Our Thing is, in its way, as utopian as any SJW fantasy. We all agree that a civilization built to last — whatever else it does — acknowledges the truths of Human Biodiversity. But what follows is usually of the “underpants gnome” variety”
- acknowledge HBD
The utopia being a world in which we’re free of SJW tyranny — nobody from the Federal Bureau of Inclusion kicking in our doors in the middle of the night because we inadvertently called some wingless golden-skinned dragonkin “her.” I aim to show that an HBD-aware State will, in order to keep us in the style to which we’ve grown accustomed, be at least as intrusive, if not more so, than the SJW version.
Let’s look at some numbers. I frequently hear “100” cited as the average IQ, and “120” as the number needed to sustain our current level of technological prosperity. Let’s go with those. Let’s further stipulate that these numbers are correct, that IQ is adequately predictive of success, and that the problems with IQ measurements have been adequately massaged out.*
I was a Liberal Arts major, but even I know what “average” means. If 100 is the average IQ… consulting the chart… yep, the incidence is 1.99999999913, which, though I love 11-decimal-place precision as much as the next guy, rounds to “1 in 2.” Which means that half of the population will be below the line.
The line we’ve stipulated is our floor for the ability to make it in the modern world.
Think about that.
Then take a look at the incidence of 120 IQ. The optimistic number seems to be “1 in 9;” pessimistic is “1 in 11.” Splitting the difference — remember, Liberal Arts major, we can do that — gives us 10%. That’s the fraction of the population which we’ve stipulated is able to keep things going. I plugged “what is 10% of 50%” into the google machine, and it informs me that the answer is 5. Which seem to indicate that you’ve got at most 5% of the population that’s capable of sustaining what we’ve already got. As for actual innovation, I imagine we’re into the fractions-of-percents in very short order.
This suggests — scratch that, it necessitates — one hell of a government-mandated caste system.
First consider the high end. Vox Day, who is Humanity’s Greatest Genius, loves pointing out that earth-shattering super-intelligences like himself don’t play well with other children. They’d much rather publish comic books than, say, pore over ballistic missile specs or study traffic-use patterns for welfare cards. If
- 5% is our baseline for simply sustaining what we already have; and
- our collective IQ is dropping at an alarming rate; then
- that simply won’t do.
The Chinese have no problem dragooning their Competent 5% into maintenance and their Innovative fraction-of-a-fraction into R&D. We must do the same… or preemptively surrender to the Chinese, which amounts to the same thing, because they’ll do it for us.
Now before you object that the “free market” will take care of this sorting for us, note that it’s the “free market” that got us here in the first place. Zuckerberg was free to use his talents however he saw fit, and he chose to become Lavrentiy Beria in a hoodie. Further, as we’ve already noted, it’s the glowing blinky screens of our iCrap that are eroding our intelligence to begin with.
Further yet, it’s the Innovative 0.1% that keep Darwinism from working as it should. It used to be common among conservative-leaning pundits — way back in the mists of time when there were such things — to point out that the murder rate of, say, Baltimore would be orders of magnitude higher without modern medicine and state-funded emergency services. The “Social Darwinists” (slight anachronism) saw this well by the middle of the 19th century. Hell, Thomas Malthus saw it at the tail end of the 18th. He pointed out that the unfit were breeding like mice, while the fit — who were entirely subsidizing the suicidal overbreeding of the unfit — were themselves having few or no children. (The so-called “Malthusian catastrophe” was where Darwin got his idea of “natural selection” in the first place). The “free market,” in other words, was entirely too successful — it threw evolution into reverse.**
Now consider the low end of our IQ curve — 1 in 2 people, if we agree that the word “average” means what it means. We’ve already stipulated that these folks won’t make it without some industrial assistance, and — “average” meaning average — this will remain true no matter how successful our eugenic efforts are in encouraging the Innovative 0.1% to put down the calculators and get it on once in a while. No State that extends the franchise to people who by definition can’t hack it will long endure, and if we’re not in it for the long haul, then what’s the point? Again, we might as well preemptively surrender to the Chinese, who will, again, simply do it for us. A detailed, implementable plan for managing the 50% of us who are below the line must necessarily be the second step any HBD-aware state takes….
…. right after the first step, which is scrapping the idea that any kind of “representative” government will lead to anything other than a grunting Idiocracy, since, you know, “average” means average.
At least the tv will be funnier.
*I don’t mean the “math be rayciss” blather the blue-haired nose-ringers preach. Rather, it seems obvious that any IQ measure must measure, in part, the simple ability to pay attention, and that this is largely a learned skill. I think the people blaming iCrap for the well-observed drop in modern intelligence are mostly right. The ability to bear down and think a problem through — the very notion that this is a problem requiring sustained thought, rather than just asking Alexa — is mostly cultural.
**see why I joke that I’m the only guy anyone knows who really believes in evolution? Darwinism has some very unsavory, very obvious consequences that it takes a hell of a lot of work not to notice.