I entirely share your viewpoint that inequality is an inevitable byproduct of human heterogeneity and the quest ought to be for equality of opportunities. Wage inequality is important in generating the proper economic incentives. Yet, it is quite apparent that excessive wealth inequality adversely affects ‘equality of opportunities’ in society and is therefore harmful for economic efficiency and social cohesiveness. In particular, wealth inequality is associated with inefficient education and investment decisions of the poorer segments of society, adversely affecting the allocation of talents across occupations. Furthermore, it adversely affects social cohesiveness and is associated with civil unrest and therefore loss in productivity.
However, since nations are collective of individuals, unless nations differ systematically in the composition of their population, inequality across nations is not an inevitable byproduct of human heterogeneity. Greater equality across nations is therefore entirely feasible.
Unfortunately, the same welfare state that acts to blunt the most severe effects of such economic efficiency tends to yield clearly dysgenic effects on society as a whole. The successful (higher average IQ) tend to have few children by choice whereas the great unwashed (lower average IQ) gain social and economic benefits for producing children. That's NOT a recipe for success in the long term.
Very true. So how does one adjust the social and economic benefits for producing children? As others have pointed out, when women are educated and when wealth grows, birth rates decline.
Declining birth rates are not necessarily a good thing.
Certainly TFRs in the 5+ range harken back to an age where infant mortality and lack of birth control pretty much kept women pregnant more or less continually until they either died in childbirth, imposed sexless marraiges, or aged out of their reproductive years.
However, TFRs below replacement (2.1) are now routinely encountered in Western (and Westernized) countries around the world. This is a first in historical memory—never have nations survived and prospered with TFRs in the 1.2-1.5 range. People need to ask themselves whether vast armies of HR functionaries and office drone(tte)s are really worth the end of civilization.
Note as well the long-overdue reconsideration of the Sexual Revolution now underway focusing on the effects of freeing women to pursue their innate sexual proclivities. Riding the carousel of "bad boys"—serial dalliances with non-committing alpha males attracted by peak female sexual allure—during what SHOULD be their prime reproductive years thereby destroying their ability to pair bond with an average male, then aging out of the sexual marketplace in their 30s to become rejected and embittered cat ladies with futures of decades alone without family is a bleak and desolate prospect indeed. For all of us.
I entirely share your viewpoint that inequality is an inevitable byproduct of human heterogeneity and the quest ought to be for equality of opportunities. Wage inequality is important in generating the proper economic incentives. Yet, it is quite apparent that excessive wealth inequality adversely affects ‘equality of opportunities’ in society and is therefore harmful for economic efficiency and social cohesiveness. In particular, wealth inequality is associated with inefficient education and investment decisions of the poorer segments of society, adversely affecting the allocation of talents across occupations. Furthermore, it adversely affects social cohesiveness and is associated with civil unrest and therefore loss in productivity.
However, since nations are collective of individuals, unless nations differ systematically in the composition of their population, inequality across nations is not an inevitable byproduct of human heterogeneity. Greater equality across nations is therefore entirely feasible.
Good comments, Karl.
Unfortunately, the same welfare state that acts to blunt the most severe effects of such economic efficiency tends to yield clearly dysgenic effects on society as a whole. The successful (higher average IQ) tend to have few children by choice whereas the great unwashed (lower average IQ) gain social and economic benefits for producing children. That's NOT a recipe for success in the long term.
Very true. So how does one adjust the social and economic benefits for producing children? As others have pointed out, when women are educated and when wealth grows, birth rates decline.
Declining birth rates are not necessarily a good thing.
Certainly TFRs in the 5+ range harken back to an age where infant mortality and lack of birth control pretty much kept women pregnant more or less continually until they either died in childbirth, imposed sexless marraiges, or aged out of their reproductive years.
However, TFRs below replacement (2.1) are now routinely encountered in Western (and Westernized) countries around the world. This is a first in historical memory—never have nations survived and prospered with TFRs in the 1.2-1.5 range. People need to ask themselves whether vast armies of HR functionaries and office drone(tte)s are really worth the end of civilization.
Note as well the long-overdue reconsideration of the Sexual Revolution now underway focusing on the effects of freeing women to pursue their innate sexual proclivities. Riding the carousel of "bad boys"—serial dalliances with non-committing alpha males attracted by peak female sexual allure—during what SHOULD be their prime reproductive years thereby destroying their ability to pair bond with an average male, then aging out of the sexual marketplace in their 30s to become rejected and embittered cat ladies with futures of decades alone without family is a bleak and desolate prospect indeed. For all of us.