For some time now, I’ve been wrestling with this idea of why there are have’s and have not’s – and whether I am of above average intelligence, or below – despite my academic achievements at school. Or whether, in fact, I’m trying too hard. Very troubling. And while some of the quotations in the essay, such as those of Wilhelm Röpke and Wendell Berry sort of address or comfort some of these long standing issues – fears – I wonder if I should have even read this.

Anyway, I think this is an interesting study, not just for Middle America, but countries all over the planet that haven’t been able to effectly deal with what is generally referred to as brain drain. And, soon, the same flow from those “superstar cities” to places like China and India.

The only part that bothered me is the tiptoe’ing with the term “Democratizing Intelligence”.

Its not democratizing at all – its “Socializing Intelligence”.

Force (or induce) smart/skilled people to stay in their town, not realize their own full personal potential, for the good of the town.

I grew up in a suburb. I am a geek/nerd. I did very well in school. I studied computers at a private university, and graduated. meritocratically speaking, that puts me pretty high up.

After college I got a job in New York City. Why? Because there was nowhere else to get a job. I could have moved even further away, to California, but New York was the closest place to find any work. I could not live in a rural area unless I found a telecommuting job, but even then the rural areas have poor Internet service. I could not live in the suburb in which I was raised, because the price of real estate was far too high.

I ended up moving to a town far north of NYC, and commuted via railroad over an hour each way. I stayed there for years only recently moving to NYC proper. The reason is that life there did not suit me. Stores were not open late. There were few people I could associate with. There just wasn’t anything to do.

I think what you are ignoring here is that it is not intelligence that causes people to move, but culture. I am a computer person. I was born in a town with few other computer people. If my life were to be constrained by geography, that would be a very unhappy life indeed. Stuck with people I have nothing in common with simply because of the geographical accident of my birth.

It has nothing to do with economics or intelligence. It has to do with community. Community and culture used to be overwhelmingly determined by geography. Nowadays, that is not the case. Because of the Internet, I share more culture with some nerds in Norway or Japan than with my next door neighbor. My entire childhood I was stuck in a suburb, forced to associate only with those who were also there. Upon discovering people I have more in common with, how can I not move to a city and be with them, if given the choice?

I think if anything what we need is more mobility, for everybody, regardless of economics. If you want to increase happiness, let’s get all the people who are trapped by geography and move them to where they want to be, near people who share their culture. A much greater source of unhappiness is people constrained and forced to live amongst those who they have nothing in common other than physical location.

I am sad to hear your lovely town is dying, but you know what… there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a natural and organic thing. Civilizations crumble, towns die, people die. But new things replace them. There’s nothing to be afraid of. It’s simply the next iteration of what it is to be human. We aren’t any less ethical or bound to our own communities. It’s just our communities are no longer bound by regionalism. It’s no longer 1776, and the simple fact is, I can play video games with friends in texas chicago california and toronto all at the same time while laughing into a headset and cracking jokes. Then I can share some pictures from a party I attended with my local friends with some of my friends in helsinki, hamburg, or japan. This is what the world is today, and with the advent of increased capacity for augmented reality we can further remove the constraints of distance.

It’s in this assault on regionalism that we can find the opportunity to rid ourselves of conflict and inequality. But, we’re going to go through some growing pains, and some of what you love is going to disappear so that new things can rise in their place.

The concept of “Democratizing Intelligence” is both incredibly stupid, and incredibly evil. You are treading into the domain of quite literally thought control. You are talking about relying on the rule of the mob in areas of complexity, as well as chaining down real people and making them slaves. I understand you want to save your home, but enslaving your “smart” young people is not an answer. It’s diabolical. And the United States is a meritocracy. It has been since day one. It’s actually kind of the whole point of it. I’d drop the whole if you don’t like it leave thing, but really… you can’t overwrite that part of the constitution. It’s the very foundation of the nation. If you don’t like it, your only choice is to leave. But really, I think you just need to accept that times change. Some day you will be dead, as will your argument. Some day I will be dead, as will my argument. New arguments will take their place and people will progress in the same brilliant organic fashion they have since the dawn of time… so long as no one sets anyone back with the outbreak of armed conflict.

Truthfully, I’m still freaked out by how utterly insidious this piece is. I’ll be freaked out all day. Thanks for that.

affirmative action
a.    Bakke:  Powell
i.    race cannot be determinative; no quotas
ii.    but race can be a plus factor
iii.    (Brennan dissent): as long as it is to remedy effect of past discrimination
b.    Hopwood  5th Circuit only!
i.    Bakke …