the process of de-evolution has begun
 

in the past, poor people needed to have as many kids as possible to survive. they passed these genes onto their poor children. now, in the year 2007, having tons of kids isnt required for survival, but they are doing it anyways. that means for every scientist and doctor couple who have one child, a prison inmate and his baby's mamma have nine kids, some redneck and second cousin have seven kids. That means seven more kids believing in jesus and watching nascar versus one kid studying evolution and watching film noir. this affect will keep multipling until the educated are such a small minority that they are forced with a decision: extinction or mass genocide of the uneducated christian populations.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

I just spent a week driving cross-country through the backwaters of the American pastoral and---ye gods!---every stereotype is true ten times over.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

If an "education" produces theories like this, then count me as happy that I belong to the great unwashed masses. You think you are great and the rest of the world are idiots; this is not a particularily novel viewpoint but it is undoubtably unwarranted.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
You think you are great and the rest of the world are idiots; this is not a particularily (sic) novel viewpoint but it is undoubtably (sic) unwarranted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does thinking little of the masses imply hubris? I certainly don't imagine myself "great", and KKF has never evinced any noticeable egoism.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

I was just thinking near exactly this the other day but it was entirely too depressing. Cheer up, there are options other than genocide...like population control...or sending them to some form of moron colony on the moon...or a draft.

-JP

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
If an "education" produces theories like this, then count me as happy that I belong to the great unwashed masses. You think you are great and the rest of the world are idiots; this is not a particularly novel viewpoint but it is undoubtedly unwarranted.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. i installed modzilla last week. i corrected your spelling mistakes. thats a real killer when you are trying to sound smart/witty.

2. it is a fact that unintelligent people have more kids than intelligent people. people aren't dying of chicken pocks anymore, cold winters, or even war. So what is going to happen in X years?

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

Watch this movie, it will tell you and is really funny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

so you
A) havent seen idiocracy
B) have seen idiocracy and stole the movies concept as your own

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

this is why i dislike democracy so much. democracy kind of works as intended in finland where most people are about equal and similar (compared to america's heterogeneity). but in america its just terrible. and how can you expect to run a society based on a completely incorrect premise: all men are created equal.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

The fact that we don't need to have tons of kids for survival is what marks the most recent evolutionary breakthrough. We evolve culturally now, and our children 'inherit' these traits through our upper level interactions with them instead of exclusively through genetic process.

It's not hard to see how the more extreme cases of what you're describing produce 'less fit' offspring. They work in construction yards and factories, they are the warehouse grunts. They are needed to bootstrap the rest of society and provide a foundation for infrastructure. If they ever become useless to society their economic means will certainly be cut off and their numbers will dwindle. The process regulates itself, there's no need for anyone to engineer a selection mechanism.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

Lebowski,

You might not want to call it de-evolution as the educated, evolved, etc. will still continue to evolve if they stick together.

So what may happen is that in a time, longer than shorter, there may indeed be two "breeds" of humans. Luckily we'll be dead by then so we can leave it up to the scientists and philosophers to decide if name distinction is necessary.

Also, some of the conversations that must stem from these discussions are extremely taboo so don't expect too many positive responses to this thread.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that we don't need to have tons of kids for survival is what marks the most recent evolutionary breakthrough. We evolve culturally now, and our children 'inherit' these traits through our upper level interactions with them instead of exclusively through genetic process.

It's not hard to see how the more extreme cases of what you're describing produce 'less fit' offspring. They work in construction yards and factories, they are the warehouse grunts. They are needed to bootstrap the rest of society and provide a foundation for infrastructure. If they ever become useless to society their economic means will certainly be cut off and their numbers will dwindle. The process regulates itself, there's no need for anyone to engineer a selection mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that a lot of people just don't get. We will not always need those warehouse grunts, or the garbage men. We will automate every single mundane process that there is, and then move on to more difficult things to automate. You understand this, but most don't.

I hear a lot of "someone has to pick up the garbage," and the like, but that's criminally short sighted.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that we don't need to have tons of kids for survival is what marks the most recent evolutionary breakthrough.

[/ QUOTE ]
Over the range of all possible future scenarios, # of kids has to be the most effective survival mechanism, by a long shot. The sheer weight of probability, and the initial exponential branching for the first few generations, would give one a massive advantage. In the gene propagation stakes, I think someone with a 90 IQ and 70 great grandkids is going crush someone with a 140 IQ and four great grandkids.

The only situation where this wouldn't be true is if society stratified into classes, and the lower classes got wiped out. But even there, sheer probably will propel some of those 70 grandkids and their kids into high IQ phenotypes, advantageous marriages, and attainment of upper class status.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]

people aren't dying of chicken pocks anymore,


[/ QUOTE ]

You might wanna turn dat dere modzilla thingy on youself and wile you at it you mite wanna see if maybe u mite ken fine a grammer, vokaboolary, sintax and punktuwation thingy 2 go wid it.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
in the past, poor people needed to have as many kids as possible to survive. they passed these genes onto their poor children. now, in the year 2007, having tons of kids isnt required for survival, but they are doing it anyways. that means for every scientist and doctor couple who have one child, a prison inmate and his baby's mamma have nine kids, some redneck and second cousin have seven kids. That means seven more kids believing in jesus and watching nascar versus one kid studying evolution and watching film noir. this affect will keep multipling until the educated are such a small minority that they are forced with a decision: extinction or mass genocide of the uneducated christian populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this would just be evolution?

Calling it "de-evolution" falsely implies a goal of complexity and higher intelligence, rather than a simple observation regarding reproductive success.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this would just be evolution?

Calling it "de-evolution" falsely implies a goal of complexity and higher intelligence, rather than a simple observation regarding reproductive success.

[/ QUOTE ]

word

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
this affect will keep multipling until the educated are such a small minority that they have lots and lots of slaves

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

people aren't dying of chicken pocks anymore,


[/ QUOTE ]

You might wanna turn dat dere modzilla thingy on youself and wile you at it you mite wanna see if maybe u mite ken fine a grammer, vokaboolary, sintax and punktuwation thingy 2 go wid it.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this would just be evolution?

Calling it "de-evolution" falsely implies a goal of complexity and higher intelligence, rather than a simple observation regarding reproductive success.

[/ QUOTE ]

word

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to nit it up, guys! Actually "devolution" is perfectly acceptable usage here, as its primary non-technical definition is, "The process of declining from a higher to a lower level of effective power or vitality or essential quality." (WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.)

But, I understand, it's crucial to show off your nuanced postmodern indifference to mankind's fate. Continue, continue.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only situation where this wouldn't be true is if society stratified into classes, and the lower classes got wiped out. But even there, sheer probably will propel some of those 70 grandkids and their kids into high IQ phenotypes, advantageous marriages, and attainment of upper class status.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially if they are hot.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

KKF,


thoughts like that make you dumber than the people you loathe.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
now, in the year 2007, having tons of kids isnt required for survival, but they are doing it anyways... this affect will keep multipling...

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

ever read Brave New World ?

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If an "education" produces theories like this, then count me as happy that I belong to the great unwashed masses. You think you are great and the rest of the world are idiots; this is not a particularly novel viewpoint but it is undoubtedly unwarranted.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. i installed modzilla last week. i corrected your spelling mistakes. thats a real killer when you are trying to sound smart/witty.


[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer Microsoft Word:

[ QUOTE ]
In the past, poor people needed to have as many kids as possible to survive. They passed these genes onto their poor children. Now, in the year 2007, having tons of kids isn’t required for survival, but they are doing it anyways. That means for every scientist and doctor couple who have one child, a prison inmate and his baby's mamma have nine kids, some redneck and second cousin have seven kids. That means seven more kids believing in Jesus and watching NASCAR versus one kid studying evolution and watching film noir. This affect will keep multiplying until the educated are such a small minority that they are forced with a decision: extinction or mass genocide of the uneducated Christian populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

You're operating under the faulty assumption that gene quality is directly related to social class. Someone even mentioned the "educated" reproducing less. What on earth does education have to do with genetics? Is my college degree going to pass on to my children biologically? I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that the upper classes gene pool is not of particularly superior quality to anyone else's on average, rather it is upbringing that plays the major role (children emulate and learn from their parents).

By the way this idea/fear is way older than Mike Judge's film... It originated after Darwin's On Origin of Species and reached it's culmination in Nazi Germany. It's called eugenics. I am not totally opposed to certain forms of positive eugenics, despite its negative connotations, but I think saying "oh no, poor people are reproducing too much, we're going to deevolve" is ridiculous.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that the upper classes gene pool is not of particularly superior quality to anyone else's on average

[/ QUOTE ]

foal,

It's pretty simple.

1. Female IQ is negatively correlated with number of offspring. This is fact.
2. A significant part of IQ has a genetic basis.

3.????

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

3. A significant part of IQ has a non-genetic basis.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
A significant part of IQ has a genetic basis.

[/ QUOTE ]
What studies are you basing this on?

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

After a quick search:

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq03.htm

[ QUOTE ]

The Glenwood State School

A particularly interesting project on early intellectual stimulation involved twenty-five children in an orphanage. These children were seriously environmentally deprived because the orphanage was crowded and understaffed. Thirteen babies with an average age of nineteen months were transferred to the Glenwood State School for retarded adult women and each baby was put in the personal care of a woman. Skeels, who conducted the experiment, deliberately chose the most deficient of the orphans to be placed in the Glenwood School. Their average IQ was 64, while the average IQ of the twelve who stayed behind in the orphanage was 87.

In the Glenwood State School the children were placed in open, active wards with the older and relatively bright women. Their substitute mothers overwhelmed them with love and cuddling. Toys were available, they were taken on outings and they were talked to a lot. The women were taught how to stimulate the babies intellectually and how to elicit language from them.

After eighteen months, the dramatic findings were that the children who had been placed with substitute mothers, and had therefore received additional stimulation, on average showed an increase of 29 IQ points! A follow-up study was conducted two and a half years later. Eleven of the thirteen children originally transferred to the Glenwood home had been adopted and their average IQ was now 101. The two children who had not been adopted were reinstitutionalized and lost their initial gain. The control group, the twelve children who had not been transferred to Glenwood, had remained in institution wards and now had an average IQ of 66 (an average decrease of 21 points). Although the value of IQ tests is grossly exaggerated today, this astounding difference between these two groups is hard to ignore.

More telling than the increase or decrease in IQ, however, is the difference in the quality of life these two groups enjoyed. When these children reached young adulthood, another follow-up study brought the following to light: “The experimental group had become productive, functioning adults, while the control group, for the most part, had been institutionalized as mentally retarded.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The Milwaukee Project

In the late 1960s, under the supervision of Rick Heber of the University of Wisconsin, a project was begun to study the effects of intellectual stimulation on children from deprived environments. In order to find a “deprived environment” from which to draw appropriate subjects for the study, Heber and his colleagues examined the statistics of different districts within the city of Milwaukee. One district in particular stood out. The residents of this district had the lowest median income and lowest level of education to be found in the city. This district also had the highest population density and rate of unemployment of any area of Milwaukee. There was one more statistic that really attracted Heber’s attention: Although this district contained only 3 percent of the city’s population, it accounted for 33 percent of the children in Milwaukee who had been labeled “mentally retarded”!

At the beginning of the project, Heber selected forty newborns from the depressed area of Milwaukee he had chosen. The mothers of the infants selected all had IQ’s below 80. As it turned out, all of the children in the study were black, and in many cases the fathers were absent. The forty newborns were randomly assigned, 20 to an experimental group and 20 to a control group.

Both the experimental group and the control group were tested an equal number of times throughout the project. An independent testing service was used in order to eliminate possible biases on the part of the project members. In terms of physical or medical variables, there were no observable differences between the two groups.

The experimental group entered a special program. Mothers of the experimental group children received education, vocational rehabilitation, and training in homemaking and child care. The children themselves received personalized enrichment in their home environments for the first three months of their lives, and then their training continued at a special center, five days a week, seven hours a day, until they were ready to begin first grade. The program at the center focused upon developing the language and cognitive skills of the experimental group children. The control group did not receive special education or home-based intervention and enrichment.

By the age of six all the children in the experimental group were dramatically superior to the children in the control group. This was true on all test measures, especially those dealing with language skills or problem solving. The experimental group had an IQ average of 120.7 as compared with the control group’s 87.2!

At the age of six the children left the center to attend the local school. By the time both groups were ten years old and in fifth grade, the IQ scores of the children in the experimental group had decreased to an average of 105 while the control group’s average score held steady at about 85. One possible reason for the decline is that schooling was geared for the slower students. The brighter children were not given materials suitable for their abilities and they began to fall back. Also, while the experimental children were in the special project center for the first six years they ate well, receiving three hot, balanced meals a day. Once they left the center and began to attend the local school, many reported going to classes hungry, without breakfast or a hot lunch.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Other Examples of IQ Increase

Other examples of IQ increase through early enrichment projects can be found in Israel, where children with a European Jewish heritage have an average IQ of 105 while those with a Middle Eastern Jewish heritage have an average IQ of only 85. Yet when raised on a kibbutz, children from both groups have an average IQ of 115.

In another home-based early enrichment program, conducted in Nassua County, New York, an instructor made only two half-hour visits a week for only seven months over a period of two years. He spent time showing parents participating in the program how best to teach their children at home. The children in the program had initial IQ’s in the low 90s, but by the time they went to school they averaged IQ’s of 107 or 108. In addition, they have consistently demonstrated superior ability on school achievement tests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
3. A significant part of IQ has a non-genetic basis.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does that have to do with the OP's point?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A significant part of IQ has a genetic basis.

[/ QUOTE ]
What studies are you basing this on?

[/ QUOTE ]
Twin studies, family studies, the high heritability of frontal gray matter, the existence of sex-based inheritance, and more. All indicate a significant portion of IQ has a genetic basis.

[ QUOTE ]
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq03.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably not the best source of unbiased information. The site doesn't load for me, so I can't comment further. Environment does play a part, but not as large as these articles indicate, and certainly not at such a late stage in development. That's just silly.

Also, these were children who were severally emotionally and intellectually deprived. They certainly don't represent an average case or even a typical low class case. These studies are as stupid as me rounding up 100 starving, chronically malnourished Africans whose growth has been stunted by malnutrition and disease, and bringing them to America. THEN publishing findings that good food can increase height by 40%! The fact is that these things don't scale at all to people who have typical Western nutrition (or a typical Western childhood environment)

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. A significant part of IQ has a non-genetic basis.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does that have to do with the OP's point?


[/ QUOTE ]
I was directing that at you, not OP. If environment plays a significant role in IQ then your correlation between low IQ and amount of children doesn't prove anything. Environmental factors that lead to low IQ could easily lead to an increase in birthrate as well.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A significant part of IQ has a genetic basis.

[/ QUOTE ]
What studies are you basing this on?

[/ QUOTE ]
Twin studies, family studies, the high heritability of frontal gray matter, the existence of sex-based inheritance, and more. All indicate a significant portion of IQ has a genetic basis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seperation at birth (esp. twin) studies are valid, yes. I was hoping for something a bit more specific. I'll try to look it up.

[ QUOTE ]
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq03.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably not the best source of unbiased information. The site doesn't load for me, so I can't comment further. Environment does play a part, but not as large as these articles indicate, and certainly not at such a late stage in development. That's just silly.

Also, these were children who were severally emotionally and intellectually deprived. They certainly don't represent an average case or even a typical low class case. These studies are as stupid as me rounding up 100 starving, chronically malnourished Africans whose growth has been stunted by malnutrition and disease, and bringing them to America. THEN publishing findings that good food can increase height by 40%! The fact is that these things don't scale at all to people who have typical Western nutrition (or a typical Western childhood environment)

[/ QUOTE ]
The site is exaggerated in its implied conclusions, I agree, but those studies still show a significant impact of environment on IQ. I'll try to find something better, that was just the first search result that came up.

I prefer logic over political correctness and certainly wont claim this invalidates the arguments of the OP and yourself, but you do realize that you're indirectly arguing that whites are genetically superior to blacks and hispanics? This has potential to be a heated topic.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

Bleh, good scientific journal articles are rarely free online. I'm afraid biased accounts of studies is the best I can do.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ) indicates both genetics and environment as IQ factors. Their point that womb environment plays an important role in development makes twin studies a bit less than 100% valid, but I do agree that there is a genetic component.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was just thinking near exactly this the other day but it was entirely too depressing. Cheer up, there are options other than genocide...like population control...or sending them to some form of moron colony on the moon...or a draft.

-JP

[/ QUOTE ]

i like the idea of a moron colony. i even have a candidate in mind to serve as its president.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
in the past, poor people needed to have as many kids as possible to survive. they passed these genes onto their poor children. now, in the year 2007, having tons of kids isnt required for survival, but they are doing it anyways. that means for every scientist and doctor couple who have one child, a prison inmate and his baby's mamma have nine kids, some redneck and second cousin have seven kids. That means seven more kids believing in jesus and watching nascar versus one kid studying evolution and watching film noir. this affect will keep multipling until the educated are such a small minority that they are forced with a decision: extinction or mass genocide of the uneducated christian populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Old news. [ QUOTE ]

Been around the world and found
That only stupid people are breeding
The cretins cloning and feeding
And I don't even own a tv

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily there's hope in transhumanism. We are already starting to outrun evolution with prosthetic limbs and cochlear implants and what not. It's only a matter of time before we extend this to neural implants.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

i understand when people say that evolution is not climbing a ladder but running on a treadmill, but is there any reason to believe that our technology isn't going to continue to advance drastically? A graph of our progress, unlike animals, looks like a ladder, not a treadmill.

Also, I don't understand how evolution created ethics or why some people are geniuses and other people are a step above mentally retarded? Are the geniuses caused by smart people reproducing with each other over and over? No, they are just random. So, how has evolution made us smarter? It doesn't really seem that it has.

Also, if our genes just want us to reproduce and so many of the educated people are against having more than a few kids, doesn't that seem odd? Are we in a battle against our genes right now?

It is a fact that people are getting dumber. Just how dumb are they going to get in three or four hundred years?

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

Don't worry, soon genetic engineering will give us all the benefits of eugenics without all the ethical nastiness.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]

It is a fact that people are getting dumber. Just how dumb are they going to get in three or four hundred years?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the next step in evolution will be driven by biotechnology, not natural selection. This has a lot of elite vs the masses and science vs religion fiery potential drama, but it will happen eventually.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

It seems to me that OP is correct in the instant, but missing the big picture. Sure, the proporition of the population that has "high genetic IQs" is shrinking. This has been going on for at least 1000 years, since high IQ Europeans were disproportionaly sent into the priesthood or otherwise took professions that correlated with fewere offspring. It's not anything new.

However, at least three factors mitigate this:

1)The overall number of "high genetic IQ" people is almost certainly rising. There's no reason to believe that the replacment rate of intelligent people has dipped negative.

2)The non-genetic portion of intelligence, as well as most things grouped with intelligence - such as knowledge, reasoning, data - are expanded incredibly rapidly for all classes of society. The average middle class person now is probably more functionally smart than the average elite of the 18th century.

3)Natural selection stopped improving humans thousands of years ago. Both technology and civilization have guaranteed that people who otherwise wouldn't surive childhood - for instance, those with genetically poor eyesight - now can both survive and thrive. But that's beside the point. Neither natural selection or technology-adjusted natural selection give a damn about intelligence, except to the degree it is advantageous for survival. Currently, it's not.


matt

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

I very often find myself thinking about how much greater the human race would be (imo) if we only let the doctors and scientists (and maybe some athletes/entertainers)reproduce. A population that is regulated in this manner would be much smaller and require much less resources. We would be able to put our resources into scientific research/space exploration and our knowledge in those areas would increase so much faster. I'm sure that 99% of people that read this will disagree with my view on the topic, because they view the human race differently and with a different purpose.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is a fact that people are getting dumber. Just how dumb are they going to get in three or four hundred years?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the next step in evolution will be driven by biotechnology, not natural selection. This has a lot of elite vs the masses and science vs religion fiery potential drama, but it will happen eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to nit it up a bit, but thats still natural selection. Its like saying "I think the next step in evolution will be driven by big strong leg muscles."