De-volution?
Honestly! I marvel at the intellectual capacity of some people! I was just looking at the message board on my website, and found two splendid and highly entertaining examples of intellectual glory – Here and here. That first one is my favourite – This guy seems to actually think this is Mike Tyson the boxer’s website, despite the introduction on the front page…
So, it reminds me of a question I’ve been considering for a while – are we breeding for stupidity? It seems to me that the society we live in today nurtures such a thing. In America it seems to almost be considered fashionable to be unintelligent (look at the President). In addition, there seems to be a definite trait among the ‘intellectual elite’ to reproduce significantly less than the rest of society. Smart people aren’t having children!
There are a large number of factors involved. One of them may well be a combination of awareness of population and resource availability issues – Having fifteen children means the family resources (including attention and affection) are spread thinly. There doesn’t seem to be such presence of mind in other demographics. Consequently, it is not inconceivable that the ‘intelligent’ genes are being continually ‘watered down’.
Another factor is that of the choice of career over family – intelligent individuals choosing to spend their lives on the career path, instead of reproducing.
The religious equivalent is particularly visible in Christianity – Historically, much of the intellectual ‘elite’ were encouraged to join the church. As this typically meant becoming celibate, this eliminated these individuals from the gene pool.
Speaking more broadly, are we de-volving? Biologically speaking, the world we live in is very tolerant of failure, at least in the Western world. With generally very good medicine, biological shortcomings are no longer any impediment to reproduction. Societal structures are established to support individuals who may not have employable skills (due to lack of intelligence or ability, or physical disabilities).
On a humanitarian basis, this is a very good thing, quite obviously.
But speaking philosophically, what is the long-term, species-level cost of such a system that negates the effect of natural selection?
Related posts
- GetUp’s campaign for same-sex legal rights GetUp are running a campaign to demand equality for same...
- The great voting conspiracy Well, Katherine was just turned away from the voting centre....
- Leadership, bureaucrats, society and biology, parasites, viruses I recently had an interesting conversation with Carlo (my PhD...
- Music industry woes I just saw a post on Slashdot reporting that a...
4 Responses to “De-volution?”
Leave a Reply
Humanity i love you because you would rather black the boots of success than enquire whose soul dangles from his watch-chain which would be embarrassing for both parties and because you unflinchingly applaud all
songs containing the words country home and mother when sung at the old howard Humanity i love you because when you’re hard up you pawn your intelligence to buy a drink and when you’re flush pride keeps you from the pawn shop and because you are continually committing nuisances but more especially in your own house Humanity i love you because you are perpetually putting the secret of life in your pants and forgetting it’s there and sitting down on it and because you are forever making poems in the lap of death Humanity i hate you
You’re making a mistake in thinking that we are governed by our genetics far more than we actually are. The general consensus is that “nurture” is quite a bit more important than”nature”. So, while it can be disheartening to see the morons marching on (and, I might add, voting conservatively</snob>) I believe that with a decent education system, any group of people can raise themselves to a higher level. The potential to do great things exists in every combination of genetics that make a human.
You know, I think I agree with you, to some extent; if nothing else it’s a particularly heartening concept.
With enough complexity, to cater for all demographics, and the correct introduction, such a system could make a difference. The culture could be an impediment – like macro-genetics, it appears to shape successive generations. This is particularly visible in America – it would have to be a particularly good education system.
There is a major problem with this theory of evolution. With this theory people are ‘intelligent’ because there parents are; ie, natural selection determines the intelligence of our species. The problem with this theory is that the intellectually developed areas/societies of our world would be far more intellectually ‘evolved’ than the more isolated indigenous societies.
If this was the case, the Australian Aborigines who have been removed from the main European/Asian continent and its ‘intellectual intelligence’ for tens of thousands of years would be much less evolved than us. There would be no way that they could ever reach the heights of our intelligence. This of course is completely incorrect. This evolutionary argument was, and probably still is in some circles, the major back-bone of racism all around the world. Indeed, people used to think that being black made you less evolved than us. This is how us whites justified the horrific crimes we perpetrated on these ‘less-evolved’ races.
What if Einstein was born in an Aboriginal tribe? Would he have been less intelligient, or would he just not have had the ‘opportunities’ to use his scientific mental capacity.
There is definitely something greater at play than merely intelligent people pro-creating to enhance the intelligence of our species.
Another question this raises is our worship of the intellect in the West. Intelligence and science have become the mark of a superior person. The value of the arts, spirituality and healing have become far less important. In tribal society, removed from the concepts of mental capacity, a person could be greatly recognized for their shamanistic, spiritual or healing abilities.
What is more important, the honing of the mind to solve complex equations, or the ability to spiritually uplift your tribe? Both are important, and both suit different people.
Things just seem to get a bit out of balance in the West. Our schooling and upbringing is centered around the mind and our outer performance. You pick the right subjects, to get the top high school results, to get into the top university, to get the top career, to get the money, to buy the house, to….. Is this what life is really about?
Firstly, I can’t see how there couldn’t be some kind of genetic element involved – genetics determines our intellectual capacity, just like it determines our other physical characteristics, like eye colour. But I don’t think such a trait is at all tied to the society or race the individual is part of! As you say, assuming such a thing is definitely a precursor to racism.
Intelligence is indeed valued above many other traits in Western society. It seems to me that emotional intelligence is far more valuable than ‘intellectual’ intelligence, but we have it a bit backwards at the moment.