| + Share page with friends! |
|---|
Survival of the Smartest?
Darwin wrote about survival of the fittest, but who is credited with a "survival of the smartest" philosophy? Since early mankind, the probability of survival is far more dependent on intellectual rather than physical strengths . In fact survival is minutely sensitive to physical deformations. It is far more sensitive to intelligence, wealth and power.
How has the gene pool evolved through this "survival of the smartest" philosophy. History has shown that a few well connected and wealthy families typically control the affairs of the masses. When wars happen it is generally the lower classes that get wiped out first. Revolutions occur when the collective strength of the masses supercedes the poorly managed power of the elite.
But how can a few "nerds" who do not reproduce overpower the masses who reproduce like rabbits? Quality over quantity. A few "nerds" with a ton of wealth and power can easily control the destiny of a whole nation. This is easily visible in any third-world country. It also exists in the USA but is diffcult to see due to the large middle class. So these nerds only need to reproduce at the minimal rate to pass on their wealth to their offspring. While the masses reproduce like rabbits, it does little to balance the power with the elite.
Is there any correlation between smart and wealth? Does someone from a State school have any less chance of being "smart" then someone from Harvard? The difference between the harvard and state school grad is probability of sucesss. Only a tiny percentage of state schools grads will reach the status of a harvard grad's career. Similiarly only a tiny percentage of harvard grads will drop status and work in the same types of jobs as state school grads. So yes, it can work both ways, but the probabilties are not the same.
So I guess "smart" means the probability of your gene pool surviving the longest number of generations. Ultimately it comes down to how do you define "Smart"? If smart is equated with "success" then the above arguments hold some water. But as any philosopher knows, there is no absolute definition of these kind of terms!