Christopher Lord

A question I long wondered.

We live now with no need to fight to live. Might this remove the evolutionary pressure which kept us sharp-witted hunters in the past?

Since there are a number of ‘loose it or loose it’ examples in evolution, could we be establishing an environment wherein we are actually removing the pressure to be intelligent? Might we eventually turn ourselves into simpletons once again by simply not living in an environment which differentiates between the good survivors and the poor? (not to imply we should start, but its an interesting question none the less)

If we were still setting ambushes and learning plant species (and dieing if we fail), I don’t think the below-average individuals would have much hope of passing on genes… or at the very least not as good of a chance as they do now.

Abacus

*Looks around*

This is a distinct possibility.

The Lone Ranger

I read an interesting study recently that had been done with mice. In this study, the researchers divided the mice into two groups. Mice in the first group were put into cages that had few toys to play with, and the food and water were kept out in the open, where they could be easily accessed.

Mice in the second group were put into cages with lots of toys. Furthermore, the researchers hid their food, and forced the mice to hunt for their food -- often, they had to solve puzzles in order to get food.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the mice in the first group were far less active than those in the second, on average. (Mice in the first group tended to spend their time simply lying around. They would get up every now and again to get food or water, then sink back into a semi-conscious state.) Even more interestingly, those mice who were forced to work for their dinners turned out to have much denser dendritic connections in their brains.

Experimental evidence that the brain really does work like a muscle -- use it or lose it.

Cheers,

Michael

Happy Wonderer

I don't think that we have eliminated predators; we still have to survive our fellow humans! Some things such as fast reflexes may no longer be selected for (although if you happen to live on the West Bank the ability to duck quickly could be a positive benefit) but intelligence clearly will be. If you are completely unable to "work the system" your kids will not have a high chance of survival.

HW

Christopher Lord

but even those who are complete morons can survive and prosper (with many children) in today's world.

Its not like being really smart offers up more possibilities for children in the modern world. Perhaps its even the reverse that is true, since we keep the intelligent in jobs which reduce their child potential, and also educate people in the use of birth control. Education tends to be more effective for those who are more intelligent to begin with (generally).

In the past, if you were a dolt, you died a befitting death, and if your dolt-ness was due to your genes, humanity as a whole moved a tiny fraction towards greater average 'intelligence'.

People no longer die in droves simply for being moronic.

Abacus

If all of this is so, then I would say it is imperative that we improve our educational system. At no other time in history has our species had the opportunity to educate ourselves so well. Much of that opportunity is being wasted.

Happy Wonderer

Well, in a completely uncivilized society the sad fact is that the bigger, stronger, and quicker guys get to mate with the females. Judo fantasies aside, no amount of smarts is going help you win in a straight fight against Mike Tyson.

I'm not sure we can assume the ancient world was less friendly to unintelligent people. Our basic instincts work pretty well when dealing with the standard geologic hazards. We instinctively fear fire. Even infants instinctively fear cliffs. Many animals are absurdly easy to catch and kill when they are in abundance (clams are a great example),and water isn't an issue until you have a civilization that can concentrate the population to the point that it becomes one. Compare that to the hazards that we face today: electricity, automobiles, attractive things that kill you (drugs & cigaretes), and toxic chemicals under your sink that can kill off your kids.

One thing to consider when countering this argument is the relative literacy rates between ancient times and now. It used to be that someone who was able to read was valuable enough that they could be pardoned from capital crimes merely by proving that they could read (in England it was known as the "right of clergy" since it was usually the clergy who could read.)

On the plus side for your argument, I agree that more educated people generally have a lower birth rate (although I read recently that this is not as true in the United States as it is elsewhere.)

HW

echidna

Several issues, Christopher. Our environment today differs from the past in that society today is more controlled and much safer than in the past. There are institutions to protect us far better than before. And yet IMO we still rely on the same combination of physical genetics and brainpower to survive and multiply.

I don’t see a reduction in the intelligence required to live today, but maybe a subtle shift in how it is used. Without laws and protection, maybe one can live easier without raw survival wits, while with the protection which such a complex civilisation provides, we survive more using the classic interpretation of intelligence, understanding how to organise home loans, file tax returns, program the *%$#ing VCR & so forth.

I understand that IQ tests actually show that western populations actually improve their performance over time. Now IMO this doesn’t say we’re getting smarter, only that the shape of our intelligence is changing.

In addition, intelligence and the like are only anecdotally linked to genetics, and some extremely dodgy genetics at that. At absolute best it is an extremely complex combination of many genes, which interact far too complicatedly to ascribe single environmental influences to.

More, I see the change as memetic one rather than genetic.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

Christopher Lord

I just want to clear up a misunderstanding here. I'm not talking about your normal educated human versus a non-educated human (thats entirely social). Its like the difference between an ape and us. There ARE definately genes which grant our larger brain, and thus there ARE genes for 'intelligence'.


This then is the crux. Everyone survives in a modern society. Once in a while someone fails to adhere to safty standards on the job and cuts his head off, but thats probably not because he was genetically worse off, just that he didnt pay attention to the posted rules of survival.

This indicates to me that we are drifting, and perhaps the genes that granted our larger brain are no longer being selected for.

I agree, but programming the VCR and planning loans will not determine how well your genes move forward, AT ALL. Everyone survives today, some just cant program VCRs.

This indicates to me that the education system is having successes teaching people. This does not mean the genes that control intelligence are still being selected for. For all we know, we could be selecting against intelligence.


Indeed, but I'm refering to long term changes over time.

Corwin

Give it some time.... Heinlein suggested that space colonization would be good for the species because the added danger weeded out the weak and stupid... on an entire planet with effectively no established human civilization or support network... predators and diseases we've never encountered before... and the inevitable odd war with an undiscovered intelligent species... Darwin rises again.

I'm more or less inclined to agree with him. It's the westward expansion all over again.