It is not clear that channeling the best and the brightest into the government bureaucracy is the best means for developing nations to create long-term economic growth. They need to build competitive export industries, which will be overwhelmingly in the private sector. Entrepreneurs and engineers are likely to be what is most needed.
You are right. The smartest people should be in the private sector, but government should also be managed by smart people. Too frequently people are shuffled into government offices because of affiliations
Making more and smarter adults who are ready to help improve the economy, by doing it the old fashioned way, takes a really long time. And probably, that's the kind of time no one has. Given the rapid rate of recent developments, it's now plausible that even the most aggressive biological program possible wouldn't be able to keep pace with the digital competition.
"Making more and smarter adults who are ready to help improve the economy, by doing it the old fashioned way, takes a really long time."
Then first world nations need to pursue the more efficient methods of embryo selection and an even better way, genetic enhancement. The latter requires more research and refinement, which should be undertaken post haste.
Lee Kwan may have been (over-)successful in reducing the TFR of Singapore, but not in increasing the TFR of its most intellectually gifted inhabitants.
For much of history, many cities were population sinks, needing constant immigration from the hinterlands to replace the mortal shrinkage. In this respect Singapore is like every other global center of high value human labor - an IQ shredder population sink, burning up human capital for the sake of today's output and leaving less of it for tomorrow, dependent on constant imports from elsewhere to stand still, and then shredding them too.
This is a good analysis. I hope the plan succeeds. However, the civil service is a beast and will hold desperately onto the inefficiencies and petty biases that have stalled it for decades.
"A trust fund for low-income children—as envisioned by Prime Minister Holness—is a promising idea. But the proceeds should not be distributed indiscriminately. Eligibility must be tied to intellectual or creative ability. Children from poor families who show exceptional promise in mathematics, science, engineering, or the arts should be the primary beneficiaries"
wouldn't these children be the least in need if other norms and rules (such as standardized testing for jobs and accelerated government jobs for those with particularly high test scores) are in place? It seems needlessly cruel to base assistance on performance.
One can have incentivized and purposeful planned child rearing without punishing the disadvantaged that have already been born.
Incentives for limiting family size for the poor seems both generously humanitarian AND eugenic, which is ideal.
I wish Jamaica the best. It would be great to see her develop and rise.
What an interesting article. It would be interesting to know more about how such policies came to be accepted by Jamaicans. Maybe the West could learn something.
"In a world increasingly shaped by AI and biotech, nations that ignore human capital will fall behind. Those that embrace a non-coercive form of eugenomics may yet chart a path to greater economic development—just as Singapore has done."
I disagree that the most intelligent in government is always good. Case in point, the US. I'm sure the average IQ of those credentialed and hired in DC might be higher than average, but over and over again (Enron springs to mind) telling smart kids they are the best and the brightest so deserve to run things leads to catastrophe.
On the educational front, I think it's important for institutions and instructional programs to offer acceptance to citizens of ANY background whatsoever who prove able to handle the material by scoring on an entrance examination at or above the admission level set for the course, program, and/or school. Where institutions get into trouble is restricting acceptance to credentials granted by others and therefore suspect rather than focusing on proof of current ability to filter the capable from the rest.
Singapore is not a democracy (or a republic). That's why they can do this, and the US and Europe cannot. The dumb person has the same vote as the smart one.
What we've seen, unfortunately, is people who THINK their country can follow the "Singapore model" but it can't pull it off and ends up being more like the Guatemala model.
Singapore has 6 million population. It only gained self-governance in 1959. Much older and larger countries cannot possibly be just like them.
We are not supposed to know that, given normal human moral weaknesses, government by the best and brightest will turn out eventually to be government for the best and brightest, and normal people will be screwed, just as they are under government by the craziest right- or left-bigots.
It is not clear that channeling the best and the brightest into the government bureaucracy is the best means for developing nations to create long-term economic growth. They need to build competitive export industries, which will be overwhelmingly in the private sector. Entrepreneurs and engineers are likely to be what is most needed.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-developing-nations-can-create
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-developing-nations-can-create-db0
You are right. The smartest people should be in the private sector, but government should also be managed by smart people. Too frequently people are shuffled into government offices because of affiliations
Making more and smarter adults who are ready to help improve the economy, by doing it the old fashioned way, takes a really long time. And probably, that's the kind of time no one has. Given the rapid rate of recent developments, it's now plausible that even the most aggressive biological program possible wouldn't be able to keep pace with the digital competition.
"Making more and smarter adults who are ready to help improve the economy, by doing it the old fashioned way, takes a really long time."
Then first world nations need to pursue the more efficient methods of embryo selection and an even better way, genetic enhancement. The latter requires more research and refinement, which should be undertaken post haste.
When a woman has a miscarriage is there a death certificate issued?
"Embryo selection involves intentional choices, whereas miscarriages are unintended accidents."
Are they investigated as accidental deaths? And not all miscarriages are accidental.
Lee Kwan may have been (over-)successful in reducing the TFR of Singapore, but not in increasing the TFR of its most intellectually gifted inhabitants.
For much of history, many cities were population sinks, needing constant immigration from the hinterlands to replace the mortal shrinkage. In this respect Singapore is like every other global center of high value human labor - an IQ shredder population sink, burning up human capital for the sake of today's output and leaving less of it for tomorrow, dependent on constant imports from elsewhere to stand still, and then shredding them too.
Islander here.
This is a good analysis. I hope the plan succeeds. However, the civil service is a beast and will hold desperately onto the inefficiencies and petty biases that have stalled it for decades.
"However, the civil service is a beast and will hold desperately onto the inefficiencies and petty biases that have stalled it for decades."
Indeed, that is true. That is why the psychometrics of other positive human traits, especially integrity, must be further pursued.
"A trust fund for low-income children—as envisioned by Prime Minister Holness—is a promising idea. But the proceeds should not be distributed indiscriminately. Eligibility must be tied to intellectual or creative ability. Children from poor families who show exceptional promise in mathematics, science, engineering, or the arts should be the primary beneficiaries"
wouldn't these children be the least in need if other norms and rules (such as standardized testing for jobs and accelerated government jobs for those with particularly high test scores) are in place? It seems needlessly cruel to base assistance on performance.
One can have incentivized and purposeful planned child rearing without punishing the disadvantaged that have already been born.
Incentives for limiting family size for the poor seems both generously humanitarian AND eugenic, which is ideal.
I wish Jamaica the best. It would be great to see her develop and rise.
What an interesting article. It would be interesting to know more about how such policies came to be accepted by Jamaicans. Maybe the West could learn something.
"In a world increasingly shaped by AI and biotech, nations that ignore human capital will fall behind. Those that embrace a non-coercive form of eugenomics may yet chart a path to greater economic development—just as Singapore has done."
Key, paragraph.
I disagree that the most intelligent in government is always good. Case in point, the US. I'm sure the average IQ of those credentialed and hired in DC might be higher than average, but over and over again (Enron springs to mind) telling smart kids they are the best and the brightest so deserve to run things leads to catastrophe.
See my comment above about integrity.
Yep, thanks for the excellent case study.
As always, quality over quantity.
Great painting. Who painted it?
AI
—NC
what a time to be alive
Credit where it’s due, it’s nicely done.
On the educational front, I think it's important for institutions and instructional programs to offer acceptance to citizens of ANY background whatsoever who prove able to handle the material by scoring on an entrance examination at or above the admission level set for the course, program, and/or school. Where institutions get into trouble is restricting acceptance to credentials granted by others and therefore suspect rather than focusing on proof of current ability to filter the capable from the rest.
Singapore is not a democracy (or a republic). That's why they can do this, and the US and Europe cannot. The dumb person has the same vote as the smart one.
What we've seen, unfortunately, is people who THINK their country can follow the "Singapore model" but it can't pull it off and ends up being more like the Guatemala model.
Singapore has 6 million population. It only gained self-governance in 1959. Much older and larger countries cannot possibly be just like them.
We are not supposed to know that, given normal human moral weaknesses, government by the best and brightest will turn out eventually to be government for the best and brightest, and normal people will be screwed, just as they are under government by the craziest right- or left-bigots.