Re:Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]
by rayiner on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @01:09PM
(#14605733)
Why do we need to reward people just for being the winners of the cosmic lottery? If you outperform what would be expected given your parental income, early education, intellect, and various other factors that are the result of mere chance, then maybe you should get a cookie. Otherwise, why celebrate the predictable outputs of predictable inputs?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
[dead]
Re:Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]
by harryh on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @02:29PM
(#14606590)
In modern American society birth rate is negatively correlated with household income[1]. By your standards we should be taking away money from those with desirable traits to encourage them to have more kids.
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
Re:Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]
by programmarchy on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @02:55PM
(#14606854)
To clarify, by 'options for sexual reproduction' I meant a better selection of mates, not the amount of children.
Re:Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]
by rayiner on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @02:29PM
(#14606584)
That's clearly not the reason, because birth rates go down with income: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam....
Re:Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]
by programmarchy on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @02:40PM
(#14606717)
Not sure what you're responding to.
How are you arguing that people who are beautiful don't have more options for mate selection, or that intelligent people aren't more likely to accumulate wealth?
I understand the difference between r vs K selection, but that seems like a non sequitur in response to my previous post.
Re:Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]
by tptacek on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @05:59PM
(#14608323)
Birth rates go down with income. You don't have to reason you way to that from first principles, because it's an empirically observable fact.
Re:Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]
by programmarchy on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @06:56PM
(#14608692)
Right... I'm not disputing that. But it does not relate to my point.
Re:Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]
by tptacek on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @06:59PM
(#14608704)
I think it refutes your point. You claimed that the ability to accumulate wealth is rewarded because those people have the best chance of improving the fitness of the species. But those people are the least likely to do anything to perpetuate the species.
Re:Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]
by programmarchy on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @07:14PM
(#14608819)
I see now. I suppose fitness is an overloaded term, but in terms of survival of a species, I think it'd be difficult to argue that an r-selected reproduction strategy is better than a K-selected reproduction strategy in terms of improving fitness.
That'd be like saying antelope are more adapted to their environment than lions.
In human terms, I'd argue that K-selected children are much more likely to make the types of breakthroughs that will advance the human species e.g. curing disease, scientific discovery, space travel, etc.