Humans are Becoming Genetically Less Intelligent

[sabaisabai]

Humans are Becoming Genetically Less Intelligent

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?

[DJTX]

Holy Crap! :shock: Are you guys on the right web site :?: :wink:

[sabaisabai]

Holy Crap! :shock: Are you guys on the right web site :?: :wink:

Oops... my bad. :roll:

should hv said... "if your smart... hv lots of sex...and reproduce!..if not...don't reproduce"

:twisted:

[robbie36]

I think what you write is largely correct.

1. If you truely understand evolution you will know that each living organism acts selfishly and that a species reacts as a some of the individuals. (if you dont understand this read Richard Dawkins - The selfish gene.). So 'smart' people are tending to rationalise that reproduction and the ongoing nurturing of kids (not to mention the lifetime commitment to one woman or man) are a sacrifice that they are not necessarily prepared to make despite all the religious and social pressures. The species therefore is probably becoming dumber and evolution doesnt really care - quite the opposite, by definition, if everyone became 'smart' we would no longer exist as a species.

2. What you fail to take into account in your argument is the impact of technology. Technology, the internet, mobile phones etc enable us to learn more efficiently. This might not be immediately obvious but I am sure that you can see for instance that the invention of books clearly helps even dumb people to become smarter.

You also have to ask yourself how much reproduction is really going to matter in the future. It seems inevitable that by the end of this century and by as early as 2050, man will have the ability to live forever (so long as some idiot like Osama or Bush doesnt press the nuclear button with those words 'in God we trust').

http://www.biologicshow.com/superhuman-fully-conscious-computers-by-2020.html

Living forever might not seem that attractive to this generation but other generations might have different values. An alternative would be to clone the smart people but I expect you would have to find some pretty dumb parents to bring them up.

[robbie36]

Oops... my bad. :roll:

should hv said... "if your smart... hv lots of sex...and reproduce!..if not...don't reproduce"

:twisted:

If that is your belief go for it. However, I would warn you that 'smart' people have worked out that it is more fun to have lots of sex and not reproduce.

PS. Dont tell the Catholics

[smartass]

I dont know about genetic thingy but methinks what makes people less intelligent in general is that we've become ignorant...living more like a robot...losing imagination, inpiration and motivation.

[robbie36]

I dont know about genetic thingy but methinks what makes people less intelligent in general is that we've become ignorant...living more like a robot...losing imagination, inpiration and motivation.

Really? Trying playing God of War on the PS2 then consider that the PS3 is 32 times more powerful. Then look into the future and imagine that although the world seems to be becoming endlessly more fascinating every single day, we are only just beginning to scrape the surface.

Then prey and hope that Bush doesnt **** it all up when we are just beginning to have fun. Then analyse the futility of preying and just hope.

[CiaranM]

should hv said... "if your smart... hv lots of sex...and reproduce!..if not...don't reproduce"

:twisted:

If that is your belief go for it. However, I would warn you that 'smart' people have worked out that it is more fun to have lots of sex and not reproduce.

PS. Dont tell the Catholics

too late they know already ......

in the words of billy connolly "i would like to thank the catholic church for promoting the rythm method of contraception, without which i wouldn't be f**king here today" or words to that effect !!

[ze_pequeno]

Wow! I hope I am misinterpreting your words Sabaisabai. But this really sounds like you're in favor of genetic selection so that "the most intelligent and clever could survive"???

I think nature is much wiser than you think. And if indeed human race is really meant to disappear because of that...So be it!

[Princess]

I think that as the population increases, its not that we're producing more ignorant people but that the bar that measures a person's intelligence is being raised higher and higher. Today the average 6th grader is supposed to know a little something about nuclear technology, genetic engineering etc. When I was a child I read about those things in books and saw it as something in the far future...intangible and surreal.

In fact I think the likes of Einstein and Newton had it easier because they did all the base work themselves. These days, you have to know what they knew first...all the generations behind us and then come up with your own thoughts.

As for producing brainy kids, two smart parents having kids does not guarentee that the kids will be smart too. Unless of course you manipulate the genes and as terrible as it sounds, I think the day will come when we will genetically engineer our children to make sure they're well equipped to survive. :shock:

[atomicflower]

i got a mix feeling about this...

human knowledge is suppressed by nature, as our perception is narrowed. we can only see, hear, taste, smell, feel as much as we are naturally allowed. however, that does not mean that we will never be able to percieve beyond that.

civilization is created by innate intelligence...hmmmm....i think civilization does not ultimately rely on human intelligence in order to be created...C will always equal MC2, whether or not einstein has found it. all the answers have been constructed and awaiting for discovery.

many gays are significantly smart, that might be another reason that the smart gene don't get reproduced...however, that does not mean that gays will never be able to be productive...it is possible even within the same sex, i believe.

lazy and selfish people who doesn't wanan give up their lazy routine, like myself, will help decreasing lazy bums. simply by not having kids.

indeed human race is really meant to disappear because of that...So be it!

i agree... 8)

[robbie36]

Evolution on Earthhas occurred for approx. 400 million yrs. It is a process which has one fundamental theme - survival of the fittest.

Barfly 'survival of the fittest' was Darwin's theory of evolution. To fully understand evolution you need to read more modern theories that have refined Darwin's earlier work.

As I say above, the works of the likes of Richard Dawkins puts a slightly different angle on evolution - the individual acts, the species reacts that explains everything. If you believe that evolution is not a bad starting point for explaining life then to take a closer look is well worthwhile. It also explains the central dichotomy of existence and how different personal and society belief systems are formed. Finally it explains why we feel what we feel and why we are sometimes confused by those feelings.

[DJTX]

If a bear farts in the woods does anyone hear it?

[atomicflower]

Evolution on Earthhas occurred for approx. 400 million yrs. It is a process which has one fundamental theme - survival of the fittest. Nowadays, most particularly in the West, with social and economic 'develpoment', pretty much everyone gets a fighting chance. Medical Science can keep alive maybe 9 out of 10 unhealthy babies, all of which would have perished if the rules of natural selection were still in operation. This results in genetic combinations which ought not survive, going on to potentially reproduce.

Furthermore, modern social welfare keeps less able humans in food shelter and clothing. If natural selection were in operation, these less able (beit physically or mentally) beings might not survive. Again, the effects of natural selection on the population have been nullified, and the substandard gentic combiantions can potentially go on to reproduce. This can only increase the proportion of unhealthy DNA in the human genepool.

So perhaps we got so 'clever', that we brought about our own demise. So unlucky........

that's very good...

i think every specie is prone to be deminished OR to battel for survival...hence, evolution is the answer. just like you said..evolutin is the result of natural selection.

then back to human, as we are the specie who have got the biggest brain...i take it as that nature allows us to mess up with nature itself. technologies are employed to help humans battle with it but it is also also provided by nature by offerring us intelligence. it's a round tricky cycle, eh? 8)

we have come to the point where we cannot survive if without technologies, that's why we've unrealizingly become 'posthuman'. it is the way human and technologies help keep each other to co-exist.

don't you afraid of atomic bomb...be afraid of biochemical...

that is to come...

[robbie36]

By your own admission, Darwin's work, as set out in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (1859), has been refined somewhat. Refined. Furthered. Not disproven, and certainly not surpassed.

Barfly,

I think through both our beliefs evolution is at the core.

I believe that Darwin's theory is basically the answer but not the whole answer. The original question in this thread asks a very interesting question - it sort of goes like this 'if evolution is about the survival of the fittest, how come all the uneducated, less developed nations are expanding their populations while the more developed are contracting'.

To explain this in pure Darwinian terms namely 'survival of the fittest' you are either likely to resort to social/technology issues (not satisfactory cos evolution explains all life) or to conclude that the value systems of less developed nations are better or 'fitter'. Neither explanation is that satisfactory.

What the refinement of Darwinism says is this. We as individuals are selfish and the species is the sum of those selfish acts. Evolution will always side on the those who 'value reproduction' whether that 'value' is right or wrong. From that perspective evolution is totally uncaring about whether you are 'fitter' or not. (If you understand capitalism, it is the same concept, individuals acting selfishly with the economy being the sum of the individuals actions - often a pretty unsatisfactory result.)

To give you an example if in one generation, half the population believes in sacrificing their time and happiness to bring up the next generation of the species and half believes the sacrifice is too big, what will happen in the next generation. Well it is simple. 100% will be brought up to believe in reproduction because only those who believe in reproduction will reproduce.

And the reason that I am not prepared to accept 'the survival of the fittest' as the essential doctrine for life is this. It implies that if you reject reproduction you are wrong (and many people who do, feel guilty about it). It is not necessarily wrong (those who choose to reproduce are just coming up with a different conclusion from the same inputs) however evolution will always choose to side on the reproducers.

PS. If you do basically believe in evolution as the basis for life on this planet, then I strongly recommend you read Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene which carefully explains some of the missing links in the theory, why we exist? why we feel as we do? why we think as we do? why many of the things we are brought up to believe are wrong?

[Loburt]

I read it, and I think you're right, but only half right.

What you say about the developed world consuming the lion's share of the world's resources is true. But if the underdeveloped nations had less mouths to feed they might be in a better position to protect their own natural resources from either being plundered by biz types from developed nations or their own people selling it off to them.

And a lot of environmental degradation in places like watershed areas is the result of local people moving in in search of greener pastures, so to speak.

You are spot on, though, when you link women's education and empowerment with lower fertility rates. They generally go hand in hand.

I think the problem needs to be tackled from both ends of the spectrum - work on bringing popluation growth down, and on educating, empowering and developing people.

Then we can meet in a middle that will be a much better place.

[zeusbheld]

By your own admission, Darwin's work, as set out in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (1859), has been refined somewhat. Refined. Furthered. Not disproven, and certainly not surpassed.

Also, all theory of evolution is exactly that. Theory.

For the purposes of a TF discussion, 'survival of the fittest' as an umbrella descriptor ought to suffice.

inevitably i have come to spam this thread. i am going to try to keep it concise and simple rather than a novel-lenght post or technical paper.

threads like this may bore some people but 99 percent of the psuedo sexy pseudo-funny threads bore me into a coma, so i have come to exact my revenge...

i like seeing some discussion and exchange of ideas on something more substantial than why do you love/hate falangs and /or thai girls,

those of you who hate this stuff go read your flirty jokey bullshit and leave this thread alone. that **** has its place on tf, so does this. get over it.

some interesting points on this thread, and some inaccuracies and fallacies. not that i'm an expert, but mangling and misinterpreting science, especially evolution, is a hobby of mine.

EVOLUTION IS A THEORY:

technically true, but we have enough evidence to conclude that evolution in some form happened. we will NEVER do better than that.

"what happens when you throw a ball" is a predictive problem. it involves simple physics. physics (oversimplification alert) generally involves guessing at the way things work (theories). theories are expressed mathematically in physics and the math can be tested via experiments. when they are right so often that they predict simple events with nearly 100 percent accuracy, then they become LAWS. if this wasn't true, we would not be having this discussion coz computers wouldnt exist.

"where do we come from" is a historical problem. we have to look at what little evidence is preserved in fossils, anatomical similarities, etc. and come up with our answer from that. in that sense the theory of evolution is always a theory, but the reason it is scientifically accepted as true is that the evidence is substantial enough that no one in the scientific world finds evolution suspect, there is only haggling and 'refining' the theory. so the questions on the table among scientists is HOW, not IF.

creationism is sheer horseshit, does not even deserve the status of theory, at least as something opposed to evolution. i worked at a catholic university.. jesuits are pretty smart and sophisticated. they dont' question the basic principle of evolution, they just find a role for God in the process.

even according to every jesuit i've ever talked to (about a dozen) it is a philosphical question and not a scientific question.

[zeusbheld]

I think the problem needs to be tackled from both ends of the spectrum - work on bringing popluation growth down, and on educating, empowering and developing people.

Then we can meet in a middle that will be a much better place.

YEP. what he said.

[zeusbheld]

back to the original question / statement (quatement? stestion?)

Humans are Becoming Genetically Less Intelligent

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?

#2 is a fallacy. while in principle civilization is a result of intelligence, there is no evidence that increasing intelligence results in an increasingly refined civilization. It begs the question of how intelligence impacts the formation of culture, and also begs the question of whether collective genetic changes happen fast enough to impact the evolution of culture.

#5 is flat out wrong.

culture, once started, works differently from regular evolution. evolution of species through natural selection (richard dawkins makes a very strong case that the fundamental unit of evolution is the individual gene, not species or individuals) happens fairly slowly, over millions of years.

ther'es a phenomenon biologists refer to as the "hopeful monster"--a species evolves a trait because it anticipates a need. this is how lamarck thought evolution worked. but in truth this doesn't happen in biological evolution.in reality a mutation occurs, and if it is beneficial, it is more likely to be passed on, if not, individuals inheriting it will likely die off quickly (an oversimplification, but i hope it conveys the general idea).

however, once culture has evolved, information is exchanged at a much faster rate than it is via genes. cultural evolution, in the case of humans, will determine our fate.

besides evolving MUCH faster, culture also has the capacity to evolve along lamarckist lines--that is, we can invent something because we need to. genes don't do that.

therefore, because it happens faster, and because we have the option of evolving what we need culturally, our fate as a species depends on how the culture evolves, not on our genetic evolution.

STATISTICS AND PATTERNS

be wary of a statistic like "genetically we're getting dumber." this may be true on the average, but the careful observer will note that smart people tend to breed with smart people, so the smartest people may even be getting smarter.

there is a lot of controversy over how intelligence is measured, and how contingent intelligence scores are on education level. so i think that while technically it is most likely true, it is irrelevant.

[robbie36]

Maybe society should perhaps tackle the problem at its core.

Every generation seemingly more and more educated people are rejecting their upbringing and rejecting the idea of reproduction. It is possible that these people have valid reasons and something to contribute. Unfortunately evolution doesnt agree and ruthlessly eradicates them from the gene pool.

[neillyperrfekt]

sorry to post this as i am stupid,

but surely the human race cannot be defined within evolution.

Nowadays as a species we dont evolve, we now evolve our environment to suit us. from what i see but i could be wrong.

[SiamHotel]

So, what are your thoughts?

firxt that comes to mind?? ... > SHAME ON YOU 'self-appointed' human beingsxxx :!::!:

PS: 2 much elocutionx on the subject?? :twisted: 8)

[bored]

humans are becoming less inteligent? that's good cuz some of us can take advantage of the less inteligent. :twisted:

[CiaranM]

humans are becoming less inteligent? that's good cuz some of us can take advantage of the less inteligent. :twisted:

yes, but where the hell r u going to find someone less intelligent than U !!

[zeusbheld]

humans are becoming less inteligent? that's good cuz some of us can take advantage of the less inteligent. :twisted:

yes, but where the hell r u going to find someone less intelligent than U !!

ah... vladdie didnt say *he* could take advantage... maybe he is just hoping to be taken advantage of...