• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Dysgenics/Socialism


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Futurist1000

  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 02 May 2007 - 03:51 AM


Something called dysgenics may mean the best laid plans (i.e. immortality) may never come to fruition. The human race has been declining in both intelligence and concientiousness. These two traits are important not only in maintaining a modern civilization but also in advancing science and human knowledge. In modern times, unfortunately, technology means that intelligence is no longer evolutionary advantageous. Just because i personally have a certain intelligence, concientousness and ability to create wealth does not mean my children or grandchildren will. Selection pressures have relaxed and intelligence is no longer of great utility. In fact if you are of a lower intelligence you are less likely to be able to use birth control successfully. This means people of lower intelligence have more kids than those who are intelligent and use birth control. People who are less concientious are more likely to have lots of kids even if they have no way of being able to take care of them financially.

Dysgenics is happening in every human population now. The drop is around 0.5 to 1.0 I.Q. point per generation, which is quite significant. That means in a generation the amount of people able to carry out the necessary scientific research for progress is dropping. In the U.S. as college professors die out, their knowledge in some sense dies out with them. They may not be replaced by people with an equivalent intelligence. Libraries will be filled with hard earned knowledge, but eventually nobody in the population will be smart enough to be able to use it or understand it. There is however what is called the flynn effect. The flynn effect is a rise in I.Q. scores that has occured accross the entire world. However these I.Q. increases are probably due to better nutrition and seemed to have already leveled off in the 1990's (at least in european countries).

The countries where the most scientific progress occurs perversely have the lowest birthrates. South korea, japan, tawain and europe all have birth rates which are too low to sustain their population levels. Their populations are expected to decrease in the future. Without huge increases in life expectancy eventually enough intelligent people will die off so that progress in science will begin to slow, then possibly stop altogether. In the near future selling nutritional supplements will have become illegal (possibly within the next year). Of course we'll have some really smart and driven people with a personal stash of supplements like ray kurzweil who'll live to 130, but he will be in the minority. There simply won't be enough people who have the forsight needed to extend their life significantly.

In the U.S. we currently have politicians that are offering socialism in disguise. Their plan is nicely called "universal healthcare". It sounds great, but what does "universal healthcare" really mean? It simply entails massive transfers of wealth from people who are productive to those who are unproductive. Sure these costs will be hidden and the government will to its best to fool us into thinking its a great system. The U.S. is currently the leader in medical research and why is that? Because we are the only country that isn't weighed down by huge government beuracracies that will take anyone's wealth as soon as they try to create it (i.e. France). We will definitely get universal healthcare, that's a given. The Democrats will kill any innovation by reducing the profits that biotechnology/pharmaceutical companies are allowed to get. The cognitive elite of this country will be forced to give an ever increasing amount of their money to the poor low I.Q. population. This will be justified on the basis of the unfairness of inequality. This means that medicines that will extend life will never get created. The government beuracracy will become so bloated that no technology will be adopted on a mass scale. In another 60 years a low I.Q. populist leader will take over the U.S. and institute socialism just like Hugo Chavez is doing now in Venezuela.

A democracy allows decision to be made by the masses, not necessarily those who are the most intelligent. The cognitive elite who run all the technology will be overthrown by the general population. Socialism is one of those things that sounds great especially to people with low intelligence. Socialism says you can get something for nothing. So after the elite is overthrown society will continue for a few months, but eventually everything will begin to crumble. Due to enormous problems such as famine, overpopulation and global warming most of the world's population will die out. People will be just too plain stupid to be able to save themselves and will have killed off all the smart people who could have saved them.

This story i've told is somewhat of an exaggeration but many of the problems may very well come up in the future. I am optimistic that we will avoid these problems by adopting technologies that will artificially enhance our own intelligence. Things such as pharmaceuticals, gene therapy, brain-machine connections may be able to do this. I think ultimately though, what i am most worried about is when someone comes along who does not have the same level of intelligence as those who came before him and uses technology that he really doesn't understand to do something for which he does not comprehend the consequences. Okay I know that's a mouthful but let me explain. Think for instance of the 9/11 highjackers. These people did not have the intelligence, forsight or concientousness to create the airplanes they flew or build the buildings they crashed into. Religious and mystical thinking lead them to believe that by killing 3,000 people they would be rewarded as martyrs. Low I.Q. and hyper religiosity are actually being selected for by evolutionary processes. People who are very religious and have a lower I.Q. may end up having the most children. When this type of person is allowed access to technology created by a previous generation who had more forsight/intelligence/secularism I fear that once again disaster may result.

Edited by hrc579, 22 June 2007 - 04:52 PM.


#2 tamalak

  • Guest
  • 73 posts
  • 3

Posted 03 May 2007 - 08:13 AM

PARAGRAPHS!

Dysgenics is probably real, but its effects are too slow to stop the progress to the technological singularity. Futurists' average guess is that the singularity is about 120 years away - by that point dysgenics will have reduced the population's average I.Q. by only 3-6 points - and this assumes the Flynn effect is over, but medical advances (and hopefully improvements in diet) might sustain it.

The second part of your post is a bit parinoid. What you describe is a extremely shoddily impemented and extremist form of socialized medicine. If it is done right, socialized medicine offsets its costs with improved productivity due to a healthier population.

#3 John_Ventureville

  • Guest
  • 279 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 03 May 2007 - 10:09 AM

hrc579 wrote:
>Selection pressures have relaxed and intelligence is no longer of great utility.

I have to disagree with this statement. Intelligence is of key importance for not only individual personal success but so one can provide the necessary resources to offspring so they can also be very successful (especially if they inherited their parents braininess). The intelligent may have fewer children but the odds of these offspring doing well are generally much higher than the kids of the far less bright and ambitious.

If technological progress were moving at a snails pace I would find hrc579's arguments most disturbing. But I think the "brain drain" will not be any real threat within the next 30-50 years of waiting for the Singularity.

Hey, Cookie Monster! Where do you get the notion that futurists on average guess the Singularity is 120 years away??? Most of the prominent experts I have read about say around 2030-2050 it should actually happen.

hrc579's take on a possible very dark future made me think of the many Warhammer 40,000 science fantasy novels I have read. They show a galaxy spanning human empire which is slowly but steadily forgetting key technologies like genetic engineering and teleportation, and what they do remember is often veiled in superstition and religion-like ritual.

a quote from one of the novels:
When uttering the incantation, mark well that the rod is upon and not within the intake. The second incantation should not be uttered until all the fumes have come forth, then the way shall be clear for the sacred words to penetrate unto the heart of the engine. If the mounting be hot say the third rune, if it be cold the fourth rune is more appropriate. For then the wrath of the engine will be aroused...
~The Book of Five Runes
>

This would be one way of learning to use a machine! lol

John Grigg

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 bob_d

  • Guest
  • 101 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 May 2007 - 02:17 PM

i like your ideas hrc579. the high reproduction rates of stupid people destroy society. i like your idea of removing yourself from evolution, to become a rolemodel for other people with average to low iq and show them that there is now place for them in society and they are just stopping the smart people from having fun. but i strongly encourage you to seek out the help of a professional. successful suicide attempts require at lest an iq of 105 ( with an sd of 15!). if you dont believe in what i'm saying there you go: i found this story of a freenchman( and we all know french people are dumb) who almost messed up killing himself:

In France, Jacques LeFevrier left nothing to chance when he decided to commit suicide. He stood atop a sheer cliff and tied a noose around his neck. He tied the other end of the rope to a large rock. He drank some poison and set fire to his clothes. He even tried to shoot himself at the last moment. He jumped and fired the pistol. 

The bullet missed him completely and cut through the rope above him. Now freed from the threat of hanging, he plunged into the sea. The dunking extinguished the flames and made him vomit the poison. He was dragged out of the water by a kind fisherman and was taken to a hospital, where he died of hypothermia.

so please spare yourself some suffering and seek out some help!

#5 bob_d

  • Guest
  • 101 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 May 2007 - 02:36 PM

of course its a fact that people heavily differ in intelligence. its true, too, that smart people contribute more to society and that they lead more pleasant lives. but that does not justify any kind of eugenics program and it does not dimnish the worth of less smart people nor the worth of their children or the worth of their contribution to society. anyway what is your definition of low iq? will you sort out the lowest 25% or the lowest 15% on the iq scale and who is going to decide on that threshold? will you sort out every generation or only once? in my opinion low iq is a problem but not for society as a whole, but the stupid people themselves. they are inferior to the smarter people and have to compete with them nevertheless. being stupid means you have no chance to participate on a reasonable level in many fields of society, like politics, education or economy. and it means that you earn at lot less than smarter people. there are studies that state, that every point of iq boost your income on average about 400$ per year. thats not democratic, is it? the only solution to this problem is making the dumb smart by developing tools for cognitive enhancement. and not sorting them out like broken computers. developing cognitive enhancement is easier than building kz's and sterilize one forth of the society, anyway. so use your intelligence and help working out the biological basics of intelligence and in fifty years there are all the dumb people gone and everyone is happy [thumb]

Edited by bob_d, 03 May 2007 - 03:06 PM.


#6 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 03 May 2007 - 03:55 PM

IQs have been going up, not down.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Flynn_effect

However with the movement from Usenet to AOL to discussion boards that anyone can access, the intelligence of online discussions has bucked the trend.

#7 tamalak

  • Guest
  • 73 posts
  • 3

Posted 03 May 2007 - 10:33 PM

Hey, Cookie Monster! Where do you get the notion that futurists on average guess the Singularity is 120 years away???  Most of the prominent experts I have read about say around 2030-2050 it should actually happen. 


To be honest, I don't remember. I remember reading that it's predicted to happen around 2120, but when I checked wikipedia it says 30 years like you do. 2030-2050 sounds way to early to me, but I'm just a cookie monster.. it seems like the experts agree with you.

#8 Futurist1000

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 22 June 2007 - 04:21 PM

Year__________(World Population×10^9)________(Mean IQ)
1950_______________2.55____________________91.64
1975_______________4.08____________________90.80
2000_______________6.07____________________89.20
2025_______________7.82____________________87.81
2050_______________9.06____________________86.32
Global I.Q.

World I.Q.


Adult Literacy question (rough indicator of I.Q.)

QUESTION:
Find which energy source will supply more power in 2000 than it did in 1971, using this table. Estimated U.S. Power Consumption by Source (Quadrilion BTUs)

_________________1971___1980_____1985_____2000
Coal _____________18.2%__16.8%___16.8%____16.3%
Petroleum_________44.2%__43.9%___43.5%____37.2%
Natural Gas________32.9%__28.1%___24.3%____17.7%
Nuclear Power______6.0%____7.0%___10.1%____25.7%
Hydropower________4.1%____4.2%____3.7%_____3.1%

"Now if you said nuclear power, you figured out what 46% of adult Americans can't (and 71% of adults on this planet cannot either.) [I'm just using a normal distribution table here, with world literacy approximating world intelligence, that is about 90, with Americans at 100. standard deviations are 15 throughout."

Adult Literacy


Unfortunately I have realized that my I.Q. is probably about 5 points less than my dad. Looking at my cousins I see similar indications that their intelligence is not as high as their parents. This may be due to "regression towards the mean" but it is still similar in effect to dysgenics.

The Flynn effect (worldwide rise in I.Q. scores) appears to have ended (at least in Norway and Denmark)
End of Flynn Effect

Edited by hrc579, 22 June 2007 - 04:49 PM.


#9 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 22 June 2007 - 04:58 PM

One thing to keep in mind is that IQ is the average of intelligences, and it changes if the average changes. An IQ of 100 is supposed to be what the average person is. In other words, if averages went up by 10 points, and the new average were 110, it wouldn't be 110; It would be 100, because there would be a compensation for it. So, IQs do not "go up" or "go down" over any period of time, because they are always at the same level. (100 is always the middle)

It is kind of like grading on a curve, and this is how it appears (how it always appears, since it is continually equalized for where the population is at that moment):
Posted Image

However, in the studies, they are (I am sure) taking a set point, say, the year 2000 (or any year, it doesn't matter) and comparing everything in that year's "values". (much like is done when comparing the price of gas over long periods of time, equalized for inflation by using a certain year's dollar value)

Also, take a look at the Flynn effect that Dr. Wowk linked to above. Average intelligence is going up over time, not down. The reason it appears to go down on the chart used by hrc579 in the post above this one is because of population growth. In other words, if you have a lot more babies and young children around, of course average intelligence is going to be lower, because the babies and small children are not fully developed (and therefore bring the average down, and if they continually are growing at a larger rate, then they will continue to skew the results down). However, when you test one group year after year (for instance, 12th grade students every year) or one segment of the population year after year, then IQs do rise over time.

No one disputes the Flynn effect, it has been proven many times over.

#10 Futurist1000

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 22 June 2007 - 05:34 PM


"The Flynn Effect was probably due to better nutrition. Recent findings suggest that the Flynn effect has run its course and that general population IQ gains over time are reaching plateaus (Teasdale & Owen, 2005; Sundet, Barlaug, & Torjussen, 2004). "


Abstract

The present paper reports secular trends in the mean scores of a language, mathematics, and a Raven-like test together with a combined general ability (GA) score among Norwegian (male) conscripts tested from the mid 1950s to 2002 (birth cohorts ¡Ö1935¨C1984). Secular gains in standing height (indicating improved nutrition and health care) were also investigated. Substantial gains in GA were apparent from the mid 1950s (test years) to the end 1960s¨Cearly 1970s, followed by a decreasing gain rate and a complete stop from the mid 1990s. The gains seemed to be mainly caused by decreasing prevalence of low scorers. From the early 1970s, the secular gains in GA were almost exclusively driven by gains on the Raven-like test. However, even the means on this particular test stopped to increase after the mid to late 1990s. It is concluded that the Flynn effect may have come to an end in Norway. Height gains were strongly correlated with intelligence gains until the cessation of height gains in the conscript cohorts towards the end of the 1980s. Contrary to the intelligence gains, the height gains (conscript cohorts 1969¨C2002) were most pronounced in the upper half of the distribution. Evidence indicating decreasing intercorrelations between tests is reported.

Flynn Effect in Reverse

#11 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 30 June 2007 - 03:13 PM

After this discussion, I was watching today's episode of Bloggingheads.tv (one of the other sites I visit) and the two science guys were talking about the Flynn effect during part of the discussion. Here is a link to the relevant part of the video, for anyone interested:
http://bloggingheads...id=323&cid=1830

#12 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 01 July 2007 - 05:15 AM

It sounds like hrc579 is advocating (or would at least prefer) an authoritarian society where stupid people were prevented from reproducing. His is the standard right wing disgenics rant; he doesn't come out and say it but the logical extension is to be pro eugenics. It's too bad in a way that eugenics is associated with Nazis and right wingers, because it wouldn't be that crazy of an idea if it were done right. We already do it via our courtship and marriage rituals anyway. For example, mentally retarded people don't get asked out on a lot of dates... I believe that everyone deserves a decent life and dignity and all that, but I draw the line at procreation. I think parenting should be considered a privilege rather than a right, and living near a big city I can point to a parade of young criminals and tiny corpses that support this contention. To blame our social dysfunction on "socialism", however, is ludicrous. We are about the least socialist of any developed country, but whatever. I doubt the socialism/dysgenics meme will die any time soon. If you want a good laugh on this topic, go rent the movie Idiocracy. It looks at a future America where due to stupid people's procreation advantage, everyone is an idiot. It is the funniest movie I've seen in years. Apparently it was produced by Fox, who then decided not to promote it because it might not sit well with their key demographic. Too bad, 'cause it's absolutely hilarious.

#13 bob_d

  • Guest
  • 101 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Germany

Posted 02 July 2007 - 10:41 AM

for eugenics to work, you have to map unwanted traits to different genes, which cause them. thats pretty hard to do. in most cases you can't even define a trait as being bad or find its genetic roots. sometimes, there are genetic combinations which cause a very well working feature. there are others which cause a similar one and work nearly as well or better. But if you mix both types you'll get some average or below average system. how to deal with that eugenically? and even if you can, what happens if society or environment changes? then you have a bunch of perfectly unfit people, with a small gene pool who can't adapt. next problem is, you have to search the genome of every person you want to allow to procreate, to find out how many of the wanted genes he has(again most traits are polygenetic and very few people are genetically superspecialised) and how many of the unwanted. then you have to select a fitting mate and hope, that only the "good" genes are passed on to their kids. of course you have to select them again. and again and... the most repellent thing about eugenics is to me the idea of a central commission, who decides what a society is going to need in future and how people have to be, to fullfill that needs. that system leaves no personal freedom and sucks badly at economy, so why should it work with reproduction? I totally agree with you, that most peoples genetic makeup could be better, but everyone wants different things in life. So it's best to find a way that they can bring themselves to a state they like. In that case that would be genetic engineering, which would work faster with less ethical concerns and would lead to better outcomes for society than eugenics can. Of course that technique isn't there yet, but eugenics needs several generations to work, too. Idiocracy is fun. I mean the movie [thumb]

#14 Futurist1000

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 02 July 2007 - 03:45 PM

I personally think eugenics is useless. People don't want it, and it is questionable how you would get it to work in a free society. I don't think germ line genetic engineering will be done anytime soon either. I think the best bet is using technology to improve human intelligence. I know Ray Kurzweil has said a lot on the subject. He is fairly confident that we will be using technology to increase our own intelligence in the future.

#15 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 03 July 2007 - 02:36 AM

I personally think eugenics is useless. People don't want it, and it is questionable how you would get it to work in a free society.

Some people want it, and have practiced it for generations. When your parents encourage you to marry someone who is smart and mentally healthy instead of someone who is "hot", they are practicing eugenics. As far as the technical feasibility of eugenics, it has to work in a statistical sense. Remember, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. All I have to do is look at my kids- there's my wife and I all over again. Not to mention our parents. Warts and all, as it were.

#16 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 July 2007 - 08:27 AM

The original post was written in such a way that I thought it may have been stereotyping immortalist views. This topic is a vitally important one, but it must be considered carefully and without elitism or social darwinism. This post emits a Malthusian and misanthropic odor. I will elaborate on this, but I must sleep first.

Edited by progressive, 08 July 2007 - 09:16 AM.


#17 bob_d

  • Guest
  • 101 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Germany

Posted 08 July 2007 - 09:27 AM

no they are not, because their goal is not the genotype of your kids but your happiness. eugenics needs to sort out people who don't fit, otherwise there is no measurable effect. again: who is going to decide about what attributes are right? furthermore, why should somone allow society to sort him out?

#18 dave111

  • Guest
  • 39 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 July 2007 - 12:01 PM

The scariest thing in this thread is people excited about the singularity -if it actuallyy happens any time soon, it seems to me that it'll be our #1 existential threat: a rapidly expanding intelligence that will probably see the housing of our subjective consciousness (human brains) as more like silicon sand to be repurposed to more productive ends than as a fellow intelligence to altruistically sustain.

I don't think we have much control over it, but if we're lucky, we'll solve SENS and some other problems well before we create entities smarter than us and that have incentives to expand their computational resources at speeds approaching the speed of light.

As for eugenics/dysgenics -I don't think relatively dumb people are any more of a problem than all the other relatively dumb life on planet earth. In fact, if they are getting less intelligent, then they'll be easier to manage: think of the relative ease in managing a pet hamster as oppposed to a pet monkey.

But, since our best resources at solving difficult problems are still very smart people, and since intelligence seems to have a substantial hereditary component, I'd like to see a more aggressive and rational version of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank reinstated. Specifically, I think we should provide financial incentives (so there's no coercive element) and moral encouragement for the men and women living today who demonstrate the best aptitude at solving the most difficult existential problems humanity faces to donate their sperm and egg, for us to create embryos in vitro with them, for us to recruit surrogate mothers to carry them to term in healthy environments and for us to recruit adopting parents to give them healthy formative environments.

We can then create trusts that will provide the children with positive financial incentives to complete advanced education in fields that will facilitate their ability to solve the existential threats we face.

What I like about this approach is that it's completely legal under current law and it violates no existing social norms about human dignity, life, and autonomy.

#19 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 09 July 2007 - 01:43 AM

As for eugenics/dysgenics -I don't think relatively dumb people are any more of a problem than all the other relatively dumb life on planet earth. In fact, if they are getting less intelligent, then they'll be easier to manage: think of the relative ease in managing a pet hamster as oppposed to a pet monkey.

But these hamsters can vote.

#20 cognition

  • Guest
  • 22 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 July 2007 - 05:09 AM

Christopher Langan, supposedly the smartest man in America, advocates a form of anti-dysgenics I think.

#21 marcopolo

  • Guest
  • 128 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Fair Oaks, California

Posted 14 September 2007 - 08:49 AM

you mean this guy?



It is apparent that most people who post in these forums have a high IQ, it would be interesting to see what people here think of Langan and his ideas. Apparently he is not a transhumanist or singlitarian.

Edited by marcopolo, 14 September 2007 - 09:15 AM.


#22 cognition

  • Guest
  • 22 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 September 2007 - 12:42 PM

Yeah I meant him. I'm not sure he has heard of transhumanism though.

#23 marcopolo

  • Guest
  • 128 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Fair Oaks, California

Posted 17 September 2007 - 11:16 PM

Really? I would think that most Intelligent people would have at least heard of transhumanist ideas by now if they are well read. I could be wrong though.

Edited by marcopolo, 18 September 2007 - 07:18 AM.


#24 simple

  • Guest
  • 258 posts
  • -0
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 18 September 2007 - 02:49 AM

INCREDIBLE!!!

The imbeciles have turned against the idiots!!!!

How low we will fall???

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#25 wiserd

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 3

Posted 22 November 2007 - 08:35 PM

Several problems with eugenics;

Every government run eugenics program in history seems to have failed miserably to achieve it's goal. Look at the landmark case of Buck v. Bell where Carrie Buck was sterilized and committed essentially because she was raped.

Ultimately, the biggest drain on society seems to be criminal behavior rather than sheer stupidity. There are some who believe that criminal behavior is associated with low IQ. I don't know if I share that view. I think stupid criminals are just more likely to get caught, and less likely to be able to use legal means to achieve their goals. But assuming that it's true, the best eugenics program is just well enforced laws.

And while there have been eugenics programs in many countries, socialized countries like National Socialist Germany and Socialist Sweeden have been the worst. Because social payment for goods means I have a vested interest in my neighibor's behaviors.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users