Great individual geniuses today are simply ignored, cheated or quickly bought out for a song. All the credit today is given to corporate heads like Elon Musk or Bill Gates who've acquired lots of money but have never invented anything. The patent system that once nurtured great individual inventors only protects big corporations. The lone inventor doesn't have the money to take out patents or launch patent infringement lawsuits. In addition, China doesn't respect patents, anything invented in the west will simply be copied by them and made cheaper, to be marketed here. Many brilliant men who once would've had an avenue to market their inventions, are now blocked by the very system that once nourished their creativeness, they simply don't bother inventing any more or if they do, they don't try to market them. Just like music, we now have very little variation in popular music, modern technology has taken the wind out of the sails of creative people. The industry is controlled by large corporations that are afraid of taking the risk of trying something new, hence, popular music has hardly changed in 20 years. We also see very few new gadgets coming out, everything that's advertised to be new are simply rehashed gadgets that were out 40 or 50 years ago. There are companies that look around for expired patents and start making the device or thing that was made profitably in the past. We need to provide a system where the small inventor is protected for 20 or so years so that he can bring his invention to market and make a profit without any worries that a big parasitical corporation or the Chinese will take it away from him.

Expand full comment

Very interesting. Another possible angle in the sciences is the enforced specialisation required by both the vast increase in knowledge and the rigid credentialing academy. Former geniuses were able to influence a wide range of subdisciplines within their area, or even engage across multiple disciplines entirely.

As for “poetic genius”, let us simply agree to disagree over whether there are popular lyricists today whose output exceeds the calibre of such classic verses as:

“The Pekes and the Pollicles, everyone knows,

Are proud and implacable passionate foes;

It is always the same, wherever one goes.

And the Pugs and the Poms, although most people say

That they do not like fighting, will often display

Every symptom of wanting to join in the fray.”

Expand full comment

We're just not having children. Intelligence is hereditary. My IQ has been tested at 160, and my wife and I decided to go childless. That decision lowered the average IQ of the next generation.

Expand full comment

Since government pensions make it possible to live to a ripe old age without the support of one's children, higher IQ people, who tend to plan for the future, can rationally do you did, to the detriment of having any progeny.

Expand full comment

I would think you would be smarter(160) than that.

No....the fact you didn't have kids isn't the issue.

Expand full comment