# Idiocracy: Is it plausible?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [October 25, 2007, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947 "2007-10-25T12:06:44Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/1 "2007-10-25T12:06:44Z")
I rented the relatively unheard-of Mike Judge/Luke Wilson film [_Idiocracy_](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) the other night, and rather enjoyed it.
The edited highlights of the plot are that, 500 years into the future, everyone has become stupid because of generations of, well, stupid people having kids while “Smart” people didn’t do so for various reasons (market, work, etc).
Long story short, the idea is that we as a species are getting dumber, and- if something isn’t done about it- may eventually end up at the point where we’re watering our crops with Gatorade because “It’s got what plants crave- It’s got Electrolytes!”
The movie is, of course, satire, but I think it does make an interesting topic for discussion. I know we all like to sit in metaphorical leather-backed chairs in the metaphorical Study smoking metaphorical bubble pipes whilst drinking metaphorical brandy and discussing the dumbing down of society, but ultimately I don’t think we as a civilisation are getting stupider. Sure, we like to point to all the signs of “dumbing down” in our society- warning labels on cups of coffee etc, but the fact is we’re posting on a messageboard that only exists in cyberspace, made possible by the connection of millions of computers through advanced telecommunication networks… something not possible if we were a society of morons and imbeciles, in short (no jokes about your average internet user, please!).
I can’t help but wonder if the Romans sat around lamenting that the plebs spent too much time handing around at the Forum, pimping out their Chariots with lapis lazuli trim and silver-plated rims, and obsessing over the Gladiator Matches and so on, or whether the commoners during the Renaissance used to give people like Da Vinci wedgies for “Drawing complicated shit and talking about technical crap” instead of getting involved in wars against the Venetians or the Turks or whoever it was fashionable to wage war on at the time.
In short, I think there have always been dumb people throughout history, but I don’t think they’re increasing in numbers in such a way that, given 500 years from now, we’ll see a situation where _everyone_ is a moron… Or will we?
What do you think?
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/2 "2007-10-25T12:44:32Z")
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
The edited highlights of the plot are that, 500 years into the future, everyone has become stupid because of generations of, well, stupid people having kids while “Smart” people didn’t do so for various reasons (market, work, etc).
[/QUOTE]
That’s more an example of American class bigotry than it is the source of humanity’s future stupidification. It’s the _poor_ who tend to have more children; the assumption behind the movie’s premise ( and similar works like the old story _The Marching Morons_ ), is that poor = stupid.
And the other problem with that idea is that **long** before 500 years we’ll be able to correct any genetic slide towards stupidity with genetic engineering. Even if we never try to improve ourselves, simply correcting genetic defects should create an increase, not a decrease in average human intelligence.
---
### Author:  [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/3 "2007-10-25T14:32:51Z")
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
In short, I think there have always been dumb people throughout history, but I don’t think they’re increasing in numbers in such a way that, given 500 years from now, we’ll see a situation where _everyone_ is a moron… Or will we?
What do you think?
[/QUOTE]
Nah. The global intelligence trend seems definitely upward from my perspective.
I am a little concerned about the US, however, which seems to be going through a spate of glorifying anti-intellectualism, lauding those who accept what they’re told without much investigation, who cast aspersions on progressive and independent thinkers by attacking their academic credentials, accomplishments, or affiliations, and who are guided and, in general, successfully affected by emotional rather than intellectual stimuli. I do wonder how much damage this will do in the long term, especially if the US continues what I see as a bent toward social isolationism, but eh, that’s just me.
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/4 "2007-10-25T14:46:58Z")
Is Idiocracy leadership by idiots? If so, [we have one now.](http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks24oct25,0,7749742.column?coll=la-util-opinion-commentary)
---
### Author:  [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/5 "2007-10-25T14:50:43Z")
The idea in _Idiocracy_ isn’t even a new theory. As has been pointed out, the same idea is in C. M. Kornbluth’s story “The Marching Morons.” Furthermore, it isn’t true that average intelligence is decreasing. The Flynn Effect shows just the opposite:
> **[Flynn effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)**
>
> The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores that were measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century. When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, Test ...
---
### Author:  [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/6 "2007-10-25T15:09:47Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
That’s more an example of American class bigotry than it is the source of humanity’s future stupidification. It’s the _poor_ who tend to have more children; the assumption behind the movie’s premise ( and similar works like the old story _The Marching Morons_ ), **is that poor = stupid**.
And the other problem with that idea is that **long** before 500 years we’ll be able to correct any genetic slide towards stupidity with genetic engineering. Even if we never try to improve ourselves, simply correcting genetic defects should create an increase, not a decrease in average human intelligence.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe poor=stupid. Primarily because I was brought up on welfare. 🙂 However, I do believe stupid people are more likely to be poor because they make shitty decisions. If the stupid are over represented in the poor population they are more likely to breed faster since the poor population breeds faster… In any case we do need to get on the eugenics pretty damn skippy. I want genius kids that can see into the infrared and super jump.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/7 "2007-10-25T15:13:44Z")
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
I want genius kids that can see into the infrared and super jump.
[/QUOTE]
The latter two parts might not be physically possible – genetics can’t change the basic limitations of flesh – but I see no reason not to try! 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/8 "2007-10-25T16:52:18Z")
It is not necessary for the entire population to be intelligent in order to make progress. In fact, a well-stratified distribution of alphas through epsilons is more likely to be successful, as Aldous Huxley has already pointed out.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/9 "2007-10-25T17:24:17Z")
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
It is not necessary for the entire population to be intelligent in order to make progress. In fact, a well-stratified distribution of alphas through epsilons is more likely to be successful, as Aldous Huxley has already pointed out.
[/QUOTE]
I never bought that part of _BNW_ . . . Nay, let it be all alphas! All relentlessly **struggling** to be in charge, to have the Top Slot! Let them **scheme** and **war** and **kill** each other – kill off the weak or incompetent or unlucky or timorous or ethical, producing **smarter** and **stronger** and **meaner** and **fiercer** alphas in every generation until at last there emerges a true **master race** fit to **conquer the stars!** BWAA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAA!
---
### Author:  [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/10 "2007-10-25T17:31:11Z")
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
I am a little concerned about the US, however, which seems to be going through a spate of glorifying anti-intellectualism, lauding those who accept what they’re told without much investigation, who cast aspersions on progressive and independent thinkers by attacking their academic credentials, accomplishments, or affiliations, and who are guided and, in general, successfully affected by emotional rather than intellectual stimuli. I do wonder how much damage this will do in the long term, especially if the US continues what I see as a bent toward social isolationism, but eh, that’s just me.
[/QUOTE]
Came in here to write this. Word for word, even!
ETA: I don’t think it matters necessarily if there are more or less idiots for one team of scientists to find a cure for cancer. What matters is who does the decision-making as far as funding research goes, and whether the general public can be dumb enough to be convinced that cancer shouldn’t be cured (e.g. it’s a god’s will, it’s already been cured but drug companies are hiding the cure for some weird profit-driven reason so why give them more funding?, etc.)
---
### Author:  [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/11 "2007-10-25T18:08:08Z")
Civilization tends to protect the weakest of its herd thereby stopping evolution in its tracks.
Will we get dumber? No.
Will we evolve? No.
---
### Author:  [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/12 "2007-10-25T18:10:59Z")
We continue to evolve in spite of ourselves.
---
### Author:  [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/13 "2007-10-25T18:15:33Z")
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
Civilization tends to protect the weakest of its herd thereby stopping evolution in its tracks.
Will we get dumber? No.
Will we evolve? No.
[/QUOTE]
But the premise of Idiocracy is that stupidity results in greater fitness (i.e. more kids), which leads to evolution.
---
### Author:  [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/14 "2007-10-25T18:51:39Z")
Lets try this again.
---
### Author:  [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/15 "2007-10-25T19:04:00Z")
[QUOTE=athelas]
But the premise of Idiocracy is that stupidity results in greater fitness (i.e. more kids), which leads to evolution.
[/QUOTE]
In order to evolve into a race of stupid the stupid must have disproportinately more children, not the undereducated, just the stupid. That I believe is a false premise.
And **Onomatopoeia** , you’re right that we’ll change no matter what. I used the word ‘evolve’ but meant improve\*.
-
- Not the Nietzsche definition, but the way Homo Sapiens are an improvement on H. heidelbergensis
---
### Author:  [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/16 "2007-10-25T19:15:13Z")
Actually Idiocracy is a satire of the state of contemprary USA as seen through its popular culture.
It makes fun of today’s:
Over abundence of advertising, everywhere
Reliance on blind belief of techenology without use of ones own judgement (If you have had to deal with someone to correct a banking error or information glitch you’ll know what I mean, the default response is usually you are lying the machine is correct)
Ability to accept “common wisdom” without Critically thinking about it.
Insults of those who are noticibly different from teh herd especially if they appear intellectual. (Nothing new here)
Media playing down to the lowest common denominator rather than challenge or stimulate.
Need to immediatly gratify without thought to consequences.
ETC ETC…
As to whether society would dumb down because of genetics… I doubt it. Poor isn’t the same as stupid… Though culturally we are taught that poor folks are lazier and more stupid than anyone who has wealth. I’m sure there are many people who, given the right motivation and means, aren’t as unintellegent as they act.
---
### Author:  [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/17 "2007-10-25T19:45:58Z")
[QUOTE=kingpengvin]
Actually Idiocracy is a satire of the state of contemprary USA as seen through its popular culture.
It makes fun of today’s:
Over abundence of advertising, everywhere
Reliance on blind belief of techenology without use of ones own judgement (If you have had to deal with someone to correct a banking error or information glitch you’ll know what I mean, the default response is usually you are lying the machine is correct)
Ability to accept “common wisdom” without Critically thinking about it.
Insults of those who are noticibly different from teh herd especially if they appear intellectual. (Nothing new here)
Media playing down to the lowest common denominator rather than challenge or stimulate.
Need to immediatly gratify without thought to consequences.
ETC ETC…
[/QUOTE]
…so basically the Foxnewsification of society.
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/18 "2007-10-25T20:23:51Z")
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
Civilization tends to protect the weakest of its herd thereby stopping evolution in its tracks.
[/QUOTE]
So you’re claiming that social species are all evolutionary dead ends? That’s a new one.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [October 25, 2007, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/19 "2007-10-25T21:41:56Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay]
So you’re claiming that social species are all evolutionary dead ends? That’s a new one.
[/QUOTE]
He said “civilization”, not “social species”. And it’s not a new argument, and probably has a lot of truth to it. For example, being nearsighted, I’d be screwed as a Stone Age hunter. We are, in general, physically pathetic compared to animals; it generally doesn’t matter because civilization and our intelligence makes us more than a match for animals. On the other hand, until recently neither our intelligence nor our civilization could do much about disease, and our immune system is just as strong as an animals; it fits the pattern.
---
### Author:  [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)
#### Post date: [October 26, 2007, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947/20 "2007-10-26T00:52:12Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
He said “civilization”, not “social species”. And it’s not a new argument, and probably has a lot of truth to it.
[/quote]
Not much.
> [@](#):
>
> For example, being nearsighted, I’d be screwed as a Stone Age hunter.
If you were a stone age HG you wouldn’t _be_ nearsighted unless you are in late middle age. Nearsightedness in the young seems to be largely if not entirely attributable to lack of use of distance vision. HGs did and do develop nearsightedness in middle age but that certainly never resulted in them being “screwed”.
> [@](#):
>
> We are, in general, physically pathetic compared to animals..
That comment simply has no basis in reality. Humans are physically amazing mammals. At over 50% skeletal muscle mass a human male is one of the most heavily muscled mammals on the planet. Humans have impressive lifting abilities coupled with impressive hauling abilities and incredible speed, a trait seen only in a few cat species. We are astounding distance runners, have the ability to climb, swim or burrow as we need. We have the best vision of any mammal species . Humans are physically astounding and will put any other species to shame in almost any field. Any species will surpass humanity physcially in one or two fields, but no other species will surpass humanity in a majority of fields. Physically humans are the supreme generalist species and no other species comes close.
To suggest that humans are physically pathetic compasred to other aniamls simply demonstrates alack of knowledge of the physical capcities of humans and other animals.
> [@](#):
>
> it generally doesn’t matter because civilization and our intelligence makes us more than a match for animals.
Civilisation has nothing to do with it. Humans were match for any other animal 40, 000 years ago by which time we were already preying on whales and elephants.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiocracy-is-it-plausible/423947.md?page=2)