the process of de-evolution has begun

[foal]

[ 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.

[foal]

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.

[oe39]

[ 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.

[ZeeJustin]

[ 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.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

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?

[WhoIam]

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

[foal]

[ 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.

[UpstateMatt]

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

[Milwaukee2]

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.

[vhawk01]

[ 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."