You should question your assumption. While there is without question a social element, there is growing evidence that IQ is at least 50/50 heritable.
Not to mention birth defects and other genetic disorders which can only be kept under control now by people with enough money to get their kids therapy, rehab, etc. So in fact putting people on an equivalent genetic playing field is a great way to give an investment to the children of the current underprivileged .
(edit: think about it this way -- health care costs are currently a kind of regressive tax, as it takes a larger portion of the poor's income than the wealthy. so anything to lower overall treatment costs will help reduce inequality.)
Your final point is brilliant. If the traits that give rise to higher income are heritible and are also largely the inverse of poor health traits, health care is indeed a regressive tax.
If that's the case, augmentation and genetics are literally the only technologies that could have a lasting impact on inequality.
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur. When did Nature decide that the more well-educated are the fittest?
Your second sentence is wrong. People's intelligence vary widely which is why some people can't even answer a hypothetical question and engage in thought experiments.
Black people suffer in the US because the US has a ton of laws that harm them, like minimum wage laws (first enacted to stifle competition), drug laws (first enacted on racist grounds to jail minorities), welfare laws (first enacted to segregate minorities in ghettos). But god forbid we blame the State, it must be a "social" problem...
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur. When did Nature decide that the more well-educated are the fittest?
IQ isn't nature, IQ is a testing system. IQ is essentially a test of whether you have been given a high-quality Western education.
Your second sentence is wrong. People's intelligence vary widely which is why some people can't even answer a hypothetical question and engage in thought experiments.
People's intelligence does vary, but not as much as you think it does. A lot of it, again, is down to education.
Black people suffer in the US because the US has a ton of laws that harm them,
The legal system does not exist in isolation. It is influenced by US society (which is oppressive towards black people).
I am more convinced of Dr James Flynn's arguments than yours regarding IQ because I have gone over some of his work, which contradicts what you are saying. If you point me to some of yours or your sources I'd take a look.
Comments
You should question your assumption. While there is without question a social element, there is growing evidence that IQ is at least 50/50 heritable.
Not to mention birth defects and other genetic disorders which can only be kept under control now by people with enough money to get their kids therapy, rehab, etc. So in fact putting people on an equivalent genetic playing field is a great way to give an investment to the children of the current underprivileged .
(edit: think about it this way -- health care costs are currently a kind of regressive tax, as it takes a larger portion of the poor's income than the wealthy. so anything to lower overall treatment costs will help reduce inequality.)
Your final point is brilliant. If the traits that give rise to higher income are heritible and are also largely the inverse of poor health traits, health care is indeed a regressive tax.
If that's the case, augmentation and genetics are literally the only technologies that could have a lasting impact on inequality.
IQ is heritable because IQ selects for the well-educated.
Also, everyone is fairly similar in intelligence anyway. It is not for lack of intelligence that black people suffer in the United States.
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur. When did Nature decide that the more well-educated are the fittest?
Your second sentence is wrong. People's intelligence vary widely which is why some people can't even answer a hypothetical question and engage in thought experiments.
Black people suffer in the US because the US has a ton of laws that harm them, like minimum wage laws (first enacted to stifle competition), drug laws (first enacted on racist grounds to jail minorities), welfare laws (first enacted to segregate minorities in ghettos). But god forbid we blame the State, it must be a "social" problem...
IQ isn't nature, IQ is a testing system. IQ is essentially a test of whether you have been given a high-quality Western education.
People's intelligence does vary, but not as much as you think it does. A lot of it, again, is down to education.
The legal system does not exist in isolation. It is influenced by US society (which is oppressive towards black people).
I am more convinced of Dr James Flynn's arguments than yours regarding IQ because I have gone over some of his work, which contradicts what you are saying. If you point me to some of yours or your sources I'd take a look.