@tehy-- you seriously do not understand the theory of evolution.
Evolutionary success: Having more offspring, having offspring with higher chances to produce their own-- spreading your own progeny is the bottom line. It's the bottom line of life-- the bottom line for every type of life form in existence. Everything else, doesn't matter in terms of evolutionary success.
Keep this in mind. This is the only type of "success" used in my previous statements.
My argument: Humans have gained great success by evolving superior intellect and cooperation-- let's call it level X1 intelligence, the human average.
At some point though, a higher degree of intelligence, X2, seemed to do the exact opposite, and be very unsuccessful at reproduction. Intelligence higher than X1 seems to be an unfit trait for evolution.
The problem with just having 5-6 kids and calling it a day is that, when you're poor-or even in general-and you have 5-6 kids, then a lot of them are less likely to succeed.
No, you're wrong. There is little or no support for the idea that they are less likely to succeed. If 5-6 kids are born in America, the odds that they will survive to reproductive age and have their own offspring has literally almost nothing to do with what social class they are born into, or how many siblings.
A drug-dealing/using gas station worker living in a slum is just as likely (if not more likely) to have children as a banker / lawyer / doctor. Through some combination of welfare, community support, and the general stability of society, the odds that the drug-dealer-daddy kid will NOT die before the age of 18 and WILL somehow find a partner and reproduce, are just as good (if not better) than a lawyer's private school brat also not dying and having offspring.
If anything, in a 1st world country, people of poor education/upbringing are more likely to reproduce, and reproduce in greater numbers.
The really smart people SHOULD do that, but stupid people want to have "Their own kids", as if that really matters. Once you've had a kid for a while, he's yours.
Not according to evolution. Offspring is only yours, and you were only reproductively successful if you birthed your own progeny with your own DNA.
Remember: The crux is that Smart People often don't act smartly to reproduce their own DNA. Therefore,
intelligence is not a self-perpetuating trait genetically.
It's an inhibiting trait, as if you found a gene to create massive bulls with twice the strength, but completely unable to get a hard-on.
If you, like many intelligent people, buy into the idea that a child without your DNA is your own child, than you are proving my very point. High intelligence (higher than current average intelligence), doesn't seem to be a successful trait in human evolution.
And i think evolution wired us to be differently successful. In a lot of ways, evolution wires you to have the best kids you can have, and you'll notice that creatures like elephants don't just spam babies, because babies take a lot of nurturing. Humans are the same way-our society functions on 18 years of being taken care of by adults. Even if you throw that aside, it's at least 10 years or so.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
The point I'm getting at is that the behavior demonstrated by highly intelligent people isn't optimal for evolutionary success.
Evolutionary success is having the most progeny.
High intelligence is most often averse to producing a lot of progeny.
Therefore, high intelligence is not a trait that is evolutionarily successful.
