'Idiocracy' Predicted All of This (texasmonthly.com)
32 points by pseudolus an hour ago
stanleykm 21 minutes ago
Our problems are caused by like 5 guys owning everything, not because stupid people have more kids than smart people. So no, Idiocracy did not predict all of this.
DonHopkins 19 minutes ago
Then why are the stupid people so violently against birth control, abortion, sex education, and LGBTQ+ rights, and so obsessed with breeding?
Elon Musk’s Breeding Spree Is So Much Wilder Than You Thought. The billionaire bureaucrat, who wants a “legion-level” of offspring, has reportedly solicited women on X to have his children and pays his kids’ mothers millions to keep quiet.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/elon-musks-children-as...
Edit: To clarify, I am not arguing that poor people are genetically outbreeding smart people. Musk is both one of the few guys who own everything and one of the stupid, violent people destroying civilization. His DOGE rampage dismantled USAID programs whose loss is projected to cause 14 million preventable deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under five. The oligarchy and the idiocracy are not competing explanations.
lazyasciiart 11 minutes ago
That’s a non sequiter. They are against those things for everyone, which means they are encouraging people of all incomes to have children.
shubhamjain 6 minutes ago
The source of the problem was misdiagnosed, though. Idiocracy predicted that idiots would eventually outnumber smart people because the latter are supposedly much more ambivalent about having kids. I don’t think that’s actually true—the “smart” aren’t necessarily having fewer kids than the “idiots.” The real problem is idiots have disproportionate political representation simply because of where they live. That’s especially relevant in the United States, where states with tiny populations have the same number of Senators as states with tens of millions of people.
Also, smart people are often less likely to vote when both options seem bad, whereas people driven by propaganda have no such hesitation and will turn out in droves—a problem Bertrand Russell highlighted quite clearly [1].
[1]: https://economicsociology.org/2023/11/30/in-the-modern-world...
MostlyStable 12 minutes ago
No, "Marching Morons" [0] from 1951 "predicted all of this". The original short story (which, while I have not been able to find any explicit confirmation, I just can't believe was not a direct inspiration for the movie), doesn't get nearly enough credit in my opinion. I originally encountered as part of The Science Fiction Hall of Fame Vol. II, which additionally included "Who Goes there" (Inspiration for "The Thing") and "With Folded Hands" (not the inspiration for anything so far as I know, but really good nonetheless)
[0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm
(not to say that I agree with the premise of the claim, but I do think that we should be properly crediting our cultural references).
rayiner 22 minutes ago
It's funny that people cite Idiocracy despite its explicitly eugenicist premise.
pogopop77 12 minutes ago
A lot of what seemed wildly absurdist at the time, seems a lot more realistic these days.
cxr 13 minutes ago
Idiocracy, just like Seth MacFarlane's American Dad, was about something very, very specific: the political and cultural landscape of post-9/11 America during the George W. Bush administration. Stop trying to retrofit it as a prediction of the present moment. It's not that.
furyofantares 27 minutes ago
hammeiam 10 minutes ago
Doesn't even mention crocs
jmward01 9 minutes ago
I think if Idiocracy were re-released today about the only thing it would change would be that misinformation would be the major driver at the start. Pretty much everything else holds, including predicting the rise of Crocks.
mikeaskew4 21 minutes ago
We still have another 480 years of this to go.
EA-3167 17 minutes ago
It really didn’t, and the entire premise of “Idiocracy as predictor” is a genuinely nasty thing. As it stands birth rate doesn’t seem to primarily correlate with intelligence, but socioeconomic status and education. Painting poor people as stupid breeders who will outcompete the genteel intelligentsia isn’t some new and prophetic idea.
It’s shitty, and using the movie as a canard for that old and tired view is shitty as well.
rhelz 15 minutes ago
There is one difference, and it is a very telling difference. In Idiocracy, people openly scorned smart people. They made no pretense of using any kind of logic or scientific method.
What we have now is different. People stopped vaccinating their kids because they actually believed the scientific evidence proved vaccines were dangerous. They can point to endless documents which have the overt form of being an actual research paper, written by people who are actually Ph.D.s from good universities.
You can go online and find endless meta-analysis, written by and endless number of untenured professors, that, say, Masking and social distancing didn't help stop the spread of Covid. Because these endless number of untenured professors need to land research grants and write papers. Sure, a face mask is useless against an airborne disease. Go ahead and sneeze on the salad bar.
If this were really like idiocracy, nobody would be funding fake research papers, bribing professors, etc. They would just make fun of anybody who was smarter than they were, because they sounded "effeminate."
I don't know which style of stupid is worse, but it is a pretty big difference.
icantevenhold 14 minutes ago
We’ll give it 50-100 years down this trajectory and we will have arrived there