Human Stupidity Leads to Poverty--Smarter People Needed

Oscar Wilde said "there is no sin except stupidity." Voltaire said “The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity." Einstein said, “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.” Source.

Poverty and stupidity--like hand and glove. Some countries experience widespread poverty temporarily--postwar Germany, Japan, and South Korea come to mind--then rebound out of poverty when conditions improve. Other countries such as Haiti are always impoverished, regardless of external conditions, opportunities, and internal resources. Then there are countries such as Zimbabwe which were once much better off, but now are among the most impoverished nations on earth. Then there is China, which improved its material circumstances by backing away from its communist command economy.

International investors would be happy to take advantage of low worker wages in these perennially impoverished nations if they could expect a reasonable return on investment. Investors dealing with poor countries expect a certain degree of corruption and graft in dealing with government officials. There will also be problems with political instability, and the ever-present threat of nationalisation of the industry, as occurred recently in Bolivia to the natural gas fields. This type of government behaviour virtually guarantees that investors will stay away.

If, in addition, there is a shortage of trainable workers--if there are not enough people in the potential workforce intelligent enough to learn the skills and technologies involved in the industry--the situation is hopeless. A technological society requires an average population IQ of at least 90 (with 100 being the internationally standardised mean) to maintain itself. If the population average (mean) IQ is less than 90, all attempts to bring the nation as a whole into the modern technological world, are doomed. Consider that a hypothesis, that can be disproved by the presentation of contradictory examples. . . . . . .? . . . . . .?.......

The book IQ and the Wealth of Nations discusses this issue, and makes comparisons of average IQ between different nations. The authors admit that political and economic factors can artificially hold down a nation's wealth, even in the presence of high average IQ. Conversely, in a nation of relatively low average population IQ, an enlightened market economy can raise the nation's wealth above what it would be if the economy were more centrally commanded. Likewise, oppressive and/or unstable political regimes will depress a nation's wealth, even where the population average IQ is average or above.

I consider IQ and the Wealth of Nations to be a starting point for discussion, rather than an authoritative reference and documentary. For example, what happens when maternal and childhood nutrition is improved in an impoverished nation? The average IQ should improve, and in the presence of an enlightened political structure and economy, the wealth of the nation should also improve. This is a worthy goal.

What if after optimising nutrition for mothers and children, significant population IQ average differences remain between nations? Then if it is clear that the nations with lower population average IQs are suffering because of it, the reasons for the differences should be determined and steps taken to improve the intelligence of those nations on the lower end.

Of course, once you go beyond nutritional optimisation in trying to improve intelligence, it is likely that most nations will want to participate in the improving of their citizen's IQ--even those nations that already have average or above average population IQs. In that case, it is more than likely that your intervention will result in even greater inequality of average IQs than were present originally.

You see the problem. An IQ "central command" would be very much like an economic "central command." The unintended consequences might be worse than what you started with. The alternative--a "market approach" to increasing IQ, would result in wealthier nations that already have higher average IQs gaining access to intelligence augmenting technologies before poorer nations, with the technology "trickling down" at a rate slow enough to make most people unhappy. An interesting problem. The consequences from doing nothing may be severe.

I will discuss more on this subject later.