Idiocracy Flaws

[Imitation Saccharin]

The removal of the natural predators of mankind does not negate the impact of evolution, it merely forces greater emphasis on the sexual choices made by the discerning gender (in this instance usually female). Thus so long as intelligence is a breed-worthy quality (even if in an ancillary role to other factors) mankind will at the least not become "stupider". Consider, in the opening blurb, although the lower IQ couple has dozens of children, each has an extremely low probability of outcompeting any offspring produced by the high IQ couple (well assuming all intelligent people don't die of heart attacks simultaneously). Therefore, until intelligence stops being a positive breeding characteristic, it is unlikely for "de" evolution to occur. Also that term is stupid.
Second, the process of evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years, and as such a timeframe hasn't passed the only divergent quality between the "idiots" of the future and us would be entirely social/developmental. Thus with the proper schooling Joe could create the next generation to be "normal".
Third, even if sexual selection broke down mankind would still possess outliers, and it is very unlikely Joe would be the smartest man in the world.
Fourth, it is especially unlikely everyone would be fat. Assuming evolution somehow took place at that quick a pace, those with skinnier bodies are today considered more attractive in the mainstream, thus even if intelligence ceased being part of breeding patterns, human beings should have long ago selected those with higher metabolisms and outstripped the fatties already.
Fifth, in what manner is rudeness a survival advantage? If these people are socially isolated TV-children, wouldn't that provoke awe at their rare congregating? And if they congregate frequently (I.e.- the internet couch potato lifestyle has been rebuked) they should not be as naive as depicted, as again assuming magic evolution, the savvy socially would outcompete most others in the acquisition of mates.

*Note- I say the changes are evolutionary in nature as despite learning machines, Joe's re-introduction of common sense, and a positive learning environment fostered by his saving the crops, people remain stupid and apparently suffer even lower IQ scores.
Further the opening blurb is evolutionary in nature, suggesting intelligent people where "outbred".

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

...

I'm sorry, what was the question?

Also, I feel like the word idiocracy is being used improperly here.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

...

I'm sorry, what was the question?

Do you agree? Do you disagree? Do you think Idiocracy's got it right? Why or why not? Do you agree with my complaints?

EDIT: Man, I gotta stop forgetting this part.

 

[Conqueror Kenny]

Also, I feel like the word idiocracy is being used improperly here.

I think he was talking about the film....
But I really think you are reading too much into this. It is a comedy and is not supposed to be taken seriously.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

...

I'm sorry, what was the question?

Do you agree? Do you disagree? Do you think Idiocracy's got it right? Why or why not? Do you agree with my complaints?

Ahh, you're talking about the film Idiocracy. I've actually never even heard of it, but you should really mention that in your opening post. I read the whole thing thinking that you were just unleashing a rant in response to some argument you and a friend had over coffee.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

But I really think you are reading too much into this. It is a comedy and is not supposed to be taken seriously.

The underlying message cannot be ignored! Also it's kinda fun.

 

[Ixus Illwrath]

While the word is mis-used, it follows in stride the point the film was making.

There is a very powerful argument, though, that humanity is completely decadent and ill-equipped for survival over a certain population cap.

So the paradoxical argument is thus: If nature grew us to have the ability to violate nature, isn't that also, by rule, nature, as we are natural beings?

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

There is a very powerful argument, though, that humanity is completely decadent and ill-equipped for survival over a certain population cap.

That makes no sense.
That a population cap was reached is not the point of the movie, merely the then current population was entirely composed of descendants of those who are stupid, and thus they themselves are stupid.
In fact we are given express evidence the population is well fed and cared for until their stupidity causes them to water their crops with salt water.

Decadence was merely the most egregious flaw of the underlying decline in intelligence.

 

[Ixus Illwrath]

There is a very powerful argument, though, that humanity is completely decadent and ill-equipped for survival over a certain population cap.

That makes no sense.
That a population cap was reached is not the point of the movie, merely the then current population was entirely composed of descendants of those who are stupid, and thus they themselves are stupid.
In fact we are given express evidence the population is well fed and cared for until their stupidity causes them to water their crops with salt water.

Decadence was merely the most egregious flaw of the underlying decline in intelligence.

Well, you're talking about a movie vs. a real philosophy. The point they were making was a smaller part of a bigger picture, and it doesn't have anything to do with smart people not having as many babies (thought that was hilarious). It has more to do with humans man-made laws conflicting with those of nature and creating an imbalance from which we can never recover. I.E overpopulation.

The fact that everyone in the future was stupid relates more to culture preventing us from making sacrifices to balance ourselves with nature.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

it doesn't have anything to do with smart people not having as many babies.

Ah so the intro explicitly showing that was a red herring.
And I guess the title, Idiocracy, or Idiot rulership/governance, is a red herring as well?

Its so weird when that happens. You're all "Whoa!" and they're all "Whoa" and I don't have anything witty to close on.

 

[Ixus Illwrath]

it doesn't have anything to do with smart people not having as many babies.

Ah so the intro explicitly showing that was a red herring.
And I guess the title, Idiocracy, or Idiot rulership/governance, is a red herring as well?

Its so weird when that happens. You're all "Whoa!" and they're all "Whoa" and I don't have anything witty to close on.

You are the OP and I don't want to argue what your point was in the first place, I just thought you wanted to discuss that outcome as a serious topic

My point was the movie points out a real fear held by economists and sociologists, albeit for completely different reasons.

 

[CanadianWolverine]

IMHO, the movie has it completely wrong, its still funny to watch because we always get a kick out of 3 Stooges and Looney Toons comedy.

No, the downfall of humanity is not a debatable level of intelligence, it is something that has been used to control the masses significantly longer - fear. Fear is the prevailing human trait that causes us to act irrationally with regards to keeping ourselves in a survivable state. We are told to fear the 'boogie man' aka Other, that thing is out to get us, it isn't human and it doesn't care that we are. We are told to do everything we can to stop said boogie man, but oddly enough, the boogie man is never defeated and if by some chance people stop fearing said boogey man, he adopts a new name.

First it was other tribes, then cities, then states, and then empires. We kill and enslave each other as efficiently as possible, even doing all we can to have each other willingly enter into such a state of mind. No, stupidity can be educated and become productive - it just seems to be a symptom of fear, an excuse to rationalize us killing and enslaving each other. "Surely, the ones best at killing and enslaving each other are the most intelligent!" is the message that seems to come across to me when I see this eugenics disguised as a comedy.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

You are the OP and I don't want to argue what your point was in the first place, I just thought you wanted to discuss that outcome as a serious topic

W..what?
I made the title "Idiocracy flaws".

I am so consistently befuddled by people.

 

[meatloaf231]

I am so confused right now.

 

[Ixus Illwrath]

"Surely, the ones best at killing and enslaving each other are the most intelligent!" is the message that seems to come across to me when I see this eugenics disguised as a comedy.

There, I'm not very good at simplifying things

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

But we have a definition for intelligence. It isn't that.

So...I don't get the point?

And the idiots are infinitely more violent then Joe.

 

[electric discordian]

I personally agree with the Soylent Green school of thought which states that as technology increases and medcine gets better the survival rate increases. This creates an inherent problem, there is a finite amount of food on the planet as the population increases growing room decreases as more lodging needs to be created.

Also those who would at one time not be able to have children due to genetic abnormalities are able too, we as a race are short circuiting the safe guards that mother nature put in place.

Also lets not forget that humanities total intelligence has been increased by any of the leaps and bounds made, we are still fearful of new technology despite being ruled by it. We have not evolved past the level of animals, just about ten percent are genetic abnormalities who create things that give us the illusion of being better than we are.

Most of the genetic abnormalities we pilory and usually destroy....