1. I think it's funny that the left has taken this movie as a sort of prescient Trump prediction, and they look at Trump and his supporters as the marching morons of this film. Which was surprising to me when I first heard it, as I thought this movie's message was borderline thoughtcrime. It turns out Idiocracy is fully Reddit-approved, as long as it's understood in Reddit terms.
2. The actual fertility pattern in the US isn't all that dysgenic. The Baby Boom (while in my view, generally a good thing) was probably dysgenic -- the percentage of the population that had children temporarily increased above its long-term norm, and this included a lot of dysfunctional people. But what has the trend been since then?
Here was an analysis from around 10 years ago, which showed that fertility was dysgenic among older generations but turned eugenic for those born in the 1960s (i.e. late Boomers / early Gen Xers):
I'd be curious how that data ends up looking for younger generations. But I would bet that with marriage now mostly a custom of the middle and upper classes, and one that still carries a large fertility boost (IIRC +30-40%), this pattern probably continued. Low IQ women are exposed to the same pressures as high IQ women -- they know that another kid will interfere with their consumption, their electronic entertainments. And unlike high IQ women, they generally can't count on any man to stick around to help share the burden. In many cases, this is now cultural knowledge several generations deep, in which no woman in the family has any experience of a father sticking around.
The proactive decision to have children is low time preference (i.e., long-term oriented), so all else equal, we should expect it to be at least somewhat positively correlated with IQ. It's also now countercultural (at least when it comes to deciding to have 3+ kids), which probably also selects at least somewhat for IQ. The decision to have sex without regard for the consequences is the opposite (this is how all other animals reproduce), but in a world with many options for birth control and abortion, and a generally anti-natal media environment, it's not clear why we should take for granted that the low IQ effect would dominate.
Great writing, however, I do disagree with you on some points:
1. The movie is set in 2005/2505, but was released in 2006.
2. I don't think it's true that we can control IQ and population. We've done it before (remember compulsory sterilizations?) Bring back compulsory sterilizations.
3. IMO I wouldn't necessarily trust accelerationist folks (they are advocating for violence/"nah soulution". THERE is a lot we can do, especially as collectives, and no, cities aren't IQ shredders. Maybe opt for returnable cities?
Dismantle the school system?
Ban immigration?
I will disagree that there a lot of ways to avoid this. Secession and eventual reconquest are some options we can advocate for.
The greatest challenge of our time is how to marry technological/economic development (essentially the same thing) with reversing the trends in fertility and, to a lesser extent, genetic degradation. Call me naive and idealistic, but I do not believe the battle is yet lost. Germinal choice for high IQ (among other traits) are already a reality. While there are very real criticisms of their current efficacy, the technology will only improve with time. Cultural changes that favor larger families are harder (or at least the road to get their is more nebulous), but achievable if the example of Israel is any indication.
Trends are not inevitable and History can change on a dime.
1. I think it's funny that the left has taken this movie as a sort of prescient Trump prediction, and they look at Trump and his supporters as the marching morons of this film. Which was surprising to me when I first heard it, as I thought this movie's message was borderline thoughtcrime. It turns out Idiocracy is fully Reddit-approved, as long as it's understood in Reddit terms.
2. The actual fertility pattern in the US isn't all that dysgenic. The Baby Boom (while in my view, generally a good thing) was probably dysgenic -- the percentage of the population that had children temporarily increased above its long-term norm, and this included a lot of dysfunctional people. But what has the trend been since then?
Here was an analysis from around 10 years ago, which showed that fertility was dysgenic among older generations but turned eugenic for those born in the 1960s (i.e. late Boomers / early Gen Xers):
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/idiocracy-can-wait/
I'd be curious how that data ends up looking for younger generations. But I would bet that with marriage now mostly a custom of the middle and upper classes, and one that still carries a large fertility boost (IIRC +30-40%), this pattern probably continued. Low IQ women are exposed to the same pressures as high IQ women -- they know that another kid will interfere with their consumption, their electronic entertainments. And unlike high IQ women, they generally can't count on any man to stick around to help share the burden. In many cases, this is now cultural knowledge several generations deep, in which no woman in the family has any experience of a father sticking around.
The proactive decision to have children is low time preference (i.e., long-term oriented), so all else equal, we should expect it to be at least somewhat positively correlated with IQ. It's also now countercultural (at least when it comes to deciding to have 3+ kids), which probably also selects at least somewhat for IQ. The decision to have sex without regard for the consequences is the opposite (this is how all other animals reproduce), but in a world with many options for birth control and abortion, and a generally anti-natal media environment, it's not clear why we should take for granted that the low IQ effect would dominate.
Great writing, however, I do disagree with you on some points:
1. The movie is set in 2005/2505, but was released in 2006.
2. I don't think it's true that we can control IQ and population. We've done it before (remember compulsory sterilizations?) Bring back compulsory sterilizations.
3. IMO I wouldn't necessarily trust accelerationist folks (they are advocating for violence/"nah soulution". THERE is a lot we can do, especially as collectives, and no, cities aren't IQ shredders. Maybe opt for returnable cities?
Dismantle the school system?
Ban immigration?
I will disagree that there a lot of ways to avoid this. Secession and eventual reconquest are some options we can advocate for.
The greatest challenge of our time is how to marry technological/economic development (essentially the same thing) with reversing the trends in fertility and, to a lesser extent, genetic degradation. Call me naive and idealistic, but I do not believe the battle is yet lost. Germinal choice for high IQ (among other traits) are already a reality. While there are very real criticisms of their current efficacy, the technology will only improve with time. Cultural changes that favor larger families are harder (or at least the road to get their is more nebulous), but achievable if the example of Israel is any indication.
Trends are not inevitable and History can change on a dime.
I knew that! 🤣‼️
This is a good article, and very descriptive of the issues our society faces today. Here is my prediction for the next half century:
https://swiftenterprises.substack.com/p/for-a-future-worth-living-in