New Hope for the Stupid

 The average person of only average intelligence. And half of us are below it.

This is an abiding problem. Stupidity causes great suffering, many ruined lives, many deaths. The folly of the world has always troubled me, and in my old age I have grown reconciled to the reality that this will never change. Stupid people are not smart enough to recognize wisdom when they hear it. Like the Duning-Kruger effect, if you are not intelligent, you lack the very mental equipment to recognize intelligence.

To get a sense of how much it matters, compare life in Japan, where average IQ is slightly higher than the world average, with life in Sub-Saharan Africa, where it is lower. Japan: 106.4. Somalia: 67.7. You can see the result in GDP, in general social order, in quality of life.

Or compare how Jewish Americans have fared since the Holocaust, with how African Americans have fared since the Civil Rights Act, not to mention since slavery. The Jews came from a lower base line, attempted genocide, and rose quickly to a position of great wealth and social prominence. African-Americans are still in deficit. People avoid saying so, but the most probable reason is IQ.

Even without formal democracy, unfortunately, everything devolves towards the mean. This world is built for average people: there are so many of them.

It occurs to me that we may actually be about to break through this barrier, thanks to AI. Experts predict that within a few years, machine intelligence will greatly outpace human intelligence. Surely even stupid people are smart enough to take advantage of such advice? Even if they don’t understand it. They might resist listening to smarter people, out of envy and pride—the perennial cause of anti-semitism. But if the average person is getting the advice from their smartphone, this may not apply.  

At least there is hope. The world might quickly become better, and everyone’s life more livable.

Canadian Guilt

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that Canadians are misguided in feeling any guilt over slavery or the Indian residential schools.

Slavery was never recognized in Canada. In the lower 13 colonies, laws had to be passed permitting the institution. Common law does not recognize the right to own another person. In Canada, as in the UK, there were no such laws. This means slavery was, by default, always illegal. There was no reason or need to pass any specific law prohibiting it. Although Upper Canada, aka Ontario, did so in 1793.

All a supposed slave needed to do in Canada, was to run away. The government and the authorities would not support the slaveowner in any attempt to recover his property. If he went to court, the court would declare the enslaved man free. 

There was slavery, granted, everywhere else in the world. But not here, except among the “First Nations” beyond the reach of the law.

I also believe Canadians have nothing to apologize for regarding the Indian residential schools. There has even been an attempt to make that statement illegal and punishable by up to two years in prison. There would be no need were it not a true statement. I have read the Truth and Reconciliation Report. Despite it being their mandate to dig up all the possible dirt on the residential schools, they found nothing. And there were no mass graves.

No doubt there were some predatory individuals in the schools, as there are in any school. But the structure of the residential schools was designed to reduce this risk to a minimum. No doubt some children died in their care. Children often died young a century ago. No doubt some schools were short of funds, and cut corners. As happens with bureaucracies everywhere. The bottom line remains: the intention to educate was a noble and a charitable intention, and one called for by treaty and by the First Nation themselves. If getting educated is an attack on one’s culture, what does that say about your culture?

You may argue that the schools suppressed the native languages. After all, they forced everyone to speak English or French.

Just like any language school today. Immersion is the best way to learn a language.

What is the purpose of language? To communicate. On average, an aboriginal language in Canada has about one thousand speakers—and, having no written form, no literature. One thousand people with whom you can communicate. Compared to English the practical value of knowing that language is infinitesimal. Why spend class time on it, especially since, arriving at the age of six or above, the student is already fluent in it, more fluent than the teacher.

These schools took in students from a variety of tribes or “nations.” The students themselves could not communicate to one another in any language other than English or French.

Were the schools designed to suppress Indian culture and force assimilation to the mainstream? Perhaps they should have been, but they were not. Just the opposite. Were assimilation the intent, there would have been no Indian schools—the children would have been sent to the regular provincial schools with everyone else. Residential schools preserved some sort of Indian separateness, cultural distinctness. They trained for skills thought useful for a life on the reserve, not for success in the broader society.

Canadians will need to look harder for something to feel bad about. Might I suggest in this regard, for more suitable contemplation, our chronic anti-Americanism? Our turning away from religion? Our unrestricted abortion, and now euthanasia? Our arrogance on the world stage?

The Broad and Level Synodal Way

 

Read about it at our SubStack feed.

"Mars Attacks" Is True

 Read why at our SubStack.

Is Lindsay Clancy Guilty?

There is major controversy online over the case of Lindsay Clancy, the mother who murdered her three children. Feminists are insisting on her innocence, due to post partum psychosis. Men’s rights types are insisting that acquitting her would be a travesty, a blank cheque to any woman who wants to off her kids.

I think the concern in either case is misplaced. If she is found not guilty by reason of insanity, she will not walk. She will avoid the death penalty, but will be committed to an institution for the criminally insane. Whether that will mean better treatment or a shorter incarceration is not obvious. It strips her of her human dignity. Either way, little incentive for other women to try the same.

My general assumption is that the insanity defense is not legitimate. It is equivalent to the old claim that “the devil made me do it.” The devil has no such power; the voices in your head have no such power. If we intentionally harm others, we remain responsible for our acts. In the present case, were Lindsay Clancy genuinely feeling desperate, she could have put the children into temporary foster care, she could have turned to her husband and family for help, she could have checked herself in to a mental hospital. 

That said, I suspect the psychiatrists and the pharmaceuticals bear some responsibility here. She turned to them for help, and they did not help. So what else was she to do? Indeed, they fed her drugs that might have made it harder for her to control her impulses, as SSRIs are inclined to do.

"Lake America" Works for Me

 Find out why at our SubStack feed.

Say Cheese

 

The argument I hear in favour of defending Canada’s “supply management” cartel for dairy, chicken, and eggs, against American demands for a trade deal, is that American farm products are subsidized. So it is unfair of the Americans to object. Our government set up this cartel instead of a subsidy, saving us tax money. 

Wait a minute. If the Americans are prepared to subsidize the chicken, cheese, and eggs we buy from them, why would we object? Great!

Bad for Canadian farmers? Good for consumers, especially the poor. There are a lot more Canadian consumers than Canadian farmers. The greatest good to the greatest number.

The loss of a strategic industry? I am not concerned, so long as the loss is to the US. We are not going to war with the USA. We are bound to the US strategically; what’s good for them is good for us. Nor is there any possibility of some hostile power cutting our supply lines—we share the world’s longest land border.

It is not even clear to me that the cartel is to the benefit of Canadian agribusiness. By preventing competition, it prevents innovation and excellence. Canada used to be a major supplier of cheese to Europe. There used to be dairies near every small town in Quebec or Ontario. Supply management seems to have killed all that. We need artisanal dairies developing unique local cheeses that might command premium prices; like Oka cheese from Quebec. We need innovation; competition forces innovation.