What Would Happen if Only the Rich Could Become Super Smart?

[randl985]

I recently checked out Poul Anderson's novel "Brain Wave" where everyone suddenly becomes smart when the Earth moves out of a region in space that was inhibiting neuronal action in people's brains. Everyone becomes super smart, and this basically causes a collapse of society. Things like money economy and centralized government disappear, people suddenly begin rebelling against the governments and even creating their own religion. This was very interesting to me because the novel discusses consequences I never would have even thought would have occurred.

Then I began thinking, what if it was like a procedure that could be done for a very hefty price (as opposed to the novel, where everyone becomes a super-genius in an instant), so only the richer parts of society would become smart. How would this change?

I would imagine money economy would be more important rather than disappear. Since only the rich would be smart, the rich would get the better jobs and get better pay, while the poor get the worse jobs and worse pay. It'd be like a catch-22, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the gap between them widens. I'm not sure how this would affect government and stuff like that.

And then I began thinking something else. In the book, everyone becomes super-smart, as in abnormally smart. What if instead, everyone gained knowledge sufficient for a high-school or college degree, like standard education knowledge? Since people aren't super-geniuses, I'm sure this would change the consequences.

I know this is kinda random, but I just found it really interesting. Anyone want to discuss?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Any sudden change of any sort can cause calamity.

Sudden intelligence was explored in a movie called "Charly" that came out in the 1960's: a retarded man is cured by a brain operation and begins to acquire normal intelligence. As he does, much upset results.

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

The same theme came up in a couple episodes of the various Star Trek series. I think the whole notion of sudden intelligence might have been suggested by what happens in some small percentage of cases of bipolar disorder: their problem solving abilities increase exponentially before the mania peaks. But, of course, they crash eventually and there is emotional calamity.

 

[zcd]

Flowers for Algernon, the book from which the movie was adapted, was a great read.

 

[Char. Limit]

If everyone is smart, then no one will be.

 

[DrClapeyron]

There is a difference between education and smartness.; you can be well educated and at the same time be observationaly clueless. Having a great level of education does not qualify nor entitle you to be smart. To show people that you are smart you will still need things like discipline, dedication and desire. When you become respected as a result of your competition amongst your peers you may seem smart. Just saying that there are plenty of people who go to college, get a degree and are completely helpless.

It's like saying that having lots of money entitles you to benefits that others cannot afford. Afford is not synonomous with deserve. Nor is need synonomous with want. But hell, history shows again and again that such things may be true because people are dumb enough to be persuaded that such things are true - without a fight. So, you may have a point.

 

[Drakkith]

I think this is difficult to discuss without defining precisely what you mean by "smart". You could be a genius at math, but if you are unwilling or unable to accept other peoples opinions and viewpoints then you aren't going to do well in a lot of areas such as managing people or working on big projects that require a team.

Being able to sort through a hundred different options and finding the best solution to a problem is different from being able to do quantum mechanics math in your head. Some of the "smartest" people in the world would make terrible leaders or politicians.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Well, right now only a few smart people can build a nuclear weapon or create highly lethal and contagious viruses. If everyone was smart, there might be two possibilities: Everyone could have their own nukes and lethal viruses or we might be smart enough to decide no one needs these things. Of course the second option is smarter than the first option, but as we "progress" perhaps we will get to the first option first, which is a problem.

 

[Drakkith]

Well, right now only a few smart people can build a nuclear weapon or create highly lethal and contagious viruses. If everyone was smart, there might be two possibilities: Everyone could have their own nukes and lethal viruses or we might be smart enough to decide no one needs these things. Of course the second option is smarter than the first option, but as we "progress" perhaps we will get to the first option first, which is a problem.

I think these are more related to availability of the required components, equipment, and money, not just pure smarts. These things can be designed so that someone using step by step instructions can do it if they have the right materials and equipment. Most of the actual work in construction, maintenance, and related areas are done this way.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think these are more related to availability of the required components, equipment, and money, not just pure smarts.

Not a problem for smart people. The point is, is "smartness" survivable?

 

[Drakkith]

Not a problem for smart people.

Can you elaborate? Just because you are smart doesn't mean you have the ability to create a nuclear weapon from scratch materials. This requires entire industries and thousands of people.

The point is, is "smartness" survivable?

Again, define "smartness", otherwise this is kind of a pointless discussion in my opinion. I'm not trying to be difficult, I really need to know the context of the discussion.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Can you elaborate? Just because you are smart doesn't mean you have the ability to create a nuclear weapon from scratch materials. This requires entire industries and thousands of people.

If you're "smart" enough, these things can be accomplished. Besides, making a lethal virus can be done in a single lab with just a few smart people.

Again, define "smartness", otherwise this is kind of a pointless discussion in my opinion. I'm not trying to be difficult, I really need to know the context of the discussion.

I'm distinguishing between "smartness" and intelligence. The former IMO is related to technical ability while the latter is related to understanding the consequences of one's actions both for the individual and society in general.

 

[Drakkith]

If you're "smart" enough, these things can be accomplished. Besides, making a virus can be done in a single lab with just a few smart people.

Only if you have the required equipment. And like I said before, if you can make it into a step by step process then almost anyone can do it.

I'm distinguishing between "smartness" and intelligence. The former IMO is related to technical ability while the latter is related to understanding the consequences of one's actions both for the individual and society in general.

The problem I have is that I don't think it's possible to break this down into just a couple of general categories. There is no such thing as simple "technical ability" in my opinion. The basic skills to do maintenance on our cruise missiles here requires the ability to read, turn a wrench, plug in some cables, and use a keyboard. However, there is much more to the job than just that. The ability to plan ahead, solve problems, work with people, and do basic math can drastically alter whether someone is successful. And it isn't a set standard. As your job position and rank change the amount that each "skill" helps you can change as well.

So how do you determine who's smart or intelligent? I've seen people that are excellent at everything except for working with people fail miserably because of it. On the flip side I've seen absolute morons excel simply because they can work with people and can use their teams successfully in spite of not being able to do the basics very well.

So, would someone who's intelligent be good at only some of these? How about smart?

See some of these skills to get an idea of what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill

Also, intelligence itself is pretty ambiguous as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

 

[zoobyshoe]

Flowers for Algernon, the book from which the movie was adapted, was a great read.

Yeah, I think I actually read the book years and years ago, and was impressed by it, but I was probably only 15 at the time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

On the principle that sudden change is usually not a good thing, I don't think it matters how you define "smart". A sudden change in a lot of people's level of intelligence, however you define it, would just about be guaranteed to be disruptive to society.

 

[Moonbear]

Yeah, I think I actually read the book years and years ago, and was impressed by it, but I was probably only 15 at the time.

I remember reading it and enjoying it back in junior high school, but I don't even remember anything about the story other than the title. Maybe time for a re-read.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. What if everyone is already smart? People tend to define smartness according to what's important to them, maybe what they're particularly good at, or maybe by the things they find particularly challenging. Both are self-serving definitions. The first let's the person elevate their own smartness standing, while the latter allows them to excuse ignorance of something as acceptable because they've elevated it to a category achievable only by a super genius.

So, while folks are tossing around being able to build a nuclear reactor as a level of smartness, what if we changed the requirement a bit and defined it as being able to build a house, or fix a car, or operate construction equipment? Or, what about being good at gaming the system to get free meals and shelter while sitting around all day not working? (My cat seems really smart in terms of communicating her demands for food and a warm lap to sleep on when she wants it.) If we more broadly define smart as being able to acquire a skill set that enables one to obtain all of the essentials for survival, very few people would fall into the stupid category.

 

[nitsuj]

In a lot of ways this scenario already exists doesn't it?

I know it's hard to always consider where we rank among the World population, but if your posting in this forum I would guess it's in the top few percent.

I have (and always have since a fetus) 24/7 access to nutritious food (brain developement).

I can read & write (thanks to spell check), and have relatively free access to relatively unbiased education.

 

[uperkurk]

I like the idea of future technology being able to connect wires to the part of the brain responsible for learning and then you can effectively download knowledge and then after 5mins of your brain being stimulated by this technolgy that's it, you have learned it.

That would be so amazing.

 

[Containment]

The book sounds kinda backwards to me as I would think the world flying into a "stupid zone" would do more harm then one that makes you smart. It almost sounds like a dream come true to me honestly. Just think about it you would no longer see stupid people running around shooting each other. Instead it would be genius's running around shooting each other how could that be worse?

 

[turbo]

Charly was the best movie ever! My mother and I went to see it together, and I never saw her cry so hard about a movie. Very moving. I read the book later, but the movie was even more immediate and emotionally gripping, IMO. One of the very few examples of when a film adaptation might overshadow the novel. Cliff over-did himself on this one. Sometimes, the Academy should award two Oscars, not just one.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Not everyone would be at the same level of "smartness" as there are limitations of an individual's brain. We'd still be where we are, but in a different sense in my opinion.

 

[uperkurk]

Tried to download that film but can't seem to find it :(

 

[Gew]

Thanks for the tips on Charly.
I'd totally missed out on this film.

Cheers~

 

[mathwonk]

as a start, check out the uses of the subjunctive tense. (the word "was" suggests consideration of a past time when this was indeed the case, rather a hypothetical situation which does not exist.)

 

[atyy]

as a start, check out the uses of the subjunctive tense. (the word "was" suggests consideration of a past time when this was indeed the case, rather a hypothetical situation which does not exist.)

isn't "was" accepted nowadays as having the same meaning as the subjunctive in this context?

to consider a situation that did not exist, but could have been, wouldn't one use "had been"?

 

[netgypsy]

What if we all be smart? (nothing like subjunctive hehe)

Any human who is not brain damaged for one reason or another is smart and much smarter intellectually than the species used to be when it lived in caves.

The smarter a person is, the more they realize just how little they know and just how inadequate their intellect is.

Really smart people are not uniformly smart. (Example: Stephen Hawking's comment on women - soooo dumb)

I wish the English language would adopt a non gender specific singular personal pronoun. In these days of gender sensitivity I really get tired of writing he/she so default to their which is of course incorrect. BLAH.

 

[Char. Limit]

I wish the English language would adopt a non gender specific singular personal pronoun. In these days of gender sensitivity I really get tired of writing he/she so default to their which is of course incorrect. BLAH.

I use 'it'. Technically correct.

 

[netgypsy]

But not personal. People tend to be offended when referred to as an "it".

 

[Char. Limit]

That sucks for them, doesn't it? If they don't like it, they can up and tell me their gender.

 

[Evo]

Any human who is not brain damaged for one reason or another is smart and much smarter intellectually than the species used to be when it lived in caves.

The modern human brain has been around for ~50k years, so a caveman's brain was basically the same as ours. Did you mean that modern humans are more educated?

 

[rootX]

Just reading the first few OP lines, Poul Anderson doesn't seem to be the smartest person on the planet.

I think "smart" here implies everyone think similar to you and everyone has similar priorities in life. I don't want to live in that kind of place.