Quick Wealth Network

Why is intelligence and wealth inversely proportional to our evolutionary development?

When I consider the genetic improvement of our race in the areas of intelligence, success, wealth creation, and wisdom (advanced traits), I would prefer to see the evolutionary domination of the genes of those individuals who best exemplify those traits. Now I'm not talking about any kind of government intervention, but instead about the nature of people to have fewer children (0-2) with more advanced traits, while those of less-advanced traits seem inherently more interested in creating large families (5-12 children). This trend seems to inherently be inversely tied to the level of advancement of these good traits. If this continues, evolution dictates that our species will not evolve any further with the protection of the lives of the genetically less-advanced or problematic because their genes will dominate. So I ask you, if our species is to advance evolutionarily, should not our best people have large families? Yet nature seems to bring us to act contrary to evolution. Why? I'm not saying that society should do anything to affect the sizes of families .. that's very wrong to me. All I'm saying is that I typically see college graduates and more wealthy people marry later in life and have very few children, while those in the ghettos and those with little education or financial wisdom seem to propagate like there is no tomorrow (sometimes without regard for the institution of marriage). In the end, the genes and training (nature vs nurture) of the more-successful is dwarfed by the less-sucessful, and evolution prefers the continuation of the latter. I'm assuming that the traits of the parents are passed on to their children, if not through genes (which seems to me to be a large part of our intellectual evolution), then at least through training and development.

Public Comments

1. Who are you to judge who is intelligent or not. Are you going by wealth alone? If so you are very ignorant. Someone may have a high IQ but may not be motivated and end up not doing anything with their lives. That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent that just means that their "mental drive" or hard work ethics aren't there. Like me for example. I made straight A's in school and I knew a girl 10x's smarter than I, that barely finished school. She knew way more than I did, I just studied harder and made sure I turned in homework or was in school for test or quizzes. I have a slightly above average IQ and I'm in college whereas she had a WELL ABOVE IQ and is working at a fast food joint.
2. We have never been perfectly right about our own concieted egoes when we decide to depict whats better for nature. When we go back in history and see what destroyed later day advanced societies, we see its their own so called advanced knowledge. We have to be very careful that we don,t get so advance that we start thinking, to make a better society we can get rid of undesirables. It is troding on very dangerous grounds. What will be next, the removal of all handicaps, or to get rid of poverty we get rid of the poor, ect, ect, ect..... Thats why I say we, because we, have to understand our taughts becomes someones reality, and if we have any thing thats incommon its the need to survive, and get our necessaties. That why hair brain schemes never works how its devisors plans, Hi Hitler!
3. You're stating that those who score higher on IQ tests have fewer children then those who score lower, and then asking why those who are 'smarter' don't wisely try to populate the world with their more 'intelligent' offspring in order to effect positive evolutionary change. If I have this right, though I'm not sure I do, then my answer is this: I don't believe that intellect has much to do with the propensity to have children, nor do I believe that intelligent parents are guaranteed intelligent children--and vice-versa. I also don't believe that intelligence is any great indicator of potential wealth. Sure, intellect plays a role in the acquiring of financial security and freedom, but it doesn't guarantee either. Some of the most intelligent people I know and have studied were not the most wealthy--and in some cases, were impoverished. In the end, I don't believe that people choose to become parents for the sake of populating the world in a way that they see fit. In fact, if intelligent people ONLY have children to try and combat the "breeders" as they are often (disgustingly) termed, I would say they shouldn't have children at all. There is a greater propensity to raise pyschopathic, anti-social deviants in that scenario that doesn't sit well with me. The amount of children a family has, I believe, depends far more on the culture of the parents than their level of intellect. Take Mormons or Catholics, they have a tendency to have a greater number of children simply because of their religious beliefs. Their propensity for large families is no indication that they are intellectually bankrupt.