Hmmm....
"A historian says class-based natural selection caused the Industrial Revolution. Theory: 1) In pre-industrial England, wills show "the rich had more surviving children than the poor." 2) "The poor failed to reproduce themselves and the progeny of the rich took over their occupations." Therefore, 3) "The modern population of the English is largely descended from the economic upper classes of the Middle Ages." As a result, 4) "Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work" replaced "spendthrift, impulsive, violent and leisure loving" behaviors. 5) This, in turn, reduced violence and increased literacy, work hours, savings, and productivity. 6) This transition "may lie as much in our genes as in ideology or rationality." 7) China and Japan lagged England because "their richer classes … were surprisingly unfertile." Implication: Today's poor countries lag economically because they haven't endured the same selective pressures. Objections: 1) The genetic part of the theory is speculative. 2) The cultural part is classist. 3) The whole thing is racist. Rebuttal: OK, but … is it true? (To comment, click here.)"
From slate.com
No comments:
Post a Comment