Society culls itself

i think that there will be more and more dumb or smart people for a simple reason: darwinism is getting to end (maybe) in humans: everybody starts to get more and more acesso to technology benefits: we have vaccinations, medical care, good foods etc.So everybody have acesso to ways that will extend their spawn of life. Also, almost everybody will find a partner sooner or later. Even ugly people and people with no health or with no inteligence or with weak bodys etc, whatever. I see that very easly around us. We, humans, f*** like rats, besides we have new ways (techology) tu extend our lives.

So,, that means that dumb people will have more kids and then they will generate more dumb people (this is a very quick and simple way to explain things lol..."dumb" people means many things). and smart people will have more kids.

i dont know, this is just a silly idea lol

1. Why does Darwinism exclude technology?
2. Smart people have less children, they are also less likely to get married.

Strawman

Can you demonstrate that this is not true? What evidence do you have which shows that intelligent people are more likely to mate with dumb people?

You seriously doubt that success and intelligence are related? I'll be back with more on this. I have work to do.

Dysgenic breeding:
More intelligent people have lower sex drives, are less attractive, and therefore have fewer children

Unmarried General Social Survey respondents with a Wordsum score of 6 (the median score) were the least likely to have gone the preceding year without sex. People of average intelligence have the easiest time attracting sex partners. Men in the highest IQ category are the most likely to have to pay a prostitute in order to get sex.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/07/smarter_people_.html

And finally, you're not the first to put forward this "proposal" :

In 1951, C.M. Kornbluth wrote a dysgenic-crisis story called "The Marching Morons," in which generations of underbreeding by intellectual and cultural elites, combined with overbreeding by the poor, uneducated, unsuccessful masses, have led to a world in which the average person is an illiterate moron, incapable of contributing to the upkeep of society. In reality, over successive generations IQs are rising worldwide. Every revision of IQ tests makes them harder, so that the average score will continue to be 100 rather than creeping up to 105, 110, 115.

Moreover, the percentage of Americans who are diagnosed with mental retardation - defined as an IQ below 70 plus substantial difficulties performing necessary skills of daily life - has remained steady for a full century. Hundreds of thousands of "mentally defective" individuals were sterilized under eugenics laws in the first half of this century, yet that practice didn't even cause a blip in the prevalence of mental retardation among children. Nor did the repeal of involuntary sterilization laws cause an increase in mental retardation rates. There is simply no evidence that low IQs or low levels of functional intelligence are increasing in the general population, "dysgenic" breeding habits or not.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FLYNNEFF.html
 
Last edited:
Such synchronicity. I was just going to start a thread about a survey that was reported in this morning's Washington Post. Two Dutch psychologists interviewed people in their early 20s--marriage age--to find out what traits they considered important in a mate, and also what traits their parents considered important. They interviewed Americans, Dutch people and Kurds. The results were surprising, particularly as concerns this discussion.

Four of the five most important traits to the Westerners were:
  • Exciting personality
  • Sense of humor
  • Physical attractiveness
  • Smell
For Americans, the fifth trait was "about the same height" whereas for the Dutch it was "not fat."

Only the Kurds considered intelligence important! They also valued physical fitness, smell, humor and lack of fat.

To parents of all three groups, on the other hand, the most important trait was a similar ethnic background. They also did not want a bad family background, poverty, or divorce. Western parents did not want different religious beliefs.

Westerners and their parents were both turned off by many previous sexual partners, whereas the Kurds put a higher value on education.

The participants in the survey were all students, so the results may not apply to a broader cross-section of the population. Still, one expects university students to be somewhat more tolerant, liberal and open-minded than the average person, and it must be annoying to them that their parents are so fixated on race, religion and "family background," whatever that is. Considering the divorce rate in the West, would that be the biological family or the last family you lived with? ;)
 
Westerners and their parents were both turned off by many previous sexual partners, whereas the Kurds put a higher value on education.

Thats the most surprising to me. Aren't westerners supposed to be more liberal about sexual experience?
 
The Bell Curve. I don't have it with me, but it doesn't matter. The claims I've made, which is that intelligence is extremely highly influenced by genetics and that smart people much more often find themselves among smart people these days compared to the olden days, cannot be disputed.

Smart!?
There are many kinds of intelligence - let alone all the problems with IQ testing. The people at Microsoft and Google would tend to be smart about certain things, sure. Probably dumb at others
as tendencies.

In any case I don't see much culling going on. Social circles with some tendencies, sure.
 
SAM seemed to hit a raw nerve with Dr Lou Natic, are you rebuffed from fucking women by any chance?

Dr Lou makes his succinct points most abrasively.

Just think of him as someone who had the political correctness lobotomised out of him and you'll find him a most enjoyable read.:D
 
Sexual mores

S.A.M. said:

Aren't westerners supposed to be more liberal about sexual experience?

Mayhaps. You might be overlooking whatever portion of the population, because of their liberal sexual outlooks, view long-term relationships differently.

Remember, this is the age of trendy notions like the "bromance". I see this sort of thing a lot. Compared to what seems to happen in long-term heterosexual relationships, a lot of men seem content these days with the occasional fling and maybe a hooker now and then.

Really, it's kind of a question in Seattle. I'm surprised it took them until this month to get around to it.

Think of it like unemployment numbers. During the Bush administration, we've heard a lot about the economy and unemployment, and one of the things that many will argue keeps the unemployment numbers down is an alleged dramatic increase in the number of people who have withdrawn from the job market.

Well, the same sort of thing may well be happening with marriage and long-term mating. Speed dating, online dating services, and any number of ridiculously overdramatized episodes blamed on feminism; add to all that rhetoric and politics about homosexuals, a rise in the visibility of polygamy in the country, and the cheapening of human relationships brought on by television shows like The Bachelor and Whose Wedding Is it Anyway? or whatever that one's called, and suddenly it doesn't seem so strange that people are looking at the "love market" and saying, "Fuck it."

Thus, when it comes to prior sexual partners, we have to stop and consider a couple of things.

• Who is answering the survey.
• What constitutes "many".​

I thought I found the Washington Post story, but maybe not. Anyway, it didn't help me place the various blocs of respondents.

My point being that that liberalization of sexual mores may be more dramatic outside the range of people who look forward to getting married.
______________________

See Also:

Bindley, Katherine. "Bromances aren't uncommon as guys delay marriage". Seattle Times. April 7, 2008. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2004328748_bromance07.html

Vedantam, Shankar. "Parents and Children at Odds In Defining Mr. or Mrs. Right". Washington Post. April 14, 2008; page A07. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/13/ST2008041301826.html
 
Dr Lou makes his succinct points most abrasively.

Just think of him as someone who had the political correctness lobotomised out of him and you'll find him a most enjoyable read.:D
Ah, the rapier neo-compliment. I think you pierced his spleen. I do hope he notices.
 
Dr Lou makes his succinct points most abrasively.

Just think of him as someone who had the political correctness lobotomised out of him and you'll find him a most enjoyable read.:D

I prefer to think of him as someone who should be banned from this website.
 
I prefer to think of him as someone who should be banned from this website.

I usually focus on facts rather than crudity. If the man is making a point, I will keep him around. He can't help being socially challenged. Besides as leopold said:

that you have a constitution of cast iron surrounded by 10 feet of titanium.
i seriously believe you can sit outside in the middle of a hurricane and knit sweaters. completely unflappable.



SAM likes me because she hates kites.

I have a fondness for f*cking retards.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top