Humans are Becoming Genetically Less Intelligent

[john5746]

I was using diabetes as an example. Think of a situation where we suddenly couldn't produce the medicine that is possible today, and how catastrophic that would be to a society where most people depend on them to live.

 

How about having to survive with polluted air, water and no ozone? We are destroying the environment that sustains us. Maybe there will be some who can handle these changes better than others.

[paleolithic]

If you work from that position then the fact that we do not have the skills to survive by hunter gathering comes to the same thing. If society were to collapse to the point where it could no longer produce such things as insulin it would likely have completely collapsed. That would be catastrophic as most people would be unable to survive by gathering their own sustenance.

 

A person with diabetes is dependent on ociety to survive as they can't naturally manufacture insulin. But a person who can't trap animals and gather herbs with tools made from natural' date=' local materials and build a shelter and preserve and store food and tan and and clothing out of animal skins is similairly dependent on society.

 

If people can adapt society to solve problems such as diabetes then diabetes is no longer a genetic problem. People having it is no longer a problem needing to be weeded out by natural selection, it has become genetically moot.[/quote']

 

But genetics and life skills are a completely different thing. Somebody who somehow got to live in a hunter-gatherer community, who didn't know how to do all the things necessary to survive on their own in a primitive situation, could quite easily learn the skills, and if not, would either:

A: Be unable to reproduce do to not being a suitable mate.

B: Starve to death, therefore being unable to reproduce.

 

However, a genetic vulnerability or lethal disease is something that you cannot simply learn to live with in a primitive situation. Not just diabetes, but being born with HIV, Leukemia, or an especially vulnerable defense against cancer will all likely lead to demise coming the collapse of civilization. (I'm not saying that if nobody was sick, nobody would die, I'm saying that the more people are sick, the more people will die.)

 

How about having to survive with polluted air, water and no ozone? We are destroying the environment that sustains us. Maybe there will be some who can handle these changes better than others.

 

Yes john, if civilization were to collapse these would all likely lead to our eventual demise, along with the fact that the sustenance of large scale agriculture without the use of pesticides is impossible, and with the population of humans today, the earth will never be able to support them on it's own, leading to mass starvation. However these all are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Aardvark]

But genetics and life skills are a completely different thing. Somebody who somehow got to live in a hunter-gatherer community' date=' who didn't know how to do all the things necessary to survive on their own in a primitive situation, could quite easily learn the skills, and if not, would either:

A: Be unable to reproduce do to not being a suitable mate.

B: Starve to death, therefore being unable to reproduce.[/quote']

 

Genes are only useful, or not 'decadent' in the context of how they help a creature survive in a particular environment. If the environment is changed, for instance to a situation where being a poor hunter is no longer a disadvantage those genes which might impair hunting abilities are no longer relevant, any genetic decadence is now moot.

 

The same logic applies to diabetes.

 

The only grounds for reasonably worrying about 'genetic decadence' in such circumstances is where the environment might change again, catching out those individuals who have genetically 'decayed'. If there was any serious grounds for fearing that civilisation would collaspe to the degree where insulin was no longer manufactured then it would be valid to worry about that. But this seems a rather unlikely scenario and even if it did happen the other problems associated with it would be more pressing.

[paleolithic]

I have to say that the grounds for civilization collapsing are definitly there, however I agree that the other elements of the conditioned survival would be more relavent, especially because diabetics can easily digest most wild foods. Diabetes is only really existant in the context of civilization. Though again, to my original point: The current disruption of natural selection is deeply contributing to many of our problems today.

[john5746]

The current disruption of natural selection is deeply contributing to many of our problems today.

 

I guess insofar as we are trying to control the environment instead of vise-versa. We are always fighting against equilibrium. Keeping water out of certain areas, bringing water into certain areas, fighting disease and death. Sooner or later, things are brought into equilibrium.

[Skye]

But them mountains are mighty old.

[Kylonicus]

We should simply genetically engineer our offspring. That would take care of the problem. Everybody's happy, except some people who have a moral objection.

[PhDP]

The fact that "Asian Guy" use Flynn and Rushton-like pseudoscience to support his claims show a certain lack of seriousness. They don't understand basic genetics and obviously "eugenist" do not seem to care about rationality but only to give support to conservatism (witch, btw, is shown to correlative negatively with IQ, dear irony...).

 

About this "some race are genetically more intelligent", it's just bad science made by people who do not understand the word "phenotype". By eliminating environmental factors, it was shown the gap between races was no more (Refs; The Minnesota adoption studies and a study on american soldiers in WW2)

 

And you must really be ignorant to claim that, because the average IQ in poor country is lower, poverty is the cosequence of low IQ. It's nearly unconceivable that someone with knowledge of genetics would make such claims, i'm not surprised at all those racist pseudoscientists are nearly always psychologists without any formal eduation in evolution or genetics.

 

[math] V_P = V_G + V_E + V_{GE} + cov(G,E)[/math]

[Hernandez]

The problem here is that there is no such thing as intelligence, just acquired knowledge. As such, genes have no part in the human brain, and IQ tests are invalid. So, we simply need Liberal policies to increase acquired knowledge.

[Mokele]

Try reading the thread and actually looking at empirical results next time, rather than spouting feel-good populist bullshit.

[bascule]

The problem here is that there is no such thing as intelligence, just acquired knowledge. As such, genes have no part in the human brain, and IQ tests are invalid. So, we simply need Liberal policies to increase acquired knowledge.

 

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/necromancer.htm

 

 

Necormancer has a supernatural ability to bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life. After having been flogged to death the thread may have been deceased for many years, and bringing it back may have scant relevance to the current topic, yet Necromancer will unexpectedly exhume the thread’s rotting corpse, and strike horror in the forum as its grotesque form lurches into the discussion. The monster, instantly recognized by all who knew it in life, seems at first to breathe and have a pulse, but, alas, it is beyond Necromancer’s skill to fully restore the thread’s original vitality. The hideous apparition may frighten away some of the weaker Warriors or Warriors badly wounded in former battles, but the thread is only a shadow of its former self and very quickly expires.

 

Unlike Archivist, Necromancer compulsively saves every forum message in carefully preserved archives for future use in battle, while Necromancer collects departed threads merely for the thrill of resurrecting them. Some say he performs this unnatural act out of malice, others say he can’t help himself, but no one really knows.

[Chinese Love]

Humans are an evolutionary dead-end and are meant to get more stupid and go to extinction. It is AI robotics that will have the ability, if built properly, to replace humans are explore the universe and beyond.

 

The only humans that may have a chance of joining the super-robots, even integrating with them, are us Chinese and the Jewish people, both of whom prefer invitro fertilization/genetic screening over "natural" reproduction, and both of whom have very strong cultural practices ensuring that reproduction is based on quality, not quantity, and ensuring partners have high IQ genes and good health genes.

[ecoli]

Humans are an evolutionary dead-end and are meant to get more stupid and go to extinction. It is AI robotics that will have the ability' date=' if built properly, to replace humans are explore the universe and beyond.

 

The only humans that may have a chance of joining the super-robots, even integrating with them, are us Chinese and the Jewish people, both of whom prefer invitro fertilization/genetic screening over "natural" reproduction, and both of whom have very strong cultural practices ensuring that reproduction is based on quality, not quantity, and ensuring partners have high IQ genes and good health genes.[/quote']

 

For all your pseudoscience and generalizations, you do have a grain of truth in there, in the form of the Singularity theory.

[Sayonara]

Humans are an evolutionary dead-end and are meant to get more stupid and go to extinction.

While it seems true that the human race is chasing after goals which do not improve or maintain genetic fitness, and the evolutionary "strength" of the species is being diluted, a population crash does not necessarily lead to extinction. In fact in selective terms it is sometimes a hefty kick in the pants.

[Dr. Dalek]

While it seems true that the human race is chasing after goals which do not improve or maintain genetic fitness, and the evolutionary "strength" of the species is being diluted, a population crash does not necessarily lead to extinction. In fact in selective terms it is sometimes a hefty kick in the pants.

Yes, such an event my improve our gene pool by weeding out genetic lines that make one less likely to live out side of civilzation. So future human populations my be stronger in the long term do to what in the short term seems to be a crisis.

 

It does seem like less intelligent people are multiplying, however I don't think this is an immediate threat to soceity. It just means we have more laborors and house servants for the rest of us.

 

Humans are an evolutionary dead-end and are meant to get more stupid and go to extinction. It is AI robotics that will have the ability, if built properly, to replace humans are explore the universe and beyond.

Sciencefiction blather.

 

And if humans are getting dumber then how will we be able to build machines of that quality?

[Steph]

Humans are an evolutionary dead-end and are meant to get more stupid and go to extinction. It is AI robotics that will have the ability' date=' if built properly, to replace humans are explore the universe and beyond.

 

The only humans that may have a chance of joining the super-robots, even integrating with them, are us Chinese and the Jewish people, both of whom prefer invitro fertilization/genetic screening over "natural" reproduction, and both of whom have very strong cultural practices ensuring that reproduction is based on quality, not quantity, and ensuring partners have high IQ genes and good health genes.[/quote']

 

 

Erm, you statement actually makes some sense but the "Us Chinese and Jewish People" makes it sound like a joke. Really, its not only you guys and the jews that prefer invitro or genetic engineering.

The Singularity idea is a good one though.

[kaos]

I sort of agree. But it's very hard to prove. In the US at least, it seems like most parents have graduated from college. It's probably different in other countries though. Also, you'd have to prove that people who go to college are actually GENETICALLY smarter.

[Sayonara]

I was under the impression that intelligence (and therefore IQ) was largely a product of neural pathway development in the infant brain, which in turn is a normal reaction to external stimuli.

 

Where has this "IQ gene" thing come from? (I mean, obviously it came from the O/P... but why is it being discussed as if it is actually true?)

 

As far as I am concerned the apparent spread of stupidity in humans is far more likely to be due to changing societal structures than genetic rot.