If you really meant intelligence over wealth for the upper tier, then it's my bad. But you have to admit when you talk of distribution, that would normally mean wealth.
Yes I was referring to the distribution of people and their abilities, not their wealth although I can definitely see I was confusing. My apologies on that one.
I think it would be hard to find scientific evidence considering the only way would be to give it a go. I'm not saying that idea wouldn't work, but intelligence doesn't always equal smart decisions. That's what wisdom is for. If you could find me the wisest of all and part them in charge, I'd be fine with that. Intelligence is better for discovering new technologies and advancements such as that, wisdom is better for leadership.
See above response to frogbyte....
I don't know what has happened to you to make you so cynical towards certain things, but I wish whatever happened didn't happen. A healthy dose of cynicism keeps me from keeping duped by scammers and swindlers and if something is too good to be true, it probably is. I don't think it should cause you to just give up on the bulk of society though...
Well they are still there in society. I am just saying, it is better to live my life without really caring about them, because they will always be around. I can tell you that the more I read the worse it got. I could give you a list of titles if you'd like but I suspect that wouldn't be of interest. I am not giving up per say, just being very realistic about their abilities.
What you describe makes a man (or woman) sound no better than an animal. Some are of course, but I refuse to believe that. Yes, there is an apparent selfishness within us all, but even arguing it from an evolutionary standpoint, nature (notice I am not calling out god here) saw it fit to bestow upon us the emotions of empathy, compassion, sadness, etc. Why would be have such emotions if the self was all that mattered? If it was simply a matter of reputation as you put it, just to use an incredibly small example, why do people come on this website and try to help newbies with their questions of lifting? We are all anonymous on here and stand nothing to gain. But a larger example, why do we have people who sacrifice their own lives to save another? Reputation could not play a part here- it is simply a reaction from someone when they see another in danger. I refuse to trivialize their actions and simply say it was a matter of them being selfish.
What distinguishes humans from animals is the ability to reason and also very sophisticated language. Most people are unreasonable, so to me, yes, they are very much just animals. We have emotions and empathy because without them we wouldn't survive. Our survival is important to our genes. The self is precisely all that matters, and to most protect the self, we need to consider others, so we have empathy etc.
As to helping Newbies, there is conflation with prestige you may receive in the future. Look at more prominent guys who make a living running online websites and forums on fitness. We could be mimicking their success on a small scale. Some people also help others because it makes them feel good. It makes them feel good because when you help others with other more important things in life, it helps your reputation and people will help you in return. I am just underlining that altruism could arise precisely because we are selfish and there are also "mis-firings" of many evolutionary hardwired mechanisms. e.g. Bugs that fly toward light bulbs do so because they are used to being in a world where the only sources of light are very far away so when you fly keeping your distance toward a distance source constant, you can navigate. When the source is close, you spiral into it and die. Surely you would not infer that evolution hard wired bugs to kamikaze into light bulbs and fires.
Most people don't save the lives of people who they are not related to. In this case, you stand to gain from the benefit of the survival of your children and therefore your genes.
The bible a jest? It's one of the major founders of all western society as we know it. Even if you find it silly you have to acknowledge that at least, and in my opinion that deserves a healthy dose of respect even if we don't truly believe in some of the tales within it. I do think some of the major moral truths that are in the bible such as the ten commandments were realized before it came about (and well, before the Torah as well I should say), but the bible, and religion in general, gave the basis to prevent lawlessness.
They were the realization of things innately within us that as you put it, the broad ideas of social interaction, and at the time it made sense to say these ideas of morality were given to us from a higher power. Although I still think that makes sense, I acknowledge it would be just as simple to say we developed them naturally. But the bible spoke to so many throughout history, from the highest emperors of the Roman Empire and Kings thereafter, to the poorest and meekest of all. Clearly some of these truths must be more than simple fairy tales, even if they are surrounded by stories of the fantastic, and even if many believers in it do not walk the walk with it.
I acknowledge that the bible is a collection of many works, written by humans, some of which contain ideas that were already in circulation but the Christian movement did put a new spin on some ancient ideas. To believe "lawlessness" is all that existed prior to Christianity, is quite naive.
No offense, but yesterday I was picking a fight with my reply. I hope this post doesn't appear that way cause I'm not trying to be with this one. One more thing to point out, is that the Constitution was written by the "upper tier" of America at the time, so that proves a little bit of both our points. It's good to put the upper tier in charge, because some of them do look out and try to help those who cannot help themselves. Don't mistake what I said today and before this paragraph- I don't hate the wealthy or smart, and there are those who are pretty freaking great people who do a lot of good. I don't think all poor or bottom tier people represent some sort of Dickensian model were they are all good or moral people because of that. I do believe power corrupts those who are weak-willed, and I think the difference is I think that once you get into that position, who you are as a person is greatly amplified, so those who are in those positions have more of a social responsibility than those who aren't. Call it the luck of the draw, but being genetically or socially "gifted" comes with a price tag. So while its good to put those upper tier in charge, its only good so far as they have know they have a responsibility to look out for the people at the bottom. Those who aren't need to be removed. The founding fathers certainly saw this benefit, as they saw that when only the top tier is catered for, generally violent uprisings happen.
I agree with this for the most part. I am just saying, perhaps the "upper tier" should reexamine the situation occasionally. In some sense they do, as the Justices are very intelligent and they do a good job. In addition, it is at least my opinion that the intelligent people are not who are in office for the most part.