Solution to world hunger

[Govind]

Premises:

• Intelligence is a heritable trait.
• Intelligence leads to economically and technologically successful human populations.
• Traits may change based on events which favor selecting for them:
  
  

  1. If a farmer uses a pesticide on his crops, only those insects who are genetically immune will survive.
  2. The survivors reproduce, and a trait that was once uncommon is now universal to this population.
• Traits may be artificially selected for. Horses were domesticated thousands of years ago, and are now docile, obedient, and generally well-behaved. By comparing that to a wild subspecies, it is obvious that the selection caused profound changes in horses today.

[youtube]ufzI1dnd0Uw[/youtube]
[youtube]Kvb963pMAXk[/youtube]
[youtube]rFlXyu6fanw[/youtube]
[youtube]1BL7p8vyB9E[/youtube]

Now, if we can come up with a solid, infallible, indicator of intelligence, like an IQ test which is 100% accurate, and determine a minimum 'acceptable' score, then the following law should be applied to populations that need it:

• If your IQ is above the minimum acceptable score, you are encouraged to reproduce; <benefits here>
• If your IQ is below the minimum acceptable score, you are not encouraged (or disallowed) to reproduce; <consequences here>

<Artificial bottleneck ensues>

I regret thinking like this, it reminds me of other attempts to 'cleanse' populations in this century, but I feel that what I have thought up is not inhuman; no one is hurt, and some parts of the world really need a leg-up.

 

[Govind]

It's not a matter of intelligence. No matter how fast every professional athlete runs, one will always lose. And the loser is the one who lives in relative poverty.

Being unable to sustain oneself or one's offspring is not 'relative' poverty, it IS poverty. Have you SEEN the worst of Africa or India?

 

Being unable to sustain oneself or one's offspring is not 'relative' poverty, it IS poverty. Have you SEEN the worst of Africa or India?

Most of (white) America has a lower IQ than most of China. (China is about 110, America about 100.)

The cause of poverty is not intelligence. The cause of poverty is quite simple: politics. The lack of correct political science (law) applied throughout the land causes poverty. Or even more simply put: the return to bruteforce -- the political means -- always prompts the slide into poverty. No one can produce if there are a band of sanctioned thieves murderers and liars at the apex of society, be it the church, the "king", or the state.

 

Again, there is far more than enough fertile ground on Earth to supply humans. If organizations didn't pretend to own this land and viciously attack anyone who tries to improve it without their permission, world hunger wouldn't be a problem.

Tbh you don't even need fertile ground, you just need people to leave you alone long enough to make and sell products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroponics

 

[Govind]

Most of (white) America has a lower IQ than most of China. (China is about 110, America about 100.)

The cause of poverty is not intelligence. The cause of poverty is quite simple: politics. The lack of correct political science (law) applied throughout the land causes poverty. Or even more simply put: the return to bruteforce -- the political means -- always prompts the slide into poverty. No one can produce if there are a band of sanctioned thieves murderers and liars at the apex of society, be it the church, the "king", or the state.

If we accept that government is an artificial cap on a society's fullest potential, then intelligence is a hard cap. Can you name any first world country that doesn't have an average IQ >= 100? That government may limit people doesn't necessarily exclude other reasons that a society is backwards, third-world, and unable to feed itself.

 

If we accept that government is an artificial cap on a society's fullest potential, then intelligence is a hard cap. Can you name any first world country that doesn't have an average IQ >= 100? That government may limit people doesn't necessarily exclude other reasons that a society is backwards, third-world, and unable to feed itself.

If they are unable to feed themselves then how are they still in existence? Aid programs have only been around for 50 years.

 

[Govind]

If they are unable to feed themselves then how are they still in existence? Aid programs have only been around for 50 years.

It was hyperbole. Fine. By saying 'able to feed (one)self', I meant being able to feed oneself daily and fully.

The first explorers in East Africa wrote that they were shocked by the nudity, paganism, cannibalism, and poverty of the natives. Other content omitted to prevent offending people.... Sound familiar? All just a reflection of racism? Maybe so, but these examples are not from 19th Century European colonialists or KKK hate literature. They come from the Muslim Arabs who first entered Black Africa over 1,200 years ago (in the 700s), as detailed in Bernard Lewis&#8217;s 1990 book, Race and Slavery in the Middle East.

The above is an excerpt from a written work of the speaker in the above videos, J Phillipe Rushton.

Is there any country in the world with an intelligent population that's starving?

 

[KerokeroCola]

I'd say the real roots of world hunger is an economical cause rather than a political cause. Economics and politics are often interlinked so tightly that they are the same entity; however, I think that hunger is more elemental than politics, thus the conclusion that it is economical. Why? If you have no money, you can't buy food.

In the modern forms of economics, it is almost always necessary to have a "lower class" of people to produce the basal level of goods. We (the US, Canada, Great Britain, etc.) achieve this by exporting labor to the poor country. This produces goods at very low prices, which sustains the higher standard of living for everybody in the "developed" country.

This inherently causes poverty. I understand that supply-and-demand of jobs inherent creates the low wages of third-world workers, but if they rise up, somebody else will have to fall to support their new wealth.

 

[Rabbi]

Complete failure of a plan, this goes against "human rights" not to mention tremendous amount of effort needed, to make sure this all goes to plan.

 

[The Fat Controller]

If we accept that government is an artificial cap on a society's fullest potential, then intelligence is a hard cap. Can you name any first world country that doesn't have an average IQ >= 100?

That government may limit people doesn't necessarily exclude other reasons that a society is backwards, third-world, and unable to feed itself.

There are lots of first world countries with average IQs in the 90s. Last time I checked the USA was 98.

Malnourishment influences the brain development of fetuses. I think that environmental factor matters more than race-based genetics.

EDIT: To illustrate what I mean:

EDIT: Again, to be clear, average sub-Saharan IQ is about 70, whereas genetically similar black Americans average 89. There environmental factors outweigh genetics.
When it comes to success in the real world, environmental factors are far more important than genetics. If you live in a country with political problems that has a nasty climate and no reliable water supply, then you're stuffed no matter what your IQ is.

 

[KerokeroCola]

Australia has an average IQ of 60, and is one of the two lowest regions? I'd like to see the source of that picture's data... Last time I checked, IQ of 60 means full-blown mentally disabled.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Australia has an average IQ of 60, and is one of the two lowest regions? I'd like to see the source of that picture's data... Last time I checked, IQ of 60 means full-blown mentally disabled.

Oh come on.

The picture has the source written on it, and is used by and repeatedly referred to by the lecturer in the OP's clips.

It even says on the picture that it's dealing with indigenous races... Australian Aborigines, for instance.