Doubting Didymus

From the section discussing a book on 'dysgenics':

That is an absurd statement. How can evolution possibly 'ensure' the prescence of the traits that lead to a reduced intelligence? We are supposed to believe that a difference of one IQ point is enough of a selection pressure to produce this trend in every generation? If this trend is actually true, it is NOT the result of an evolutionary trend, and selective breeding would be totally ineffectual.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Happy Wonderer

Well, here is my take on it for whatever it is worth:

That is quite debatable, as is the nature of intelligence itself. There are inherited diseases that lower intelligence, but that doesn't mean that the converse is true. However, this is a frequently debated topic, and your question is more interesting that that.
This is a logical fallacy -- just because A relies on B doesn't mean that if you have more A you have a better B, and if you have less then you don't have B. I think one could make the argument that the average "civilized" man is in many ways less intelligent than the average hunter-gatherer. The spatial abilities and memory of many "primitive" peoples are incredible. (In other words, how long would you last on your own in the Australian outback?) '
I'm not sure that I agree with the first premise -- Star Trek's Borg race is a fictional argument against this premise. Rome is a non-fictional example; Citizens of Rome were better off because of the degree of civilization, but the (more numerous) slaves that were necessary to keep the civilization running were not.

Of course, like "intelligence", "Civilization" is a pretty broad and undefined term.
I think this has been well dealt with by other posters. It relies on many facts not in evidence. Do you really think that the average modern American is less intelligent than the average serf or peasant laborer of the 1700's? What evidence do you have?

I disagree with the premise, of course. The conclusion is also suspect (assuming we aren't talking about a collective 50 point drop.)

Our civilization is built upon technical and social systems that have "evolved" based upon experience. To some extent they will be resistant to minor variations in intelligence.

For example, I'm remodeling a house myself. The physics of plumbing is fairly complex; you have to ensure that water goes down, but sewer gasses (or soap bubbles) don't come up. (*) Fortunately I don't have to rely on my native intelligence to figure out how to run the plumbing. I rely on state code books and "how to be a plumber" books. They tell me such things as the maximum horizontal offset that I can place a drain from the main vent. These codes get revised as people discover problems (usually the hard way.) Although dealing with a supersmart plumber may be a nice experience, we can get by quite well with competent people who are motivated to do a good job.

HW

(*) The "trap" under your sink is the basic trick (in addition to the toilet) that makes indoor plumbing possible. It is designed so that enough water remains in a section of the pipe to block off the flow of gasses (which are diverted to a vent) or rodents. Many plumbing rules are based around the physics of not siphoning water from the trap. The rules have evolved over the last ~100 years; the original inventors were very smart but didn't anticipate all of the possible problems.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Just pointing out that, while the average american wouldn't be less intelligent, neither would they be more intellegent than said eighteenth century labourer. Education, of course, is a different matter altogether. Luckily, that can be improved without infringing on peoples rights, as lady anthouse would no doubt have us do.

Happy Wonderer

Exactly! For those of us who are not purebred royalty, that eighteenth century labourer is Great^n-Grandpa.

HW

Happy Wonderer

One thought: suppose we do actually try to breed in intelligence. Say for the sake of argument that it is a properly as easily identified and selected for as the tails of a pigeon.

Would breeding humans for intelligence really lead to a better civilization? Intelligence may be tied to other less-desirable characteristics. Consider what a world would be like if we selected just for intelligence:

• Depression Great, we are all really smart but we can't get out of bed.
• Sociopathy Often of above-average intelligence, but you don't want to meet one.
• ADD Nobody bothers to read the manuals for the reactor...
• Dyslexia Again, often very bright kids.
• Lazyness We come up with really good excuses for not getting things done.
• Dishonesty Great, a world of Lawyers

and so on. Intelligence is just one factor that you would have to select for, and now I'm pretty sure you are going to where you don't wanna be.

IMHO our society functions because people have a wide range of mental attributes, which lets the society "organism" adapt to stresses. There were highly decorated soldiers in WWII who would probably be in jail today. For some things you need Alan Alda, for others you need Rambo. The way things are going, we probably will be needing the services of quite a few Rambos soon.

HW

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]</p>

fando

Add Autism to that list. For some inexplicable reason, the children of smart parents have a higher risk of being Autistic.

ps418

[quote]1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.[quote]

I agree with most of the other concerns you outline in your post, but not with this one. That intelligence is largely heritable is no longer debated amongst experts who study intelligence. The only debate now is the degree to which intelligence is heritable versus the degree to which it can be altered by environment. Virtually all research on intelligence heritability has yielded values greater than 0.5, so the claim that "Human intelligence is largely hereditary" is well-supported. According to the Wall Street Journal article <a href="http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/support-bell-curve.html" target="_blank">Mainstream Science on Intelligence,</a>:

Patrick

Doubting Didymus

Another thought: just how soon would a eugenecist (sp?) want his breeding plans to come to fruition? It would be well over 10-50 thousand years before any effects became noticable. Thats an awfully long term plan for improving human society. Look me in the eye and tell me that you can't think of a better and faster way.

fando

Ah, that's an excellent point. Designer babies via Genetic Engineering will be the rage well before Eugenics ever takes off, if at all.

Doubting Didymus

Ah.

Not quite what I had in mind.

Although I am sure the ability to make babies like custom cupcakes is dreadfully important, I was actually thinking more along the lines of ending war and hatred, ensuring a good education for all, (and some food and water too), reforming politics, the legal system and orgainsed religion and generally working together as one mighty species to transcend misery throughout the borders of the universe. I think we could probably manage all this before a breeding program could improve our intelligences by more than 40%.