clever guys sadly too). Considering most university level education ends when people are around +-23 (not even going into PhD ones), and then they just become fully autonomous and step in working treadmill (earn->spend->earn-> cycle), I would name culture/work/environment situation or pressure for that.

Also generally, more clever people focus more on quality rather than quantity, and babies are no exception. Norm are 1-3 kids, not because women are not fertile anymore (unless climacterium is reached), rather time & resources are considered.

Even this is very simplistic & dumbed down view on these matters.

"modern western education, which seems to have a dose dependent sterilizing effect on females. In that light, high IQ isn't fertility-reducing in itself, rather low IQ is protective against modern western education"

I admire the way you phrased this.

The difference in size between educated and uneducated families might be very large in societies that are in transition on the development scale, but I wonder if the same is true in a society that is stable on that scale. Do uneducated families in the West have more kids than educated families, or do they just have their 2.1 children earlier in life?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com