The Idiocracy Phenomenon

Most people are likely familiar with the film Idiocracy, if only from its frequent references in discussions like this. The movie's premise revolved around the idea that less intelligent individuals had significantly more children, leading to a decline in overall intelligence over centuries.

While it was a comedic take infused with social commentary, it has since become a touchstone for those who feel we are on a similar trajectory today. I can't outright dismiss their concerns.

This theory has garnered sufficient attention to be labeled as the dysgenic fertility theory. While recent evidence supports this notion, it is still not definitive. Historically, each generation showed slight increases in IQ until those born around 1975 began to show signs of a reversal.

Even this data does not necessarily affirm that "less intelligent people are having more children," as numerous studies indicate that declines are often observed within the same families. When I encounter conflicting data on correlations, I tend to conclude that there may be no correlation at all. Thus, other factors must be influencing our perceived decline in intelligence.

I consider myself fairly intelligent, and while I acknowledge there are many who surpass me, I believe I have an advantage in certain social skills—like reading people and anticipating their behavior. I can typically gauge the level of intelligence I’m interacting with.

However, I haven't noticed an increase in the number of utterly foolish individuals around me. Instead, what seems to have risen is the confidence and audacity of those who hold misguided beliefs. The internet enables them to connect with others who share their erroneous views, reinforcing their convictions through sheer numbers.

We may be facing a challenge that stems not from differences in intelligence but rather from the rampant spread of misinformation. The proportion of people susceptible to bad information in 1972 might be comparable to today, but the accessibility and rapid dissemination of that information have drastically changed, ensnaring far more individuals than before.

The Internet's Impact

This brings us to the topic of the internet. Generally, I oppose gatekeeping in any context—be it in knowledge, careers, or life in general. Yet, the chaos that the internet has unleashed makes a compelling case for the need for some form of gatekeeping.

Before the rise of 24/7 cable news and the internet, we might not have appreciated the value of having a few trustworthy figures in journalism. Anchors like Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, along with their editorial teams, took pride in delivering straightforward accounts of daily events with minimal bias.

Of course, bias existed—many 20th-century publications had clear liberal or conservative slants. However, these biases were well-known, allowing readers to understand where their information originated. Today, we are bombarded with noise from countless sources, often lacking validation or editorial standards.

Consider a hypothetical scenario in 1976: an average individual with limited intelligence consumes a 30-minute nightly news program. They receive a straightforward summary of the day's events, which guides their understanding of political matters without leading them down a rabbit hole of conspiracy.

Fast forward to 2016, and the same individual, now likely disconnected from rigorous news sources, instead spends time on social media—arguably the platform with the highest ratio of nonsense to reality. With minimal baseline knowledge, they struggle to differentiate between truth and fiction, leading them to embrace sensationalized narratives that resonate with their preexisting beliefs. This can foster anger and division, solidifying them into echo chambers.

Hence, we find ourselves grappling with a society that appears increasingly confident in its ignorance.

Seeking Solutions

I frequently discuss this issue, genuinely puzzled about how we can begin to address it. It’s ironic that the very technology that offers easy access to information also contributes to the erosion of factual discourse. While I acknowledge the positive aspects of new technology, the negative consequences seem overwhelming.

In an ideal world, I would wish for social media to vanish overnight, sacrificing my writing for the greater good. However, such a scenario is unrealistic.

What are our options? Should we require intelligence assessments before granting internet access? Such a measure would likely breach numerous equal protection laws. Perhaps we should assemble a team of lawyers to pursue defamation cases against those spreading falsehoods? Yet, such an approach risks becoming an Orwellian nightmare, and it’s unlikely to instill fear in those who disseminate misinformation.

This problem cannot be ignored. The rise of misinformation, societal polarization, and mental health issues stemming from the "Information Age" threaten communities worldwide. Waiting for a natural correction is unwise, as hatred and division only intensify.

I struggle to envision the number of fact-checkers necessary to maintain order on the internet, and given human nature, disagreements would inevitably arise. Perhaps enhancing education for younger generations will empower them to navigate misinformation better, but this still leaves us with decades of entrenched issues.

I welcome all suggestions. While we might not be becoming less intelligent as a whole, we are indeed ceding influence to the loudest and often most misguided voices among us. It’s time for the rational members of society to take a stand. We desperately need it.