> schools with fewer students and more counselors had lower rates of student suspensions and disciplinary actions.

It's almost as if small communities lead to a higher individual success rate.

I didn't know we managed to test the IQ of every inventor. Neat. What was the guy that came up with the wheel?

Smart people have come up with a lot of great things, but they've also done a lot of really stupid shit.

You are right that nothing prevents high IQ people from farming, and I'm willing to bet plenty do. It's not a prerequisite is what I'm saying, and as far as I can tell food and water are by far the most important things we have to concern ourselves with. This means that lower IQ people could very likely get by just fine without all your pontificating.

All the philosophy in the world won't feed a body, even if it does feed the soul.

Yeah if living in a tub were normal. I know people who work full time jobs across several fields who likely fall below your threshold. An IQ of 90-110 doesn't make a drueling imbecile. They may not be great surgeons or programmers but they can do so many other kinds of work.

Mechanization of every labor intensive task is retarded shit smart people come up with.

Why should your standard for quality of life trump the person actually living its standard?

Mechanization isn't inherently good or bad. I think some mechanization makes sense, but fools that think the next robot is going to make life peaches for everyone are kinda retarded.

> were they really that smart

This is kind of my point. Having a high IQ doesn't prevent you from doing the dumb. You can just do it bigger and better. Personally I'd rather the mistakes of a midwit over the mistakes of a genius more often than not.

I don't think you can "raise" IQ, but we have so many IQ depressants (bad diet, bad sleep patterns, over stimulation, toxic environment, etc) that assuming that people with low IQ couldn't produce a person of "higher stock" is I'll founded. The first move should be to reduce those issues negatively affecting IQ and see how that affects things.

Let's not kill all the sparrows just yet

Leftists think they are the smart ones.

IQ is likely fairly well distributed across the political spectrum.

I think an IQ test next to a running chipper might have an impact on the person's performance.

Right leaning people also seem to think they have the corner on IQ. This is why I'm more inclined to think there is a distribution across the spectrum.

I actually think leftist critique of society is incredibly valuable. I just think the ideas they come up with are generally going to worsen the problems they've identified

Mfw no emoji reactions on NAS

🤣

> Yes, but how many do

Who knows. That's part of the problem. Some ideas do line up logically but fail in execution.

> if given power will do even more.

So stop giving people power. Period. The problem is power consolidation leads to the ability for anyone who happens to wield that power to make decisions that have a much larger impact than they would if people just worried about their own wellbeing.

> Almost always, there are unconsidered factors or artificially-shortened timescale.

💯 but these are intractable problems. How do you not artificially truncate the future when making plans? How could a person (or group) dealing with a global issue possibly account for all of the variables? The problem is it takes a certain amount of hubris to even think some problems are solvable at the scale desired.

Smart people can solve bigger problems. The problem I see is that most bigger problems could be broken down or dealt with at a smaller scale.

We don't need to solve world hunger. That's impossible. Instead let's work on finding ways to increase local production, and then make those lessons learned available to the larger population. Others can voluntarily adopt our practices for greater yields if they work for them, or find ways of their own to improve their own food security position.

Anarchy seems to be the only political philosophy without an enormous body count so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

No I think its fine to make plans. Something about planting a tree you will never know the shade from. However scale is what I am talking about.

I am building a food forest. I hope my great great grand kids can eat from it. It's possible when I die my kids sell the house to someone who levels the plot. I still plan and build.

My thinking is just that we just leave people to build their own food forest if they want to rather than centrally planning food production because mechanization is "better". In both of these cases some intellect is required to farm, but in your mechanized centrally planned model one fuckup starves a million people or more while in my model one fuckup will at worst affect my family.

You are kind of proving my point here. Central farming has been shown to have greater yields, but it comes at the cost of soil health and adds a lot of extra stress to the land that over a long enough window of time will decrease the lands productivity. We have also made farming as a business largely unattainable without mountains of debt and subsidization which is resulting in the aging farmer.

I think even of people dont want to grow their own food, the food they consume should largely come from their local area. The amount of waste that exists in our food supply is disgusting and a good bit of the reason for that is bottle necks in supply chain processes.

The false belief that bigger is always better allows people to justify waste.

You are right and wrong. Yes big farms can deploy a lot of the same tactics small farms do. However a lot of problems become much more complicated at large scale. Chicken shit is a great example. Composting chicken shit in large mass stinks to high heaven, creates fumes that are detrimental to the health of every living thing, and can create high concentrations of certain nutrients which can then run off into streams.

Scale doesn't fix every problem. In a lot of cases they actually become harder to solve.

The point I'm making is that scaling up is not a silver bullet. Yes problems always emerge regardless of scale, but the complexity of these problems scale in unpredictable ways.

Sometimes the solution to a problem is horizontal scaling instead of vertical. Replicating small scale solutions effectively is sometimes better than simply making things bigger

I dont know what evidence you have that it's more efficient. I don't know if any accurate studies have ever been done. I know our farm land is suffering. I know are farmers are tired. I know a lot of the food people eat is low quality and toxic. I know that millions of poultry are being culled (wasted) because of the fear of disease being so easily spread in large scale farms. I know that bottle necks pop up all the time that result in a lot of wasted food.

I'm good with removal of government (especially property taxes).

Yeah I'm not suggesting that we all need our own subsistence plot or anything although I see nothing wrong with that lifestyle. I am not necessarily advocating for any specific size of farm, but I think government subsidies allow farms to grow beyond what is reasonable. I think the large scale shipment of food around the world results in a lot of waste, and I really think that waste is underappreciated when we operate at large scale because it is abstracted away.

I think some foods can only be grown in certain areas, so I'm not suggesting no food should be traded outside of a regional zone or anything, but I think we should evaluate more carefully which things might be more decentralized and take steps to reduce bureaucratic processes that create weak points in food distribution.