Humans are Becoming Genetically Less Intelligent

http://www.eugenics.net/

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting website - I've read about 5 of the articles thus far. Most certainly, the authors make some very good points in regards to dysgenics. I found this quote to be quite relevant, especially to some of our own forum members who wonder why we don't provide more resources to areas such as metaphysics and pseudosciences:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought something was wrong with the Flynn-effect, because clearly, we are not getting any smarter. This is indeed a very interesting read.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well, the site is a bit misleading. yes hereditary effects intelligence (40-80%), but environment also does. so if you are trying to engineer children or something, you will have to make sure that the genes you use as your basis are not picked from environmentally advantageous people.

 

hereditary effects intelligence (40-80%), but environment also does...

 

It would be very amusing to see you try to substantiate any of your post with genuine scientific references. Your link certainly doesn't qualify - it's a website of subjective personal opinion. None of your five points are scientific fact.

Not that I disagree with eugenics, as such. For instance, I fully support pre-implantation screening of embryos for diseases and undesirable traits. At the moment the traits that can be screened for are disease and disease susceptibility, but in the near future we will be in the position to screen for non-disease physical traits and personality traits. I see no logical objection for using science to allow parents to have a tall child with musical ability, for instance.

But society must proceed on a sound basis. "Intelligence" is a complex thing; there are many different types of intelligence and there is a substantial nurture basis to learning and intelligence. It's not all genetics. Basing eugenics on some subjective notion of what constitutes “intelligence” is stupid.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/06/04/1117825100891.html<P>

 

deleted

 

I was totally thinking about this today. When reading a magazine article about sharon stones new adopted baby..

Thinking about the amount of successful people adopting children, leaving it until too late in life to have kids, or chosing to have none or few children of their own.

It's kind of amusing really. Killing ourselves off due to our tendancies..

smarter - > less kids - > less intelligent parts of genepool take over - > smarter - > less kids etc etc

 

nevermind.

 

ps human civilization is rooted anyway.. we're far beyond repair.

 

You people are aware that eugenics laws were passed and enforced in both Canada and the US in the early 20th century, right? And that these served as a basis for many of Hitler's beliefs regarding racial superiority? We used forced sterilization to prevent retarded people from procreating here in Ontario. Is that what you're advocating, that we go back to killing the procreative abilities of people we find inconvenient? It fits in nicely with the Left's fetishing of Terri Chiavo's death. Sieg Heil, glorious future!

 

Sorry, Terri Schiavo. I was too worked up to stop and look it up.

 

Hitler was also into getting rid of all the mentally retarded and psychologically disturbed people--unfortunately he didn't include himself among their number--I guess he figured that a perfect race shouldn't be embarrassed by the presence of Aryan people who weren't quite up to the mark. But it was all part of the climate of the 1930's--Hitler just went further than most in his nuttiness.

 

You think? I nominate this for understatement of the year.

 

Time to bone up on genetices people. There is (nor can there be) such a thing as 'genetic intelligence'. Genetics is a science of accumulated probability. Intelligence (at best) is a highly relativistic, environmentally embedded measurement. The absolute sum toto one could gleam from a genetic profile of someone would be a probabilistic range of aptitude to learning. This of course, is a few factors removed from even the most common concept of 'intelligence'.
Always remember to keep in mind the agenda of your sources.

 

Excellent points, Glaucon. Your argument about accumlated probability puts the lie to the main thrust of the eugenicists' argument: that removing "defective" individuals from the gene pool will significantly decrease the likelihood of future "defects". The probabilities leading to defect are the accumulation of millions of years of breeding. The ne plus ultra example of my point is homosexuality. Homosexuals are historically non-procreative, and yet incidents of homosexuality flourish. This is something beyond a shallow genetic trait that can be bread out in a few generations. It's not as if the sum toto of a human being were no more difficult to change than the shade of a dog's coat. And as you say, what constitutes intelligence is so difficult to quantify that it's nearly impossible to predict what combinations of genes make it happen.

 

Er, might make it happen.

 

Actually, it's surprising that most people don't see this, especially those of somewhat scientific bent. I mean, even heavily science laden sci-fi flicks depicting some highly-ordered dystopia ( a la Gattaca, et. al.) invariably involve some dissenting characters who have managed to 'sneak through' whatever genetic manipulation [or whatever scientific source of control is chosen (Matrix anyone?)] the 'System' has in place as its control measure. Admittedly, perhaps this is just a poetic license taken by the romantics among us who believe that humanity cannot be reduced so easily. Or, as indeed many leading evolutionary theorists (R Dawkins for one) believe, intelligence (and perhaps other human qualia) is quite simply not reducible.

 

deleted

 

Haven't IQ scores been steadily increasing since they first started testing with them? And I want to see no bullshit about how IQ tests dont measure intelligence.