Talk:Demographic-economic paradox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Racism
Is no one else offended by the deeply racist and social-Darwinist rhetoric of this article?
the significance of physical and mental quality for survival declines, and the quantity type individual gain the evolutionary advantage
and really, this is the tip of the iceberg. The "quantity type individual"? Somewhere, Hitler is smiling...
- Oh please, 'Hitler is smiling'? Get over yourself! Sometimes I think one of worst things Hitler did was give a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone to use to supress legitimate scientific research by invoking his spirit. We are talking about a very narrow semantic interpretation argument, not herding populations into gas chambers on the basis of a theory of 'racial superiority' - the Hitler reference is insulting, hysterical and unjustified. 217.45.192.99 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- This article is based upon some untested assumptions that are not stated in the article. They are
-
-
- . Poorer, less educated people are less intelligent than richer people.
- . The rising costs per unit child affects the super rich more than it does middle class and the poor.
- . That the average intelligence of successive generations is falling.
-
-
- These assumptions are not confirmed.
-
-
- . Regression analysis shows a poor degree of fit between income, education and intelligence.
- . Rising unit costs of having children can be shown to have a greater impact in reducing middle class fertility than that of the very rich who generally have larger families.
- . Evidence from intelligence testing suggests that the average intelligence of successive populations is rising, not falling.
-
-
- John D. Croft 03:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
John D. Croft 03:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am also deeply offended by the racist rhetoric of this article. There is a lot of unsourced speculation here that needs to be deleted, and the whole thing needs to be rewritten for WP:NPOV. However, the demographic-economic paradox is a real concept that gets non-racist attention in sociology, (e.g. [1]) so I don't think this would pass AFD. The path to take here is ruthless deletion of unsourced claims.--Yannick 13:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Should be better now.--Yannick 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eugenics as unethical, immoral pseudoscience
I am deleting this because it cites an article which does not support the statement. Nowhere does it claim that eugenics is a pseudoscience, and it only condemns coercive practices of the past rather than condemning eugenics as a whole, which could be construed to include things like designer babies and [[2]], which is not the intention of the article.Lysine23 23:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Lysine23, thank you for your concern for accurate citations. We certainly need more of that on Wikipedia. However, if you read the cited source, you will find it clearly supports the claim that eugenics is widely condemned as an unethical and immoral pseudoscience. The label "pseudo-science" is used frequently, and Section V discusses the prenatal diagnosis and abortions that you bring up. I think I've addressed all your concerns, so I will put the statement and citation back in.--Yannick 04:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I did read the cited source. It claims that certain practices were pseudoscience, specifically something to do with assuming that blind couples would have blind children, but never gave a blanket condemnation of eugenics. Quite the opposite - read the last paragraph which specifically does not dismiss the early eugenicists, and leaves the question "three generations of ??? are enough" unanswered. But upon taking a second look at this article, I'm not sure how relevant it is anyway. You don't have to be a eugenicist to believe that heredity influences earning potential - to be a eugenicist, you have to go a step further and propose increasing the birthrate of the "worthy" or getting rid of the "unworthy." The cited source which supposedly shows that eugenicists claim the demographic-economic paradox is a problem does not mention eugenics or dysgenics, and is written by living economists from Hebrew University and Brown University who, if eugenics is an immoral pseudoscience, should consider a citation that implies that they are eugenicists libelous. Therefore, I have removed all reference to eugenics. Since the article doesn't mention anybody who actually advocates eugenics, it doesn't belong here. Of course, anybody is welcome to dig up somebody who actually propose sterilizing the poor (or whatever) and mention that this person's ideas are considered immoral,etc. Lysine23 05:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well if you want to delete the entire paragraph about heriditary income, I'm OK with that. It's a vestigial remnant from a time when this article was much more racist. (See discussion above.) But the paragraph is clearly about eugenics, even if the word itself is removed. It even refers to a "dysgenic trend", which is a clear giveaway. In the interest of WP:NPOV and avoiding weasel words, we need to specify as much as possible the source of controversial opinions, and their credentials. In this case, the belief that earning potential is hereditary is not held by "observers" in generals. It is a proposition of eugenicists and should be presented as such. That eugenics as an unethical and immoral pseudoscience is certainly a widely held view, and the Lombardo citation makes that quite clear. Even for the ridiculously literal-minded, the Lombardo aricle includes footnotes referring to "the now-discredited pseudo-science of eugenics". If you can find a better citation supporting the condemnation of eugenics, your help is welcome. As to the Galor and Moav paper, see my answer further below.--Yannick 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)i
- To be a "eugenicist" you have to support some sort of active program to increase the fertility of "good" people and/or decrease the fertility of "bad" people. Believing that income potential is hereditary (which lots of people do) does not necessarily require supporting such actions (which few do). It's like the difference between believing that guns increase murder rates and supporting gun control. But I agree that the current paragraph is lousy. I was planning to find better sources and rewrite it, but feel free to delete it.Lysine23 12:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well if you want to delete the entire paragraph about heriditary income, I'm OK with that. It's a vestigial remnant from a time when this article was much more racist. (See discussion above.) But the paragraph is clearly about eugenics, even if the word itself is removed. It even refers to a "dysgenic trend", which is a clear giveaway. In the interest of WP:NPOV and avoiding weasel words, we need to specify as much as possible the source of controversial opinions, and their credentials. In this case, the belief that earning potential is hereditary is not held by "observers" in generals. It is a proposition of eugenicists and should be presented as such. That eugenics as an unethical and immoral pseudoscience is certainly a widely held view, and the Lombardo citation makes that quite clear. Even for the ridiculously literal-minded, the Lombardo aricle includes footnotes referring to "the now-discredited pseudo-science of eugenics". If you can find a better citation supporting the condemnation of eugenics, your help is welcome. As to the Galor and Moav paper, see my answer further below.--Yannick 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)i
- I did read the cited source. It claims that certain practices were pseudoscience, specifically something to do with assuming that blind couples would have blind children, but never gave a blanket condemnation of eugenics. Quite the opposite - read the last paragraph which specifically does not dismiss the early eugenicists, and leaves the question "three generations of ??? are enough" unanswered. But upon taking a second look at this article, I'm not sure how relevant it is anyway. You don't have to be a eugenicist to believe that heredity influences earning potential - to be a eugenicist, you have to go a step further and propose increasing the birthrate of the "worthy" or getting rid of the "unworthy." The cited source which supposedly shows that eugenicists claim the demographic-economic paradox is a problem does not mention eugenics or dysgenics, and is written by living economists from Hebrew University and Brown University who, if eugenics is an immoral pseudoscience, should consider a citation that implies that they are eugenicists libelous. Therefore, I have removed all reference to eugenics. Since the article doesn't mention anybody who actually advocates eugenics, it doesn't belong here. Of course, anybody is welcome to dig up somebody who actually propose sterilizing the poor (or whatever) and mention that this person's ideas are considered immoral,etc. Lysine23 05:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Upon further investigation, I don't see where it says in the Moav/Galor source that the demographic-economic paradox threatens future growth. I think people are reading their own biases into these sources.Lysine23 06:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- True, they recognize western economic growth as stable. The Galor and Moav paper is lousy and the citation is not well placed. It's also a vestige from a more racist version of the article that I salvaged in an attempt to write for the enemy. It's a good example of claims that income is heriditary and that high fertility rates are a dysgenic trend that reduce income. Their particular views are somewhat different from the mainstream eugenics concerns about the demographic-economic paradox that I summarized. But there is no false claim here, and therefore no libel.--Yannick 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- There was a false claim - that Galor and Moav are eugenicists.Lysine23 12:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any claims of dysgenics should be based on citations from Institute for Scientific Information listed journals, not from the Quarterly Review of Economics, the Florida State University Law Review or similar sources, in my opinion. I've found very little scientific literature on dysgenics in human populations. The generation time is long, it is difficult to control for effects like extra-pair paternity, and ethical issues abound. The ISI lists 14,000 journals. If good sources cannot be found from among those journals, they probably don't exist. I don't think content based on other sources is credible. The ones I've seen are either speculative and unscientific, in support of a social or political point of view, or both, e.g., Richard Lynn and his collaborators. Walter Siegmund (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article is actually from the Quarterly Journal of Economics[3], which is listed by ISI. The question is whether it belongs here at all, and if so, where. It's more of an explanation of why the demographic-economic paradox exists than a warning of the consequences of a "dysgenic trend."Lysine23 13:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- True, they recognize western economic growth as stable. The Galor and Moav paper is lousy and the citation is not well placed. It's also a vestige from a more racist version of the article that I salvaged in an attempt to write for the enemy. It's a good example of claims that income is heriditary and that high fertility rates are a dysgenic trend that reduce income. Their particular views are somewhat different from the mainstream eugenics concerns about the demographic-economic paradox that I summarized. But there is no false claim here, and therefore no libel.--Yannick 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Upon further investigation, I don't see where it says in the Moav/Galor source that the demographic-economic paradox threatens future growth. I think people are reading their own biases into these sources.Lysine23 06:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV tag?
I gather from WP:NPOV that there should be a general consensus before an NPOV tag is removed. As the article stands I don't see any controversial claims and therefore the NPOV dispute seems to be resolved. Since no mention is made of eugenics, the most recent dispute in this discussion must certainly be resolved. Anyone object to removing the NPOV tag? Featherlessbiped (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The neutrality of this article is not bad right now, and I support removing the NPOV tag. It's no worse than many other untagged articles. It's still incomplete, confusing, and misleading at points, but these aren't neutrality concerns.--Yannick (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have removed the NPOV tag, moved the consequences section to the end and elucidated the introduction. I agree that this article needs a substantial amount of work, I think the changes I have made to the intro make it slightly less vague.Featherlessbiped (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
