Stocktrader

Hi, first post here.

I was reading some data that shows that death rates in the lower economic levels in the United States are 2 to 300% higher than the upper economic levels. This was across all age groups, if I recall it corectly.

Would that tend to have an evolutionary effect on us? If so what kind of effect do you think it would have?

Automaton

Competing for resources (in this case, healthcare) is nothing new. But for several reasons in this case it will remain in roughly equilibrium, so no actual evolution occurs.

Godless Dave

Stocktrader, I don't think there's a biological reason why rich people become rich, so it wouldn't be an example of evolution.

Automaton

Godless Dave: Ever hear of cultural evolution?

ex-robot

Creationists seem to think so! See below:

<a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-333.htm" target="_blank">Darwin's Influence on Ruthless LaissezFaire Capitalism</a>

xr

Indifference

Actually, my opinion seems to be quite different than the rest of you.

Why not? Aren't rich people simply better able to adapt to their surrounding environment, in this case it is the economic environment? Obviously there are exeptions to the rule like less intelligent people inheritting a shitload of money. Or conversly, briliant people born in poverty. But, an intelligent person, regardless of where they are born in the financial structure, will be better able to adapt and figure out what it takes to survive in a capitalist economy.

Another side note. Not that I'm in favor of getting rid of financial support, but would that be an evolutionary hinderance? If we support those who do not adapt to the environment, isn't that stopping evolution in it's tracks. Of course, for this argument to be true, we must assume my first argument is as well. We won't do that just yet. And besides, like I said, I'm in no way suggesting we get rid of financial and health support programs.

Godless Dave

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a code of conduct. So, yes, we might well be messing with evolution by helping poor people. On the other hand, maybe a society that takes care of its disadvantaged members has a survival advantage over societies that don't.

Godless Dave

Yes, but for the creationists' sake I try not to confuse it with biological evolution. They're confused enough as it is.

Stocktrader

Still trying to figure this board out so forgive any structual problems here.

I found this while looking arround earlier:

As would be expected, the same patterns emerged when the measure was income. Median income was $19,000 for the middle IQ range, for the brightest it was $30,000, and for the dullest it was $7,500. What is more, since these people are still comparatively young, the income gap will grow. Particularly for those in the brighter groups, incomes can be expected to increase--in some cases vastly--as they get older, while those in occupations lower in the Duncan scale cannot expect such increases later in life. The relative importance of IQ in determining income appears to be similar for all ethnic groups.

<a href="http://www.aei.org/cs/cs7824.htm" target="_blank">Income Inequality and IQ</a>

It seems to me that if you have a tendency for Higher IQs to be in the top wage catagories and a lower death rate in those catagories it would make a difference over time.

Or am I just not getting it?

Godless Dave

Stocktrader, I don't think IQ is based only on biology. Kids whose parents don't read to them or value education, or kids who live in terrible school districts, are going to wind up with lower IQs.