[JJVIGGIANO (OP)]

I saw a government report a while back showing that less educated people are having more children, as I would expect from my own observations. Additionally, although IQ is increasing by the decade, people in the US are experiencing less IQ growth overall compared to other wealthy nations, according to the report. Anecdotally, I notice that less attractive people are having more offspring. Maybe these are some of the ways the human species is evolving at the present time, both culturally and biologically. What does everyone think?

[bigtim]

In answer to your question, YES
[:0]

Big Tim

[another_someone]

But what happens when you also take into account the higher mortality (lower life expectancy) or people with lower IQ?

George

[moonfire]

George over here, the census counts even stillborns as part of our mortality rate...which for the life of me I guess they are counting 1 year even though they were never born alive...

"Just Me, Lo" Loretta

[science_guy]

IQ can be damaged from high-suger intake.

Now please remind me:  What is the most obese nation on this planet?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

I would engage you in a battle of wits, but it is against my moral code to attack the unarmed.

[gecko]

intelligence, esspecially IQ, is not neccesarily linked genetically.

and what is this with all this "i heard the government..." this and that? the government isnt really doing all that people seem to think its doing. in addition why would the report being from the government make it at all credible?

[lightarrow]

quote:Originally posted by JJVIGGIANO

... What does everyone think?

See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

(I'm joking!)

[daveshorts]

quote:Originally posted by gecko

intelligence, esspecially IQ, is not neccesarily linked genetically.

But even if a fraction of it is genetic (it must be otherwise rabbits would have made it to the moon by now) in the long term bad things are going to happen.

[chris]

This is regression to the mean.

The same phenomenon is occurring worldwide. Historically classes were kept "in their place" by social pressure, or "class boundaries" to give it another name.

This incestuous carry-on meant that the rich stayed rich, albeit with more than their fair share of skeletons in their genetic closets (the Hapsburgh providing a fine example), and the poor stayed poor.

A higher birth rate amongst the working classes was a survival tactic; rampant infant mortality meant that most children were unlikely to make it to the age of two. You can see the same strategy at worth in third world countries today.

But now in west we have a social conscience, a welfare state, and a much healthier population.

Unfortunately, to sustain this welfare state and brutal tax system (within which I'm including the cost of sending children to university) the middle classes are working themselves into the ground. They have fewer children, on average, in order to maximise their work time and minimise their costs; they work more hours and contribute the most tax (on aggregate).

Putting it bluntly, because the poor get it served up on a plate they don't have the same constraints. They can afford to have 15 children because someone else - the taxpayer - is funding them.

And who can blame them? Why take on the "stress" of having to have a job, a mortgage, a pension plan and responsibility when you can rely on someone else to give you somewhere to live and something to live on, without ever having to lift a finger?

Worryingly, my friends who are school teachers at an inner city school in the north tell me that amongst many of the children they teach there is a pervasive view that you don't need to worry about minor things like education and getting a job. Because someone will give you money and a house if you can't afford one.

Meanwhile the rest of us will keep working ourselves to death.

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx

[gecko]

i really dont think people in a welfare state, in general, just sit around and recieve hand outs while the "working class" provide them. this view you have about the obvious difference and split between "poor people" and the "working class" is untrue. we are ALL poor people, when compared to the wealthy elite. even small business owners are the same to the fat cats as panhandlers and drug dealers.

also specualation that the working class arent having children... where is the support for that? that may be your assumption, or what YOU(and i) are doing, but i really wouldnt believe that on the large scale.

i dont understand this middle-class contempt for the poor. who're the ones keeping you working 40+ hours a week and still in perpetual debt? its not the poor who're using all your tax money(not really true anyway...) its the unseen over-seers upstairs at your business

sorry this has strayed so far from science, but it was doomed that way

[chris]

For clarity, the "working classes" is a term used to refer to lower social classes who are usually engaged in manual labour.

[moonfire]

As I become a more seasoned adult, I have noticed the constant diminishing of my little, wittle brain cellies....I have to read more, and reread material to comprehend what I used to, and and and...oops, there is a fine example right in front of your little iris/pupils....as for uglier...yes, I am getting uglier...my ancestors are from Germany...and I am the first to be born in America...I am proud to be an American...I am not always proud of fellow leaders here in America...but I am sure you will find the same thing out in different countries....People have a choice to be educated or not..when you say uglier? Do you mean in physical attributes?  Most have come over during the mayflower days...Indians were here first....

[Atomic-S]

Right now, the U.S. is experiencing a general "graying" -- moving the median population up older, which is straining Social Security by reducing the beneficiary to worker ratio. Also there is a dearth of certain workers, and a deterioration in the educational quality of such younger persons as exist. This has created a vacuum into which foreign immigrants are moving in great numbers, a major policy concern today. I understand that this new population has a higher fertility rate than the native born population, but also a generally much lower educational level. (Although there are exceptions in some fields). Why are these things happening? My guess is that it represents an overall shift of values: material prosperity and convenience have become the paramount value, resulting, among other things, in reduced net fertility of the native born population, and also reduced social viability in other ways. To speak generally, I think all this can be summed up as internal decay of a  culture, as when Rome fell.

[moonfire]

Interesting point...One of my friend's Robert and I was just talking about this the other day...hmmmm