I'm not argueing the paris hilton is smart, but she was savvy enough to make millions out of being a b list celebrity. And I don't think her parents came directly from war torn bosnia, I think her parents were already rich when she was born?
That was my point. Her "success" was due to her being a rich party girl at an age where most women are going to college or trying to make ends meet on their own. Had she been born in Bosnia her life would have been very different. This idea of the "cream" rising is ridiculous. Life is hard, no complaining about that, but the idea that people are successful based on their genetic intelligence is simply not true on either side.
Actually their is a genetic correlation for intelligence. I was watching some study on early man. According to this show the human race was on the verge of extinction at one time because of stupidity.
You missed my point. I have no doubt that to some extent (much debate about how much), intelligence is heritable. What I was saying was that science has not found those precise genes that would determine intelligence. Which means that we lack the ability to have genetic testing for intelligence either of people or their potential offspring. Absent of that, how can there possibly be forced sterilization for people based on your criterion of not being smart enough?
My whole argument is that by and large the stupidest people on the planet are producing the most offspring, unnaturally, because our economic and social constructs allow them too. Whereas in nature, left to fend for themselves, only the strongest and smartest pass on their genetic material. To me this equals that the human race is de evolving or at least at an evolutionary halt.
Again, you are misunderstanding biology. Forced selective breeding is not the same as evolution. Natural selection is not a process towards perfection. A classic example is the peppered moth which traditionally had light coloration which helped it avoid detection from predators among the light lichens in its habitat. A mutation caused some to be darkly colored which made them more easily discovered and eaten. But after the industrial revolution, when the trees were covered with black soot, the population of these dark moths skyrocketed. They weren't smarter, faster or more intelligent, simply better suited to their environment.
Likewise with sickle cell anemia which is a debilitating condition caused by a mutation in red blood cells, causing them to be inefficient carriers of oxygen. Yet an individual who is heterozygous (inheriting one normal gene and one sickle cell gene) have misshapen blood cells which still function but provide protection from malaria from mosquitoes. Again, not an advancement, but a better ability to survive in a malaria stricken environment.
From a biological perspective, any animal that can produce large amounts of viable offspring that can survive to procreate is actually succeeding. If anything, your views are the social constructs.
