The Descent of Man: Humans Getting Dumber?

[VCheng]

Americans started it, first time I heard two Dudes talking I knew decent has started

Yup. With that post, the descent of this thread has just started too.

 

[Audio]

The Flynn effect can be explained through better nutrition, socio-economic conditions, or widesprad education. I am not sure that it makes any statement about genetic changes.

It doesn't. I thought we are talking general intelligence, a combo of all factors, didnt read the article, just opening paragraph.
Now that i've read it, i think Mr. Crabtree would be loved by the Nazis. A thesis exactly like this one could be used as justification to close all the retards up and prevent them from multiplying and thus starting to make a master race.

I dont know much about genetics, and if intelligence is a result of a chain of genes, with each link being in danger of mutating and weakening the chain i do not see it as a big deal. In the end, how many retards (true retards-not the popular meaning of the word) do you know that have children and actually pass those defective genes along. I'd wager the answer is not many if any at all.
Also, two midgets can have a normal baby, so everything is not passed along 100%.

 

[akkamala]

I think rather than becoming dumber humans are getting more immoral.

what is morality.. were early humans moral. is survining in the wild . that of the fittest , a moral pursuit?
is religion moral.. i think organised religion is the most immoral of human enterprise, an undertaking that has caused most amount of damage to humans and a negating force that draws humans into its vortex by attracting willing human beings into it.

It doesn't. I thought we are talking general intelligence, a combo of all factors, didnt read the article, just opening paragraph.
Now that i've read it, i think Mr. Crabtree would be loved by the Nazis. A thesis exactly like this one could be used as justification to close all the retards up and prevent them from multiplying and thus starting to make a master race.

I dont know much about genetics, and if intelligence is a result of a chain of genes, with each link being in danger of mutating and weakening the chain i do not see it as a big deal. In the end, how many retards (true retards-not the popular meaning of the word) do you know that have children and actually pass those defective genes along. I'd wager the answer is not many if any at all.
Also, two midgets can have a normal baby, so everything is not passed along 100%.

if two midgets can have a normal baby, why should the child of two muslims have to only be a muslim and not a normal one?

 

[Hasbara Buster]

Morality is much more important than intelligence. And intelligence without morality is a complete disaster...

 

[Audio]

Morality is much more important than intelligence. And intelligence without morality is a complete disaster...

Thats why you make kebaps and others that dont share your opinion dont.

 

[Aspahbod]

There was a theory that more intelligent people, will have better lives, and people who have better lives usually have less children. This means that their Intelligence gene is passed to fewer people over the years so generations become dumper each time.

 

[JSCh]

So the human environment has changed.
Modern human are more adapt with skill sets to survive in a modern society as oppose to a jungle.
How can one say one is more intelligent then the other? And I would say the premise of intelligence is dangerously close to eugenics.
Professor Crabtree in the article did not provide convincing proof of superior metric of intelligence.
All he has is just a theory.

 

[Developereo]

There are two concepts in the OP:

- The genetic basis of intelligence is eroding because it is more vulnerable to mutations than are physical traits. This part is pure conjecture.

- Civilization has changed the rules of natural selection. This part is less controversial and has been raised by several people in the scientific community. I, too, agree with this part. In the wild, each individual organism (gene carrier) fends for itself and the propagation of those genes is solely dependent on the adaptive value of that particular set of genes. Within a human society, however, even unfit bundles of genes (i.e. individuals) manage to procreate, so a primary driver of evolution -- natural selection -- has been sidelined.

 

[JSCh]

There are two concepts in the OP:

- The genetic basis of intelligence is eroding because it is more vulnerable to mutations than are physical traits. This part is pure conjecture.

- Civilization has changed the rules of natural selection. This part is less controversial and has been raised by several people in the scientific community. I, too, agree with this part. In the wild, each individual organism (gene carrier) fends for itself and the propagation of those genes is solely dependent on the adaptive value of that particular set of genes. Within a human society, however, even unfit bundles of genes (i.e. individuals) manage to procreate, so a primary driver of evolution -- natural selection -- has been sidelined.

That is why I said that definition of intelligence is close to eugenics. Which is quite contrary to current concept of morality. To procreate is generally consider as basic human right today.
How exactly do we determine who is fit or unfit to procreate?
Would Stephen Hawking be deem as fit or unfit to procreate?
The last time I check, Sparta has been left in the dustbin of history.
Personally I think we know way too little to draw conclusion.

 

[Developereo]

That is why I said that definition of intelligence is close to eugenics. Which is quite contrary to current concept of morality. To procreate is generally consider as basic human right today.
How exactly do we determine who is fit or unfit to procreate?
Would Stephen Hawking be deem as fit or unfit to procreate?
The last time I check, Sparta has been left in the dustbin of history.
Personally I think we know way too little to draw conclusion.

Eugenics involves human beings making decisions, often ideologically motivated, about who lives and who dies. Natural selection is dispassionate and plays no favorites. In any case, I don't think the article defends eugenics; it simply claims that genetic decay is inevitable. In a way, it echoes the concerns raised by the theory of genome entropy, which is a controversial concept derided by mainstream geneticists -- partly because the proponent, John Sanford, rejects evolution. Personally, even though I accept evolution, I find the geneticists' rebuttals shallow and believe important questions are glossed over about the proposed mechanisms for evolution.

In any case, here's one way to view human civilization:

A biological organism is a collection of cooperating organs, where each organ is composed of highly specialized cells. The body's biochemistry is the glue that keeps the organs connected and functioning properly. For the organism as a whole to survive, even defective or injured organs/cells must be repaired or, worse case, carried as dead weight. The unit of propagation is the gene bundle comprising that particular individual.

A human civilization is a collection of cooperating individuals performing specialized roles. Culture, including morality, is the glue that keeps the individuals connected and functioning properly. For society as a whole to survive, even defective or injured individuals must be carried along. The unit of propagation is the gene pool of the society as a whole.

 

[JSCh]

Eugenics involves human beings making decisions, often ideologically motivated, about who lives and who dies. Natural selection is dispassionate and plays no favorites. In any case, I don't think the article defends eugenics; it simply claims that genetic decay is inevitable. In a way, it echoes the concerns raised by the theory of genome entropy, which is a controversial concept derided by mainstream geneticists -- partly because the proponent, John Sanford, rejects evolution. Personally, even though I accept evolution, I find the geneticists' rebuttals shallow and believe important questions are glossed over about the proposed mechanisms for evolution.

In any case, here's one way to view human civilization:

A biological organism is a collection of cooperating organs, where each organ is composed of highly specialized cells. The body's biochemistry is the glue that keeps the organs connected and functioning properly. For the organism as a whole to survive, even defective or injured organs/cells must be repaired or, worse case, carried as dead weight. The unit of propagation is the gene bundle comprising that particular individual.

A human civilization is a collection of cooperating individuals performing specialized roles. Culture, including morality, is the glue that keeps the individuals connected and functioning properly. For society as a whole to survive, even defective or injured individuals must be carried along. The unit of propagation is the gene pool of the society as a whole.

You are right that the article did not defend eugenic.
However, I am uncomfortable with the article presenting an assumption that the intelligence of the ancient is “better” than modern intelligence without any empirical proof and then proceed to present a theory on why that is so. When you rank intelligence in such a way, you provide the basis or justification for eugenic.
Is it really so that the skill sets developed for individual struggle in raw nature better (more intelligent) than modern skill sets developed for individual struggle in modern society? That view seems to measure more on individual rather that the species as a whole.
I am Chinese. My cultural upbringing makes me uncomfortable with what I considered as overemphasis on competition as oppose to cooperation. I like your idea of viewing civilization as an organism.

 

[Developereo]

You are right that the article did not defend eugenic.
However, I am uncomfortable with the article presenting an assumption that the intelligence of the ancient is “better” than modern intelligence without any empirical proof and then proceed to present a theory on why that is so. When you rank intelligence in such a way, you provide the basis or justification for eugenic.
Is it really so that the skill sets developed for individual struggle in raw nature better (more intelligent) than modern skill sets developed for individual struggle in modern society?

The article doesn't compare the value of ancient v/s modern achievements. It only posits a deterioration in intelligence based on pure physics: complex systems will deteriorate over time unless there is something countering the laws of entropy.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Damn good Thread Developereo

I absolutely have nothing to add because it will sully this great article.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Morality is much more important than intelligence. And intelligence without morality is a complete disaster...

We're not becoming more Immoral were just becoming more Rational. Even what constitutes for "Immorality" must make way for the greater good of Humanity. Is it Immoral to conduct experiments on Animals to further the cause of scientific advancements. Is it wrong to experiment on Clones... Oh wait thanks to some womanizing president from the US. Cloning is made Illegal because it is "Immoral."

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

It doesn't. I thought we are talking general intelligence, a combo of all factors, didnt read the article, just opening paragraph.
Now that i've read it, i think Mr. Crabtree would be loved by the Nazis. A thesis exactly like this one could be used as justification to close all the retards up and prevent them from multiplying and thus starting to make a master race.

I dont know much about genetics, and if intelligence is a result of a chain of genes, with each link being in danger of mutating and weakening the chain i do not see it as a big deal. In the end, how many retards (true retards-not the popular meaning of the word) do you know that have children and actually pass those defective genes along. I'd wager the answer is not many if any at all.
Also, two midgets can have a normal baby, so everything is not passed along 100%.

The Flynn effect doesn't really explain anything. A child maybe more smarter academically, but test numbers doesn't constitute real intelligence.

IQ scores are used as predictors of educational achievement, special needs, job performance and income. They are also used to study IQ distributions in populations and the correlations between IQ and other variables. The average IQ scores for many populations have been rising at an average rate of three points per decade since the early 20th century, a phenomenon called the Flynn effect. It is disputed whether these changes in scores reflect real changes in intellectual abilities.

Genetic traits can be vaguely described as a "Mother Nature version of a Russian Roulette." If 2 midget have kids chances are they may exhibit that particular physical trait or they don,t. I can say for sure though their Genome is imprinted with their parents traits. So if they have Kids they will probably inherited their Grandparents Traits. Why do you have to pull the Nazi card? Mr. Crabtree article is wonderfully written & it does make an amazing points