Twice this week, I was motivated to post comments in response to posts by Steve Benen, a Washington Monthly contributor. His first piece dealt with attempts by various states to suppress voter turnout among likely Democratic voters, especially minorities, via laws that require photo identifcation at the time ballots are cast. Logic told me that in order to make a link between the laws and the suppression of voting by minorities, there would need to be proof that minorities who are lawfully entitled to vote are less likely to have/carry photo identification than non-minorities who are lawfully entitled to vote. My comment read as follows:
Oops, it has, like my follow-up comment, been deleted, but the first response to me is still available:
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The Death of Darwinism
Survival of the fittest refers to the established principle that more fit organisms, i.e. organisms having advantages over their peers, will reproduce more often, thereby genetically advancing their population.
In regards to first-world humans, this cycle has been broken, and we will soon be facing the consequences. Previous human evolution favored both the physically fit and the intelligent, the former is still likely true to a lesser degree, but the same cannot be said of the latter. The modern, intelligent woman is unlikely to devote her life to mothering children, and that is hard to criticize. Women have only recently been able to achieve the political and financial prominence available to them today, and this new found ability, along with the widespread availability of near perfect contraception, has pushed the number of children born to college educated women down. The non hispanic fertility rate for whites in the U.S. is 1.9, that is, every woman averages 1.9 children. This number needs to be about 2.1 for population maintenance. Yet this hides the fact that women from low income homes, a feature correlating strongly with lower intelligence, have artificially inflated the rate. In fact, the birth rate for women on welfare is three times the rate of women not on welfare. This evidence assures that our country is moving towards lower average intelligence, and because of this, lower productivity. What this means for our country is this; that as the current population ages, and it will almost certainly do so, there will be lower numbers of truly productive members of society to support them via social security payments and the natural advantages of a country with a high population of productive young adults.
For some perspective, we can use the example of GM, now fondly referred to as Government Motors. GM currently has 8 employees receiving pensionary benefits for every one person actually employed. This is decidedly unsustainable, and it is an only slightly exaggerated microcosm of the future of the U.S.. The most intellectually advanced Americans are not reproducing in a manner conducive to positive impact on a national scale. Higher levels of national average intelligence bear an established correlation with advanced societies, as can be witnessed in the high standard of living of any majority Anglo-Saxon nation. The reverse is also true, and as our national intelligence descends, so too will our standard of living, global prominence, and economic success.
Son
In regards to first-world humans, this cycle has been broken, and we will soon be facing the consequences. Previous human evolution favored both the physically fit and the intelligent, the former is still likely true to a lesser degree, but the same cannot be said of the latter. The modern, intelligent woman is unlikely to devote her life to mothering children, and that is hard to criticize. Women have only recently been able to achieve the political and financial prominence available to them today, and this new found ability, along with the widespread availability of near perfect contraception, has pushed the number of children born to college educated women down. The non hispanic fertility rate for whites in the U.S. is 1.9, that is, every woman averages 1.9 children. This number needs to be about 2.1 for population maintenance. Yet this hides the fact that women from low income homes, a feature correlating strongly with lower intelligence, have artificially inflated the rate. In fact, the birth rate for women on welfare is three times the rate of women not on welfare. This evidence assures that our country is moving towards lower average intelligence, and because of this, lower productivity. What this means for our country is this; that as the current population ages, and it will almost certainly do so, there will be lower numbers of truly productive members of society to support them via social security payments and the natural advantages of a country with a high population of productive young adults.
For some perspective, we can use the example of GM, now fondly referred to as Government Motors. GM currently has 8 employees receiving pensionary benefits for every one person actually employed. This is decidedly unsustainable, and it is an only slightly exaggerated microcosm of the future of the U.S.. The most intellectually advanced Americans are not reproducing in a manner conducive to positive impact on a national scale. Higher levels of national average intelligence bear an established correlation with advanced societies, as can be witnessed in the high standard of living of any majority Anglo-Saxon nation. The reverse is also true, and as our national intelligence descends, so too will our standard of living, global prominence, and economic success.
Son
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
For instance, minority populations (of any age) tend to be concentrated in more urban settings, where mass transit is available. Whether because of income limitations or sheer hassle of parking, they tend to have fewer cars (and if it's a one-car family, you can be sure Mom and/or Dad use it to get to work).
According to the website Useless Facts, one in four people in the U.S. have never flown on an airplane (http://www.angelfire.com/ca6/uselessfacts/survey/001.html). So I guess they've never had to wrestle with TSA's photo ID requirements.
And while the number of people who do or don't have a passport varies widely from state to state (http://blog.cgpgrey.com/how-many-americans-have-a-passport-the-percentages-state-by-state/), in 33 states it's less than half the population."
I responded (a comment since deleted) that what Blondie (the screen name of the publisher of the responsiv comment) offered was not proof, because proof that poor people aremore likely than others to use mass transportation in no since proves that they are less likely to have photo identification. But, as noted, the link to Benen's article no longer includes either of my comments, neither of which was mad or angry, and neither of which included any offensive language. And, I know why they were deleted. My questions force Benen (and his followers) to ackowledge the reasoning that underlies their argument, and they don't want to do so.
The next day, Benen posted in response to the requests of Dick Cheney for an apology from the Obama administration. I commented (again I was deleted) that if the President has the authority to kill--without a trial or even an indictment--an America citizen for words he has said in internet remblings and broadcasts, then, a fortiori, he has the authority to arrest a non-citizen terrorist and to use enhanced interrogation techniques and/or indefinite detention. Each of these were things against which Obama railed as a candidate, so, I agreed that Obama owed Dick an apology.
I guess I dont understand what purpose is served by deleting comments designed to encourage debate. Here's is what was said at the bottom of the comments section:
"A link from a right-wing website brought the trolls out of the woodwork, leading to a wholesale deletion of comments and turning off comments on this thread. --Mods"