Idiocracy (movie)

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Idiocracy/70028899
http://www.amazon.com/Idiocracy-Luke-Wilson/dp/B000K7VHOG/

I haven't seen this film for a while, but it made a lasting impression on me when I did see it. It's perhaps one of the most meaningful slapstick comedies I've ever watched. To think such a deep message can come from a comedy film is shocking.

The intro contains the golden message, so I'll start with that. During the intro a fake case study is shown entitled "Trevor & Carol Vs. Clevon". The film's conclusion is Trevor and Carol (both smart individuals) don't reproduce, consequently Clevon (someone of below average intelligence) outproduces both Trevor and Carol with his own genes. Therefore the world get's dumbed down by Clevon's genes.

I agree with the conclusion that the world is getting dumbed down. However I disagree with how the "case study" shows the world getting dumbed down.

Today's reality is closer to Clevon having sex with Carol and Carol rejecting Trevor. Idiocracy portrays deevolution as all intelligent people choosing not to mate vs all dumb people mating exponentially. The truth is the best women are throwing away their genes on the worst men. To put it another way, the case study involves four groups of people: smart men, smart women, dumb men, dumb women. The case study says smart men and smart women are choosing not to mate. But the reality is of those four categories: smart men, smart women, dumb men, dumb women - only smart men are being left out of evolution. Three fourths of the people involved in mating are still having children: smart women, dumb men, dumb women.

The next part that stood out was the narrator saying "a process, which had once favored the noblest traits of man now began to favor different traits". This one line contains within it the hypothetical extinction of the human race via sexual selection. I once watched this documentary on sexual selection where a certain breed of elk became extinct due to a similar fate of sexual selection. I believe this breed was the Irish Elk. The Irish Elk became extinct because the female elks constantly desired bigger male antlers. However antlers really only served one function: impressing females. The larger antlers didn't serve as protection against predators and were mal-adapted to food gathering due to being cumbersome.

As Wikipedia states:

Wikipedia wrote

they were morphologically ill-suited for combat between males, but their position was ideal to present them to intimidate rivals or impress females.

Wikipedia wrote

More recent research pointed out that high amounts of calcium and phosphate  compounds are required to form antlers, and therefore large quantities of these minerals are required for the massive structures of the Irish Elk. The males (and male deer in general) met this requirement partly from their bones, replenishing them from food plants after the antlers were grown or reclaiming the nutrients from discarded antlers (as has been observed in extant deer). Thus, in the antler growth phase, Giant Deer were suffering from a condition similar to osteoporosis.

So it's not the first time sexual selection has favored mal-adaptive traits that conflict with survival.

The next thing I'd like to point out is while most women like "Carol" featured in the "case study" will still reproduce with "Clevors" of the world, a small portion will not reproduce as shown in the case study. However this scenario isn't any better than reproducing with Clevor's. Carol is a perfect example of a woman who's been influenced by feminism to be "career minded" and thus encouraged to wait till middle age to have children when she's no longer fertile. Whether women choose to reproduce with Clevors of the world or to avoid reproduction all together, the conclusion is still the same. Smart men are the only category being left out of mating.

Another discussion would be "when will the world turn into idiocracy"?

Drealm wrote

Today's reality is closer to Clevon having sex with Carol and Carol rejecting Trevor. Idiocracy portrays deevolution as all intelligent people choosing not to mate vs all dumb people mating exponentially. The truth is the best women are throwing away their genes on the worst men. To put it another way, the case study involves four groups of people: smart men, smart women, dumb men, dumb women. The case study says smart men and smart women are choosing not to mate. But the reality is of those four categories: smart men, smart women, dumb men, dumb women - only smart men are being left out of evolution. Three fourths of the people involved in mating are still having children: smart women, dumb men, dumb women.

I don't think this is quite right.  My view is in the middle.  Yes there are four categories, but each category has a different reproductive rate.  From highest to lowest, these are:

1. dumb men
2. dumb women
3. smart women
4. smart men

Dumb men have virtually unlimited reproductive opportunity.  All women are attracted to them and the men can have as many children as women that they can inseminate.  Dumb women are limited by their own reproductive capacity.  So dumb women can have at most about 10 children.  Smart women tend to be very confused and seek wealth.  This wastes reproductive time.  Many are responsible and use contraception and wind up with no children at all.  So smart women probably average 1 or 2 children.  Smart men may fail to find a wife or may get a wife who cheats on him with dumb men.  In the latter case, there is some probability that his wife's children are his.  Smart men probably average 0 to 1 children.  I think my analysis points to faster devolution than yours.

Your story about the Irish Elk was entertaining.  The example that I know about is peacock feathers, which must have negative survival value but is only there to impress females.

Another discussion would be "when will the world turn into idiocracy"?

It's not boolean.  Many countries are ahead of America in this direction, but America is probably changing at the fastest rate.

So you think smart women are portrayed accurately by Carol? As in they pursue wealth at the cost of delayed pregnancy and they date smart men like "Trevor" over dumb men like "Clevon". If this is the case then the dating situation isn't as bad as I thought. Because this would mean dumb men aren't getting smart women. In other words, smart women are still somewhat available.

However if I accept your reproduction rates at face value, it's clear why it's hard to find smart woman. Under your analysis smart woman barely reproduce. As bad as it is to have a smart woman throw away her genes on a dumb man, it's collectively worst for her genes not to continue at all. I think this is what you mean by your analysis points to faster devolution. If Carol's of the world were mating with Clevor's, at least they'd by half smart and half dumb as opposed to all dumb.

I'm not sure I agree that smart women don't sleep with dumb men.

No, what I mean is that smart women will not marry dumb men but smart women will have sex with dumb men.  So smart women may remain single and have children with dumb men.  Or they may marry a smart man and cheat on him with dumb men, resulting in some children from each.  This is why smart men have a lower reproductive rate than smart women do.