Assuming one accepts evolutionary views, I find her logic to be impeccable. In today’s advanced societies, the most successful people have the fewest children.
Even if you don’t believe in evolution presumably you believe in heredity. Assuming a hereditary component to intelligence, which seems impossible to deny, we are most definitely breeding for lower intelligence.
The race horse equivalent would be breeding more from the race losers than the race winners. After a few generations your horses are going to be running a lot slower.
This is, BTW, the opposite of past generations. Upper class and successful people often had larger familes and due to better nutrition and medical care more of their children survived. In particular, upper-class men spread their genes widely.
“Assuming”
—
I just can’t help it!:
Don’t assume anything!;
Or you will make an ass out u and me.
If you define 'successful' as material wealth, there is the irony of rising expectations. The more material wealth we have, the fewer children we seem to be able to afford.
Upper class and successful people often had larger familes and due to better nutrition and medical care more of their children survived.
I am not sure that is true. The 'poor' had plenty of kids back then too.