Selma,
At 09:17 27/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Harry,
As you may or may not remember from
messages I have posted in the very distant past on this list, I worry
less about our being overwhelmed with stupid poor people and more about
all the geniuses that are lost because simply because they are born into
poverty and remain there.
Selma
I wouldn't worry too much about lost geniuses. Most geniuses are
considered not to have astronomical IQs. Their IQs are around 130 more
usually than not -- and there are many times more individuals with this
level of IQ who never achieve any prominence or creativity. The main
trait of geniuses (besides having a reasonably good IQ and an enquiring
mind) is persistence of purpose and stamina. Geniuses can, and do, rise
up from the lowest social strata, and then, when they latch onto a
problem, or an interesting line of enquiry, never let it go.
My sympathy goes to those geniuses who actually do succeed in solving
problems and creating new ideas -- but who cannot convince others around
them and they go unrecognised. I think the numbers of these far outweigh
those who remain inhibited by their circumstances.
Keith
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Harry
Pollard
- To: 'Selma Singer' ;
'Ray Evans Harrell' ;
'Keith Hudson' ;
'Harry Pollard'
- Cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 7:19 PM
- Subject: Over and under pop (was More hardwiring)
Selma,
People who worry about such things are
often vocal about the failure of the West to maintain their populations.
Also, they relate the fecundity of the "lower classes" (and by
implication the intellectually challenged classes) to the childless, or
single child families of the professional classes.
Wasn't it Murray with his "Bell
curve" who warned us all of the dire consequences of a future in
which the less able in every way would be increasing in numbers, even as
the intellectually brilliant people were diminishing and perhaps dying
out. Science-fiction writers tend to be futurists. You may remember me
mentioning "The Marching Morons" - with which more than 50
years ago Kornbluth entertainingly brought this future to our attention.
However, this is something that
governments, countries, economies, are concerned with. All of them try to
manipulate us, and worrying about a diminishing population takes its
place beside worrying about an increasing
population.
Harry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Selma Singer
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 12:57 PM
To: Harry Pollard; 'Ray Evans Harrell'; 'Keith Hudson'; 'Harry
Pollard'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] More
hardwiring.
Gosh, Harry, I didn't think that
maintaining a population was a problem for any society
today.
Selma
----- Original Message -----
From: Harry
Pollard
To: 'Selma Singer' ;
'Ray Evans Harrell' ;
'Keith Hudson' ;
'Harry Pollard'
Cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 3:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] More hardwiring.
Selma,
I suspect that a society
that doesn't encourage its reproductive characteristics won't be around
for very long.
Harry
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Selma Singer
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:02 PM
To: Ray Evans Harrell; Keith Hudson; Harry Pollard
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] More hardwiring.
I haven't been following this thread too carefully but has anyone brought up the fact that all human beings are biologically both male and female? All humans have both male and female hormones, and the Xs and Ys don't always come out the way we think they're supposed to.
My position is that, if we lived in a society which did not judge the issue, we would all be bisexual in varying degrees.
Selma
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk>
