For instance, the word “Species” is a human invention, made up to explain phenotypic and reproductive functional differences created by GENES. Within or between species genetic differences have the same general properties of INFLUENCE over phenotype as they do over function (correct me on this point, if I’m wrong). IF (big if) that is true, then it’s perfectly logical to also assume that if specimen A and specimen B have large differences in phenotype, but share the same (or very similar) experiences, environment, and nutrition, it makes no difference whether they are the same species or not, in causally attributing those differences to genetics, rather than to some Ostrich philosophy of being “born equal”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

“The modern controversy surrounding intelligence and race focuses on the results of IQ studies conducted during the 20th century, mainly in the

United States and some other industrialized nations. In almost every testing situation where tests were administered and evaluated correctly, the mean IQ of Blacks was approximately one standard deviation below that of Whites.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

“The central thesis of IQ and the Wealth of Nations is that the average IQ of a nation correlates with its GDP. Above is a scatterplot with Lynn and Vanhanen’s calculated IQ values (without estimates) and GDP data.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twins/twins2.htm

“To have any statistical validity, such studies must examine thousands of twin pairs. But enough studies have been done to show that identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent. Crunching the numbers, behavior geneticists say about half the variation in IQ, whether among twins or non-twins, may be due to genes.”

http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/intelligence.html

“The heritability of I.Q. was different in different environments! The influence of genes on I.Q. was far less in conditions of poverty, where environmental limitations seem to block the expression of genetic potential. Specifically, for families of high socioeconomic status, H = 0.72, much as reported in previous studies, but for families raised in poverty, H = 0.10. The lower a child’s socioeconomic status, the less impact genes had on I.Q.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism “

Darwin felt that “social instincts” such as “sympathy” and “moral sentiments” also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man: “..at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”…In Galton’s view, social institutions such as welfare and insane asylums were allowing “inferior” humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more “superior” humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with “inferiors.” …

Some economic critics of social Darwinism point to David Ricardo’s comparative advantage and claim that weaker members of society are valuable even if the stronger members are better at doing everything. However, social Darwinism does not necessarily assert the latter. Comparative advantage relies on the idea that trade and cooperation are more important than pure competitiveness, which might inhibit trade by erecting protective barriers.…Nietzsche thought that, in specific cases, sickness was necessary and even helpful.

Thus, he wrote:Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it. Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity

Genetic diversity is a characteristic of ecosystems and gene pools that describes an attribute which is commonly held to be advantageous for survival — that there are many different versions of otherwise similar organisms. For example, the Irish potato famine can be attributed in part to the fact that the genetic distance of all potatoes in the country was very low, making it easier for one virus to infect and kill much of the crop.

JUST IMAGINE IF WE PRACTICED EUGENICS. How long would it be, before chromosomal crossing would no longer provide for any possible offspring with immunities to certain diseases? For an example of this, merely read about tribal peoples who have had little gene pool flux with the larger human community for hundreds of years, and how their immunity faired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

There are numerous perceived direct and indirect causes of poverty in the United States. They include:

• The conservative Heritage Foundation speculates that immigration increases job competition among low wage earners, both native and foreign born. Additionally many first generation immigrants, namely those without a high school diploma, are also living in poverty themselves.
• Unfavorable economic conditions
• Mental illness and disability
• Lack of educational attainment and skill
• Substance abuse
• Birth of a child
• Domestic abuse
• Natural or other disasters
• Crime
• A survey done by Michigan State University found that a slight majority of American households with annual incomes of $70,000 or more believed that the two principal problems of poverty are lack of work ethic and a minimum wage that is too low.
• Institutional racism: The gross disparities among impoverished people in the United States along racial lines have led many to believe that historic and/or ongoing institutional racism is responsible for much of the poverty in the United States today.
• Limited job opportunities appear to exist for significant subgroups of some races and ethnic groups. This is reflected by the low-income nature of large sections of the economy, as divided along racial/ethnic lines: 21% of all children in the United States live in poverty, but 46% of African American children and 40% of Latino children live in poverty.
• Region. Many rural areas, especially in the South and Appalachia have a high poverty rate due to limited job opportunities, historical issues, and sometimes resistance to change, among other things.

SUMMING UP ALL THE ABOVE, REGARDLESS OF WHICH CAUSE IS CORRECT

(IN OTHER WORDS: TIME AND CHANCE HAPPENETH TO THEM ALL)

I would guess that a very small minority of those born super-rich die in poverty, and that a very small minority of those born in poverty die super-rich. For the most part, it is mere time and chance (the circumstances of who you are born to, in what type of SES status, neighborhood, and geographic region, which determines if you live your whole life in poverty.AND WE ALREADY KNOW, from the above discussion that it is a vicious cycle: SES status has a strong influence on IQ, and that your earning potential (and ability to escape poverty) is STRONGLY related to IQ. Those with similar SES status, and who live in near proximity (same type neighborhood, geography, etc.) are more likely to reproduce offspring with each other. That also locks in the genetic components of IQ. All of these factors combine to virtually lock people into poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Laissez-faire “is a French phrase meaning “let do” or “hands off”. From the French diction first used by the 18th century physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for strict free market economics during the early and mid-19th century. It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed to roam free, opposing economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain peace, security, and property rights. In this view, it is not the job of the state to intervene in the economy in an attempt to reduce inequality, poverty or protect worker’s rights (except to the extent that they are covered under property rights).IS THIS THE ANSWER TO POVERTY?

Below are some links and info regarding two people, who at various times, have been proclaimed to have the highest measured and documented IQ in the world, that we know of. Both of these folks seem to have real good common sense. They do not seem to be “geeks”, in the classic sense applied to the image of the nerd walking around like a klutz, somewhat clueless socially, or handicapped in some other basic human ability.

The below dude was (for a long time) a professional bouncer at a bar, and is (one of the) smartest humans in world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Michael_Langan

 3-part series of interviews with Mr. Langan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0

Since 1986, Marilyn has been writing the “Ask Marilyn” question-and-answer column for Parade, the Sunday magazine distributed by 379 newspapers, with a circulation of 34 million and a readership of 79 million, the largest periodical in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant

Her personal ‘official’ website: http://www.marilynvossavant.com/bio.html

I’ve had some interest in geniuses for a long time. I’ve known a small handful in my life, once or twice become very acquainted with them. In my experience, they are no more susceptible to emotional harm than the average person. If they are ostrasized and persecuted as children (or teens) for being “different”, and if they do not have a fantastic support system at home or otherwise, then they will be no more or less likely to have the same kinds of problems any other person would have, if they went through those same circumstances, perhaps for some other reason (such as being different by some physical attribute).

Here’s an interesting quote: “They say that a 30-point difference in IQ is critical to communication. If you have an IQ of more then 30 points in excess of the person to whom you are speaking, that person may not understand a large amount of what you are saying.” (taken from: LongURL on Aug. 3rd, 2007).

Of course, it also will really “hurt” your ability to communicate with another person if they cannot connect with you emotionally, because you are in your own bubble of arrogance, ego, and condescension.