Humans are Becoming Genetically Less Intelligent

[Asian Guy]

http://www.neoeugenics.com/

 

1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

 

2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.

 

3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.

 

4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.

 

5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."

 

Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.

 

So, what are your thoughts?

[AzurePhoenix]

You sure it ain't just society doing too little to foster development of the brain in children? Look at the school systems. Curriculum (at least in U.S.) is devised not for education, but in an attempt to earn more funding, and thus stuff administrator pockets. That's what standardized testing is about too.

It's so bad that I'm forced to rely on the internet, reading and television documentaries for my own practical education. Problem is, not many human beings find joy in learning of their own free will. I believe that we're innately designed for activity. Using the brain in a quiet setting such as a library just doesn't stimulate the pleasure centers that a hunt might trigger, or intense sports, skydiving, trekking through the woods, sex, or even getting high, robbing a house or mugging a lady.

I feel that actually giving kids what they are interested in / capable of learning, along with the basics, as well as teaching them a practical, widely ranged education is the answer. After we get that staightened out, then we can move on to artificially selecting for humans as a first step towards "better breed". Please don't associate this last comment with any of that Aryan master-Race Crap (the first step to a healthy race, whether physically, mentally, or socially, is extensive diversity)

[Asian Guy]

Please don't associate this last comment with any of that Aryan master-Race Crap

 

Of course not. I believe that all ethnic/racial groups should be concerned about their genetic health. We all share this planet, we might as well all evolve upwards together and at the same rate.

[AzurePhoenix]

good. I somehow picked up the psuedo-nickname "She-Hitler" among my friends, and must now be careful in what I say. And also, I agree. We need intensive breeding controls. That, is a fact.

[Asian Guy]

good. I somehow picked up the psuedo-nickname "She-Hitler" among my friends, and must now be careful in what I say. And also, I agree. We need intensive breeding controls. That, is a fact.

 

I find it odd that anyone would relate selective breeding to Hitler, when in fact Germany was the last nation to try such things. Japan, several South American countries, China, India, the U.S.A., Israel, and most of Europe have in the past, or currently are, doing things to facilitate selective breeding.

 

Even as far back as B.C., the ancient Spartans used to selectively breed for physical strength which made them very powerful. Too bad though they chose physical strength over intelligence: these morons chose ape-like features over cognitive abilities, and then wiped out Athens, a truly intellectual society. Oh well.

[Sayonara]

1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

...

Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.

Then you had better provide some for (1), since your entire argument hinges on it.

[Xavier]

Assumption: 1) The world is grossly overpopulated with humans

2) Many people are struggling to get enough food

 

Perfectly logical conclusion: Humans should eat humans

 

- In practice: 51% of the population can get together and decide that, for the good of the majority they should butcher the other 49%. At the end of the exercise, 100% of the population are better off.

So, if the assumptions are correct, why doesn't this happen?

Because risk to each individual of being in the 49% outweighs the reward of being in the 51% - if the sides are randomly selected. But shift the selection procedure and it suddenly becomes very attractive to those who are fairly sure of being on the side of the reward. For example, suppose the basis of deciding who gets to be eaten (or isn't allowed to reproduce) is made on the basis of (lack of) intelligence then it becomes less surprising that people who contribute to a science forum see some merit in the argument...

In order to support this sort of 'for the good of the majority' solution as a general principle you really want a clear, visible signal to distinguish 'us' from 'them' which is why skin colour is such a boon to those morally-challenged few millions of of people who want a quick fix for societys' ills.

(In fact there are some uncomfortable echoes of the standard in western foreign policy towards those who are clearly separated from 'us' by geography rather than a physical difference; the only difference is that we don't butcher the third worlders with the 'humaneness' we reserve for cattle and we let the resulting food supply go to waste. Oh!, and we are far less than 51%)

[Flareon]

Assumption: 1) The world is grossly overpopulated with humans

2) Many people are struggling to get enough food

 

Perfectly logical conclusion: Humans should eat humans

 

I like your "Modest Proposal."

 

However, one problem. Unless you want to "farm" them, less intelligent people are not a practically renewable food source. If we wanted to contain them by some means, it would take more resource to do so than to do the same to cattle. Why? Because even as "inferior in intelligence" as they are, they are still smarter than cattle, and will escape our method of modern bovine containment. I suppose we can go into some "Matrix-esque" system of a "human farm," but that would be another topic altogether.

[adhocboy]

Not sure I buy it.

 

1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

This is definitely true of our capacity for intelligence, but individual and social intelligence are learned. That is, even two genetically identical plants may grow to different sizes if one has more sunlight and water available to it. So, environment plays a significant role.

 

2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.

Whose intelligence? That is, is the intellectual achievement of a civilization the product of a mean average of its citizenry, or the product of a smaller subclass? What is the role of writing; a technology that passes the learning of one generation to offspring (sometimes skipping multiple generations).

In any event, the historical actuality of churn - the cyclical rise and fall of civilizations - suggests a possible different pattern than straight-line progression.

 

3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.

 

4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.

This is a difficult conclusion. As I said before, it is clear that the professionally proficient show a markedly slower birth rate. But again, is their personal success the result of innate ability or just a favorable environment. Even so, to what degree do the masses versus the proficient subclass influence overall civil intelligence?

I won't say the statement is false; it just sounds too simple. It is like saying because more people can survive childhood we are less fit as a society - it is true, but is offset by our apparent ability to change our local environment. I am not seeing how adaptable intelligence makes us 'fragile' as a species.

 

5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."

Totally unknown. Again, the generational change in a set of traits can not be construed as 'decline'. We are confusing the principle of natural selection. The individuals that are being born are from 'successful' families. When we changed our environment, we changed the definition of fitness.

Natural selection is often portrayed as a battle between winners and losers... it is a popular expression of the phenomena. But it is more subtle than that. Life, as a process, exploits metastable energy in the environment. These families were are classifying as 'innately less intelligent' have found a sound of untapped resources they are exploiting.

 

Or, said another way: when intelligence is important for survival, it will be selected for and increase within a population. Obviously, a different set of traits are necessary for survival right now.

[Sayonara]

Whose intelligence? That is, is the intellectual achievement of a civilization the product of a mean average of its citizenry, or the product of a smaller subclass? What is the role of writing; a technology that passes the learning of one generation to offspring (sometimes skipping multiple generations).

I would go one further, and suggest that civilisation depends not on intelligence, but on knowledge, which is most certainly not genetically inherited.

[Hellbender]

I would go one further, and suggest that civilisation depends not on intelligence, but on knowledge, which is most certainly not genetically inherited.

 

I second that. Intelligence isn't based on heredity as much as it is intellectual stimulation during your crucial infant years (for instance, my parents read to me, taught me things outside of school, showed me interesting animals like salamanders, etc.), and ongoing education. I'll admit, our public education system here in the States is seriously flawed, like Azure said, it is based on funding. When I compare my college classes to my senior year high school ones, its ludicrous, even when I was going to a community college.

[AzurePhoenix]

I find it odd that anyone would relate selective breeding to Hitler, when in fact Germany was the last nation to try such things.

 

Hey, I know that, but I know some narrow viewed people

[Asian Guy]

Then you had better provide some for (1), since your entire argument hinges on it.

 

Linda S. Gottfredson

School of Education

College of Human Services, Education, and Public Policy

University of Delaware

Newark, Delaware 19716 USA

(302) 831-1650

FAX (302) 831-6058

gottfred@udel.edu

 

Gottfredson recently wrote "What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true?" see http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf In this article she writes:

 

In summary, Rushton and Jensen have presented a compelling case that their 50-50 hereditarian hypothesis is more plausible than the culture-only hypothesis. In fact, the evidence is so consistent and so quantitatively uniform that the truth may lie closer to 70-80% genetic, which is the within-race heritability for adults in the West."

 

Of course, this is just one study, and one study can't be decisive. But, many such studies exist, and extensive meta-analysis has been applied to come to the same conclusion regarding the high heritablity of intelligence. For example, much research has shown the actual biological correlates of IQ, such as brain size (esp. gray matter volume), average evoked potentials, glucose metabolism rate in the brain, the speed of nerve conduction, the thickness of the mylean sheath (did I spell that right?), reaction rate, etc. A thorough coverage of all the data available is archived at http://www.neoeugenics.com/

[Mokele]

So?

 

Seriously, let's take all of your arguements as good, and examine the implications. So what? Why should we care?

 

Yes, we value intelligence *now*. But what if, hypothetically, our situation changed in such a way that the metabolic costs of increased intellect were not worth the benefits? Ditto for civilization; perhaps there are situations in which it simply isn't worth the effort required.

 

If humans are becoming more of less intelligent, so what? That's evolution; the fittest survive, and fitness means one thing: number of offspring who reproduce. If local conditions make it advantageous to be dumb, guess who reproduces?

 

------------

 

Of course, one thing I haven't seen any mention of in this thread is the *important* thing: survivorship. If only sheer numbers mattered, all Earth would be beetles. Oh, wait, that 75% true anyway.

 

Let's say I have a dumb friend. He has 4 kids, I have 2. Does that mean he'll have higher long-term fitness than me? Not necessarily. What if my smart kids have a decreased mortality rate compared to his grandkids? Or are less likely to make stupid choices? What if my smart kids can attracts stronger, healthier mates, resulting in even *lower* mortality for my grandkids and greatgrandkids. Now take into account investment in offspring. I'm smart, I can get a good job and pay of higher-end healthcare for my kids, which means they're have lower mortality, and be healthier and thus able to attract better mates, resulting in even better offspring for them (and those offspring are my grandkids, still carrying my genes).

 

It is entirely possible for me to have many more descendants than my friend 6 generations down the line, even if he had more kids to being with.

 

Number of immediate progeny is only a part of the puzzle. You have to take into acount *thier* mortality, mate-attraction, etc, and their ability to invest in their kids.

 

Think of it this way: There are more humas in the US than gators, even though humans have 2 kids in a lifetime, while, in a comparably long lifetime, a gator may have 2000 kids. If it's just birth rate, why aren't we teeming with gators?

 

Mokele

[Asian Guy]

I would go one further, and suggest that civilisation depends not on intelligence, but on knowledge, which is most certainly not genetically inherited.

 

And knowledge cannot be acquired without an adequate IQ. Someone with an IQ under 90 will most likely never be able to learn calculus. In fact, here is a chart of the national IQ averages of 185 countries: http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm And one will see an overall trend showing that the higher the IQ average, the more advanced the nation.

[ku]

Asian Guy, what do you suggest? We should sterilize the unintelligent? This may slowly raise average IQ over the long run but what are the costs? Individual rights to procreate for many will be sacrificed for the sake of long-term IQ increases.

 

Go to the SPLC website and you'll see that Lynn and Rushton are paid by the Pioneer Fund to produce racist academic "evidence."

[mezarashi]

I side with the people who don't buy it. First of all I think the survival of the fittest mechanism will be the invisible guiding hand to ensure that we don't dumb ourselves into extinction. Secondly and most importantly as an engineer I realize, our civilization isn't built upon intelligence, it is built upon knowledge bases. Why do we go to school and university to learn all the things that we do. Do you think all the engineers that build the things you use everyday are the smartest people on the planet? Of course not. They were trained to do so. The wisdom of their trade was imbued forcefully upon them.

 

A scientists at NASA does not know, and I would not believe even if he said so, to know every single detail fo the space shuttle. Nor did he discover the shuttle when he became first employed. He is building the shuttle upon known knowledge. He knows what works, and what doesn't because of the past. He has just happened to be trained into being able to understand those manuals and methods. As long as we have this knowledge base of technology and methods, we will continue to be able to move forward.

[Sayonara]

Linda S. Gottfredson

School of Education

College of Human Services' date=' Education, and Public Policy

...

Of course, this is just one study, and one study can't be decisive.[/quote']

never mind the study - I'm still getting over that citation. Oh my. Sorry to be such an intellectual snob, but that was really funny.

 

 

And knowledge cannot be acquired without an adequate IQ. Someone with an IQ under 90 will most likely never be able to learn calculus.

(a) "knowledge" includes things that have been written down, which are a part of society as long as they can still be read,

 

(b) IQ is not a useful measure for this kind of investigation.

 

 

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/articl...lligence/t4.htm And one will see an overall trend showing that the higher the IQ average, the more advanced the nation.

First rule of analysis and interpretation: Correlation is not causation.

[Ophiolite]

And one will see an overall trend showing that the higher the IQ average, the more advanced the nation.

Or, showing that the more advanced the nation, the higher the average IQ. [Runs down street screaming "chicken; egg" repeatedly, in rapid sucession.]

[ku]

Asian guy, why don't you set an example and have many children. Then, when they are old enough to take IQ tests, sterilize those who get below 100. After all, it's only fair to sacrifice a child's future right to procreate for the sake of increasing average human IQ in the long term by 0.000000001 points.

[Johnny5]

I would go one further, and suggest that civilisation depends not on intelligence, but on knowledge, which is most certainly not genetically inherited.

 

This comment struck me as excellent.

[badchad]

Well, anecdotally it doesn't seem so farfetched that intelligence is hereditary. You certainly inherit a lot of physical characteristics from your parents. In addition one can see particular personalty traits that seem to be inherited (e.g. I'm "outgoing" like my mom, compulsive like my father etc.). Granted environment plays a large role but the idea of inherting intelligence seems plausible to me.

 

Back to the argument at hand (as someone previously stated) even if intelligence is inherited, knowledge is not. Thus we should continue to advance as a society because our collective knowledge is increasing.

[AzurePhoenix]

It'd be more advantageous to sterilize students who are clearly stupid, not those who have lower IQ's. I've met some wierdly smart people with low scores, plus they might have other mental gifts.

[Hellbender]

And one will see an overall trend showing that the higher the IQ average, the more advanced the nation.

 

cart before the horse. A more advanced nation will likely be able to put a higher value on IQ and produce conditions like better education, parenting, etc.

[adhocboy]

what if intelligence were somehow counter to survival? I mean, I have hear that a religious disposition increases life span... maybe, just maybe, our collective intelligence is declining and technology was the product of a declension not ascension of a species.

 

It would be interesting to understand which human traits are becoming stronger. That would tell us a lot about not only the future, but what is subtly important today.