Humans are Becoming Genetically Less Intelligent

[john8pies]

Yes, this may be true, but it sounds awfully like a certain German Chancellor`s policies in the 1930s, too!

[gmc]

Load of cobblers! Societies that practice eugenics of one kind or another or militate against mixing of the tribes/races invariably spiral in to decline and disappear up their own arrogant opinionated backsides. Diversity wins every time.

If you want a more historiaclly history of liberalism try this one

http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.hol ... ism.html#1

[Agnes]

poor breeds of human? too late once you are here, not every one can work physically for a day, weeks or a lifetime. so in other words with out intelligence you stand no chance in this world, i disagree, with out a work background, you are screwed. we still need people who can labor and sweat, muscles, not always in the head. blood, sweat & tears, when DEP and MSHA feds come to my operation, i throw them out, or i offer a hand shovel without water for the day, they look at eachother like queers. :-6 what next? no i started wearing my bra @ 13.

[capt_buzzard]

Opus Dei and the Far Right have a hand in this rubbish

[nvalleyvee]

While working in retail - I often felt the nationl intelligence level of the US dropping by the minute!! WHY you may ask - because most people barely graduated High School - most people proved themselves too irate to deal with a problem in an appropriate manner. Then I delt with people who had HS diplomas and had educated tehmselves even when they didn't go to college and were very articulate.

My point is a dumb ass always acts as a dumb ass even with education. People with intelligence act as people with intelligence - even without the education.

[Agnes]

ArnoldLayne wrote: Least intelligent people are having the most children ? RUBBISH !!

Maybe the least educated, which is entirely different and not in the least bit new !

It all leaves a very nasty taste in my mouth

Mongrels live longer than pedigrees, maybe that tells you something


now thats a good one. mongrels live longer probably because of their survival skills? how are humans becoming less intelligent otherwise, if genetical are research scientists aware?

what is a pedigree? they have problems like the smart ones too? :-6

[lady cop]

Agnes wrote: or i offer a hand shovel without water for the day, they look at eachother like queers. :-6 what next? no i started wearing my bra @ 13.so does this mean 'queers' is a negative? and is a bra somehow equated with intelligence?

[BTS]

Asian-American wrote: http://www.neoeugenics.com/



1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

Says WHO?? Darwins cousin?



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

So what the HELL is innate intelligence?



Definition of Innate Intelligence:

the inborn intelligence within each individual which not only keeps that person alive but also adapts, coordinates, repairs, renews, empowers and heals the body through the Nervous System.

How does that relate to us getting any dumber? Seems that is involved with our nervous system not our intelligence!





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.

So we get rid of all our DUMMIES?



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.

So Mr. Perfect Asian, who decides who has off-spring? You? Bush?



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."

Please do tell us all how you Plan on turning all us poor dumb and inbred Americans around Mr Asian American!!!!!!!!!



Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.

yah right.........Can I pork the little woman tonite or do I need a IQ test............



So, what are your thoughts? See Above

[Agnes]

lady cop wrote: so does this mean 'queers' is a negative? and is a bra somehow equated with intelligence?


now thats a good question. yes, DEP & MSHA are negatives in my books, they are federal agencies that i deal with, men with baby soft hands who have no experience in the labor field, they write out fines for nonsense in regards to safety and environmental issues? yes, they are tender males who we do not enjoying seeing in the least. they mabye be intelligent writing a fine, but have little knowledge or physical ability to operate such equipment. thats the POINT>

and again my first bra i am almost sure was around 13, the bra-less look was in at that time, the early 70's? :wah: i was so stupid i didn't know if it hooked in the back or the front?

[gmc]

posted by agnes

we still need people who can labor and sweat, muscles, not always in the head. blood, sweat & tears, when DEP and MSHA feds come to my operation, i throw them out, or i offer a




DEP & MSHA, what are they?

posted by

The Jews are a living example that your statement is incorrect: they are the most successful ethnic group, and they have practiced eugenics for thousands of years: they basically set up their societies so that there was higher fertility in the higher IQ sections than the rest. In fact, this claim has just been published in a mainstream magazine, see


Cobblers, you could put a better case for the european peoples latins, celts, anglo-saxons, (what language are you using, whose mathematics, whose governmantal system do you live under) and the mongols and chinese chinese are another example that kind of make your belief ridiculous.

From the economist

In the Middle Ages, European Jews were subjected to legal discrimination, one effect of which was to drive them into money-related professions such as banking and tax farming which were often disdained by, or forbidden to, Christians. This, along with the low level of intermarriage with their gentile neighbours (which modern genetic analysis confirms was the case), is Dr Cochran's starting point.

He argues that the professions occupied by European Jews were all ones that put a premium on intelligence. Of course, it is hard to prove that this intelligence premium existed in the Middle Ages, but it is certainly true that it exists in the modern versions of those occupations. Several studies have shown that intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is highly correlated with income in jobs such as banking.


They weren't given a lot of choice in the matter as to what kind of occupations they could have. They didn't set up their societies for anything they were surviving as best they were allowed to, to implt it was deliberate eugenics is ridiculous.

What can, however, be shown from the historical records is that European Jews at the top of their professions in the Middle Ages raised more children to adulthood than those at the bottom. Of course, that was true of successful gentiles as well. But in the Middle Ages, success in Christian society tended to be violently aristocratic (warfare and land), rather than peacefully meritocratic (banking and trade).


Well having money to buy food probably had a lot to do with that which probably accounts for succesful gentiles having more children survive as well.

The development of industrialisation and the world you see around you was not achieved by jews but by gentiles. You live in a world created by others in which jews played a part, how big an influence is rather open to debate. How successful is even more open. I could put a great case for the scots and irish being more successful and influential or how about Protestants are more successful than any other religious group, but I will resist the temptation as being rather pointless.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make-if any.

Most people putting these kind of eugenics arguements are indulging in a form of intellectual masterbation producing a feeling of smug superiority that is entirely selfish and ultimately fails to achive anything except maybe a sneaking suspicion that something is missing somewhere. Like moral intelligence perhaps.

[Agnes]

GMC; DEP is Department of Environmental Protection & MSHA is Mine Safety Health Administration. :-6

[schill79]

Agnes wrote: poor breeds of human? too late once you are here, not every one can work physically for a day, weeks or a lifetime. so in other words with out intelligence you stand no chance in this world, i disagree, with out a work background, you are screwed. we still need people who can labor and sweat, muscles, not always in the head. blood, sweat & tears, when DEP and MSHA feds come to my operation, i throw them out, or i offer a hand shovel without water for the day, they look at eachother like queers. :-6 what next? no i started wearing my bra @ 13.


With all of this talk on eugenics, what do you think about the current controversy surrounding the cloning of humans? In the future, human beings might be successfully cloned into exact duplicates of one another. This absolutely disgusts me. Scientists are stepping into dangerous territory by "playing god." Aside from all of the physical/mental deformations that could arise after the "cloning" process has been completed, there is the scary prospect of walking around and knowing that you are not an individual, completely different from all other humans on earth. Wouldn't it be completely boring without diversity?

[peteyrules]

schill79 wrote: With all of this talk on eugenics, what do you think about the current controversy surrounding the cloning of humans? In the future, human beings might be successfully cloned into exact duplicates of one another. This absolutely disgusts me. Scientists are stepping into dangerous territory by "playing god." Aside from all of the physical/mental deformations that could arise after the "cloning" process has been completed, there is the scary prospect of walking around and knowing that you are not an individual, completely different from all other humans on earth. Wouldn't it be completely boring without diversity?


What are you talking about? Who's curing cancer - GOD? Developing Vacines - GOD? :-3 I don't think so!!! It's the scientists - EXPERIMENTING - thankfully! Cloning might just be another form of curing deadly diseases by creating healthy humans from others. Maybe not on a worldwide scale, just for medical purposes. As for individuals - who doesn't love TWINS or TRIPLETS - besides you????:(

[Wolverine]

nvalleyvee wrote: While working in retail - I often felt the nationl intelligence level of the US dropping by the minute!! WHY you may ask - because most people barely graduated High School - most people proved themselves too irate to deal with a problem in an appropriate manner. Then I delt with people who had HS diplomas and had educated tehmselves even when they didn't go to college and were very articulate.

My point is a dumb ass always acts as a dumb ass even with education. People with intelligence act as people with intelligence - even without the education.


absolutely.

[schill79]

Agnes wrote: poor breeds of human? too late once you are here, not every one can work physically for a day, weeks or a lifetime. so in other words with out intelligence you stand no chance in this world, i disagree, with out a work background, you are screwed. we still need people who can labor and sweat, muscles, not always in the head. blood, sweat & tears, when DEP and MSHA feds come to my operation, i throw them out, or i offer a hand shovel without water for the day, they look at eachother like queers. :-6 what next? no i started wearing my bra @ 13.


In response to the member "petey rules," curing cancer and developing vaccines are far different ventures than the cloning of human beings!!!! A cure for cancer (which has not yet been found) and a vaccine - these are used for the benefit of those who have cancer and need protection from viruses and diseases, respectively. Cloning is an invasive procedure with the great potential for harm to the "receiver" of the cell (from which a human could be cloned) as well as the "cloned" individual, who could develop physical malformations after the fact. EXPERIMENTING for the sake of experimenting does not justify "playing god" - messing with the existence of humanity! And I do not have a problem with twins! If humans are cloned, I would afford the same respect to them that I would to a human born through natural means! The issue of the status of cloned human beings should be kept separate from discussions surrounding scientists' use of technology to clone the human race.

[Accountable]

Do you honestly think that a baby born/created/brought to life now will be exactly as you are now? Notachance!



So what if it has matching DNA? Identical twins also share DNA. God created Man. Isn't whatever advancements Man makes also of God?









Boy, that oughta shake a tree or two.

[nvalleyvee]

I call bullshit to the first post. IMO.

[chonsigirl]

Asian-American wrote: The Jews are a living example that your statement is incorrect: they are the most successful ethnic group, and they have practiced eugenics for thousands of years: they basically set up their societies so that there was higher fertility in the higher IQ sections than the rest. In fact, this claim has just been published in a mainstream magazine, see http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... id=4032638
"Put these two things together—a correlation of intelligence and success, and a correlation of success and fecundity—and you have circumstances that favour the spread of genes that enhance intelligence. The questions are, do such genes exist, and what are they if they do? Dr Cochran thinks they do exist, and that they are exactly the genes that cause the inherited diseases which afflict Ashkenazi society."



I noticed the article traced a hypothesis through historical narrative, but did not provide any statistical information to support it's assumptions. Would you care to respond with some proof of Cochran's assumptions?

[Accountable]

He/she hasn't been around since early June.

[chonsigirl]

Well, that was a time warp if I ever saw one, AC!:wah:

[Alfred]

the level of education might fall to a low standard for a lot of people but even the basic knowlege of today would have been complicated science, or Witchcraft, only 150 years ago.

[Galbally]

Intelligence is a function of the brain, the human brain has not changed very dramatically since the species first evolved. I think that you are thinking about education and learning abilities, and the evidence is that whatever your background the fact of having to live in a technological society would increase the basic level of literacy and intellectual ability in the population as a whole. Lets face it, Newton was a genius, but how many people were able to read or do basic arithmatic in the late 17th century? Not many, its not that they were stupid, they just didn't recieve much education or even encountered situations where they needed it. Anyway genetic changes due to natural selection occur over a very long time scale so even if it were happening you wouldn't have to worry about it for at least the next 20,000 years.

[G-man]

I've gotta' go with Arnold on this one... I see this topic heading into some treacherous waters otherwise! You've got to be very careful not to imply intelligence whereas education is what is truly meant... the two terms are similar, and can be used interchangeably in some circumstances, however... many folks with a phd typically have a genius level IQ as well... it is something that can be learned to some extent I believe... especially in the way 'genius" is determined.

It was discovered that I had a genius IQ at a very young age... so did both of my parents and both of my grandfathers... my sister, however was never considered to be quite at that level... it does seem to be hereditary in my family.

[Alfred]

Galbally wrote: Intelligence is a function of the brain, the human brain has not changed very dramatically since the species first evolved.


there have been studies that have shown that intelligence can decline in the Adolecent years, due to a large loss of neural cells in the brain per second. basicaly some teens will need to work twice as hard to do half as well.

but your right, none of these changes have proved drastic or permanent.

[Galbally]

[QUOTE=Alfred]there have been studies that have shown that intelligence can decline in the Adolecent years, due to a large loss of neural cells in the brain per second. basicaly some teens will need to work twice as hard to do half as well.

hi alfred, thats intresting, but as you probably know a change within an individual over his or her lifetime is not due to natural selection, but they're own body functions or environmental conditions or what have you. If its a genetic trait of course it may be passed on. Makes you wonder what the teens are at if they're losing that many brain cells, then again come to think of it don't want to know.

Is it saying that the loss of brain cells is relatively greater during teenage years than the rest of the your life? Cause adults lose brain cells all the time, specially if they are boozers, thou they,re are so many of them it usually doesn't matter.

[Alfred]

Galbally wrote:

hi alfred, thats intresting, but as you probably know a change within an individual over his or her lifetime is not due to natural selection, but they're own body functions or environmental conditions or what have you. If its a genetic trait of course it may be passed on. Makes you wonder what the teens are at if they're losing that many brain cells, then again come to think of it don't want to know.

Is it saying that the loss of brain cells is relatively greater during teenage years than the rest of the your life? Cause adults lose brain cells all the time, specially if they are boozers, thou they,re are so many of them it usually doesn't matter.


yes any change that has occured to teens brains in the past has not proved permanent.

the environment may have something to do with it but alcohole can add to the count of teens losing brain cells, it seems to be major restructuring of the brain and hence a lot grows back. it's just probably at a slower rate.

but this is probably just some teens, i think i'm one of them. :p

[chonsigirl]

Copycat!

[HelloGal]

interesting could be lack of breastfeeding and all the cows milk I would not doubt it.

[chippy009]

The developments of CHAVS seems to prove that human intelligence is falling.

[PermanentMarker]

Given the fact a lot of couples are a bit random combinations, who lack love.

And giving love to a child also depends for it's devolpment i can imagine this to be true. Altough it wouldnt destroy a civilization.

Smart people keep just have a higher chance of succes and thus status and so

As womans like status acka money, their offspring has a change to become smart too. The beatifull part in it is i think that the real money hunters go for managers.

like flies and a lightbulb.

Who in contrast are not that smart as their employees. So while those 'new king ants' atract mates. And organizations tend to be come more and more stupid.

A niche development of technical people who stay out of management but do just their work to get paid and have a life beyond their company. They can find themselves a woman to love and raise a smart child in love.

So if your a manager, next time take a look at your wallet and wonder how much you've created your own life...

If your an engineer tonight think when she will ask you again to



:wah:

[Bill Sikes]

Asian-American wrote:

(snip URL)

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?


ICBA to edit the above, so:

1) In which case, it must have been declining since inception - and it follows that

the same must be happening for all life forms - so it's back to the primeval swamp

for the whole planet, then!

2) Why? This does not compute.

3) This depends so much on definitions that it's impossible to comment.

4) This statement is substantiated to any proper degree where?

5) Leaving apart all gross generalisations in that statement, and others in

the article, an increase in the "misery quotient" could be due to people who

percieve themselves as "better" imposing their own strictures on the population

at large.

You really need to explain your last statement about "evidence", and the fact

that the "evidence" is nowhere borne out IRL.

BTW, are you "Asian" (whatever that means), or "American" (I take it you

mean USAian)?

[Felinessa]

onsekiz wrote:

The prediction of human becoming genetically less intelligent is not rational for me. I think people are more more intelligent now. Think about the medieval.


While I agree that it sounds absurd that we could become less intelligent, I do have some issues with "think about the medieval." I suppose it depends on what you consider to be "medieval," but the Western Middle Ages are supposed to span the period between roughly 400 A.D. and 1500 A.D. I say "roughly" because no one decided that starting today, we are leaving the Late Antiquity for the Early Middle Ages, or the Late Middle Ages for the Renaissance. Also, the Renaissance happened much earlier in Italy than in England, for example. So, roughly again, the Middle Ages happened about 500 to 1600 years ago. A blink of an eye in terms of evolution, since the evolution of hominids took millions of years (about 5 million years from Orrorin tugenensis to Homo Sapiens, which implied a gradual increase in the cubic centimetre size of the brain). While Orrorin and ourselves are completely different species, I assure you that Chaucer and ourselves are part of the same :wah:

And to dispel unfounded concepts about the medieval, I can tell you that around the year 600-700, the Anglo-Saxons were writing advanced exegetical treatises in Latin, that at the end of the 14th c., Chaucer was experimenting with meta-textuality (supposedly a postmodernist invention :rolleyes: ), that Giordano Bruno figured out the true shape of the Earth without flying in space, and that the Renaissance Leonardo produced incredibly accurate charts of human anatomy. Oh, and he designed planes as well!! Oh yes, and in the 12th c, the French were building the unparalleled Gothic cathedrals, although that happened thousands of years after the Egyptians built their pyramids and Pythagoras or Archimedes made significant advances in mathematics and physics.

In a nutshell, the medieval were not the barbarians we imagine them to be. Sure, their concept of justice and human rights differed from ours, and their intellectual priorities differed (i.e. they were more interested in the humane sciences than in technology, for example). But they knew the Classics by heart and were learned in Latin and Greek, while many of our children haven't even heard of Ovid. That doesn't mean they were smarter or we are smarter, but that our educational systems are different.