Does Social Darwinism Promote Intelligence?

The rich or successful have always advocated the "survival of the fittest."

In the biological sense, it is the ability to reproduce and survive.

Survival is dependent on intelligence, but is reproduction also dependent on intelligence?

Do smart people necessarily pass down their intelligence in our society?

I have noticed that smart people have 2 or less children or have no children at all. On the other hand, I've known a rural couple with no job with more than 12 children.

If that's the case then who is the fittest?

Am I fit because I'm successful? Or am I fit because I can pass down my genes?

The lowest common denominator always wins out in the end.

The few on the top can pretend to control the mass on the bottom but sooner or later the bottom's growth far surpasses that of the top.

That's one of the reasons a middle-class of sorts is so important. It acts as a buffer of sorts filtering the dependence of the base and the control of the top.

Personally, I'd rather my life not be influenced in any way by the hyper-procreating trash cramming 4 generations of Travis' and Sally-Jo's into a double-wide nor the self-righteous oligarchs pretending to know how I should be living my life and using the power of money and influence to birth legislation and policy which I must live under. Likewise I do not wish to influence, impose upon or have any affect whatsoever on the lives of others.

I dont imagine I will ever be free from either influence. Such is life as man has made it.

In the end the Sally-Jo's and Propecia's will win out. Just like rats and roaches. Their ability to multiply at will and eat garbage makes them superior.

Anybody up for some McDonalds and Boone's Farm fueled passion?

The people who know who they TRULY are have a tendency to want to profit from it by manipulating the Weak.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by juzchilln]

There is a brilliant movie called Idiocracy pretty much based on this thought, I highly recommend it.