tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post3993648871314123344..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: High IQ genes versus low IQ genesBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-20179922383761300042019-07-23T13:50:24.416+01:002019-07-23T13:50:24.416+01:00@sykes - Indeed, and there are *many* other exampl...@sykes - Indeed, and there are *many* other examples of the way in which selection is *strongly* favouring those who are parasitic upon modern society - for example violent male criminals average high fertility; the most intelligent/ highly educated women have extremely low average fertility and so forth. The demographic changes in this direction are very rapid indeed; and would take a long time to reverse Even If (which is not the case) there was any attempt to reverse them. The odds are strong that our society will not long survive.<br /><br />e.g. https://mouseutopia.blogspot.com/Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-17655537393016557792019-07-23T13:02:55.727+01:002019-07-23T13:02:55.727+01:00In Darwinian theory, evolution occurs via differen...In Darwinian theory, evolution occurs via differential reproduction. Those somehow best adapted or most fit on average raise more children to maturity. And to the extent the parents fitness and adaptation are genetically related, the children are generally more fit and better adapted.<br /><br />So, the question is, Is not the Welfare Queen better adapted to modern society than the high IQ professional woman with no children? The answer is, Yes.<br /><br />The second question is, Can the Welfare Queen and her children sustain the society that nurtured them? The answer is, No.<br /><br />There will be no Singularity.sykes.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10954672321945289871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-61243756440746058762017-05-19T07:10:22.124+01:002017-05-19T07:10:22.124+01:00@FvB - "the above is clearly wrong" - no...@FvB - "the above is clearly wrong" - not so. <br /><br />It is just not the whole story. <br /><br />If we must decide one way or the other (because neutrality is not an option) whether mass death of young children is either a Good or a Bad thing - then obviously it is a Bad thing. <br /><br />At a micro level we would want it Not to happen, and should strive for it not to happen. Anything else woyld be monstrous!<br /><br />Yet of course there is a context. 'Strive' in a local and specific way (our own children, for example); and 'strive' up to a point (because there are other priorities in life - for example our spouse and already-born children). <br /><br />But strategic public policy is a different matter. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-43190891411849224182017-05-19T06:51:41.047+01:002017-05-19T06:51:41.047+01:00"Of course, I am *not* approving of high chil..."Of course, I am *not* approving of high child mortality rates, the near elimination of which has been perhaps the greatest contribution of modernity to genuine human happiness. "<br /><br />Dysgenic breeding patterns lead to illnesses, both mentally and physically, that are *decreasing* "happiness" (which is not very important anyway; suffering is central to Christianity). This world is not meant to be a paradise, quite the opposite.<br /><br />So the above is clearly wrong: not only is happiness of little importance, it is not even true that it increases only because the number of humans increased. If the population is mostly ill, especially mentally, it will be more depressed and suicidal, leading to antinatalist thoughts.Franz von Baadernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-39575691432807268112015-08-11T16:08:27.524+01:002015-08-11T16:08:27.524+01:00@Andrew - If the above scenario is truly wrong, I ...@Andrew - If the above scenario is truly wrong, I would be delighted! But, so far, that is what the evidence seems to say. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-39905346186143110232015-08-11T15:46:31.899+01:002015-08-11T15:46:31.899+01:00This evoked Tolkien imagery to me. The geniuses le...This evoked Tolkien imagery to me. The geniuses leaving permanently (like the Elves) to a better place.<br /><br />I have a deep ingrained cultural notion that we must find a solution, or that this can't be right, etc. but Christianity tells us the true nature of these events - that time isn't cyclical and the fix is outside this world.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-66219993719379907382015-08-11T11:58:35.920+01:002015-08-11T11:58:35.920+01:00@V - Yes a blunt instrument indeed! Comparative bi...@V - Yes a blunt instrument indeed! Comparative biological evidence suggests that this kind of crude, harsh selection was stronger in humans than in other species - perhaps because the complexity of the human brain and its vulnerability to mutations meant that it was even more important that spontaneous mutations should be filtered-out each generation.<br /><br />Of course, I am *not* approving of high child mortality rates, the near elimination of which has been perhaps the greatest contribution of modernity to genuine human happiness. <br /><br />But such massive changes in selection will surely have major consequences - as WD Hamilton pointed out from 60 years ago up to his death in 2000, as almost a lone voice. <br /><br />I personally do not think think these consequences could realistically be avoided - only somewhat delayed and ameliorated; nor (morally) do I think we should even try to avoid them (which would require something like a massive coercive programme of sterilization/ extermination - which would, no doubt, be administered by the kind of anti-moral Western government we currently suffer - or else deliberately recreating the harshness of 50 percent naturally selected child mortality. Appalling prospects. <br /><br />Nonetheless, mutation accumulation and the consequent changes in human functioning and behaviour should be acknowledged, studied, measured, and taken into account. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-18315475559239348602015-08-11T09:13:07.373+01:002015-08-11T09:13:07.373+01:00I assume child mortality is a "blunt instrume...I assume child mortality is a "blunt instrument" in increasing or maintaining intelligence. It kills relatively large proportion of high intelligence people also?Valkeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10835782570473516162noreply@blogger.com