Replies to post #16688 on Zeev's Turnips Patch-No Politics (ZEEV)

[Tantalus747]

I knew you'd doubt that I'm actually poor seeing as we're posting on a stock market thread. I guess it depends on what you call poor... I'd give some examples of my financial problems, but then you'd think I was stupid for risking money in the market.

If you thought my statement was in anyway agreeing with you, I'm afraid you misunderstood it.

Basically, the intelligent poor will most likely cease to be poor after a time provided they're sufficiently motivated. Wealth redistribution programs actually interfere with that process of 'moving up' financially.

[brightness]

The term "intelligence" carries very differet meaning to the two of you. It seems to me that you translate "intelligence" to "the sum total of one's education and experience"; whereas to Tantulus, "intelligence" is a genotype, or at least a phenotype that is reflective an underlying genetic trait. I'm afraid, as abhorrent as it is to our shared faith in egalitarianism, scientific findings in modern genetics are placing weight behind Tantulus' concept of "intelligence." Twin studies seem to indicate little correlation between education/upbringing and career result. Put it in classic terms, hence also less controversial, Giraffs have long necks not because they do more neck streching exercises in their life times, but because the short-necks are eliminated from the Giraff gene pool. Mandel's genetics was such an anathema to the socialist East Bloc that his scientific findings were officially banned, and LeMarckian evolution was positively promoted. As we know, LeMarck was wrong despite our sympathy for short-necked Giraffs.

Egalitarianism can still be defended on the ground of the need for genetic diversity. "Intelligence" is comprised of a very complex set of parameters, probably influenced by multiple genes; financial sucess is only indicative of advantageous genes under a particular set of environment parameters (at the best). Most offspring of the geneticly disadvantaged will be geneticly disadvantaged, however mutation does happen. Most mutations are deliterious if not fatal to the individual offspring, but it is the rare beneficial mutations that keep the species progressing. Hopefully the education system is an efficient way to let the cognitive elite discover and incorporate such voices in the wilderness. Inbreeding is a quick way to make a species vulnerable to changing environment, not to mention genetic degeneracy that frequently results from sustained inbreeding. Cognitive as well genetic inbreeding, IMHO, is part of the reason behind why some cultures with long histories of hereditory meritocracy cyclicly experience complete collapse while under "babarian" pressure.

With that in mind, we should recognize "redistribution" as a necessary evil. It's not something to be enthusiasticly embraced, because if we do, we create an environment that is especially conducive to the flourishing of expert redistributionists, those who can make the choicest cuts out of the redistribution process as the middlemen.