Dissident Israeli Soldiers' Petition

A constant theme in the U.S. media is that Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza serves to defend Israel against Arab and Palestinian aggression. The following is another view in the form of a petition signed by 110 Israeli reserve soldiers, several of whom have complained in separate media accounts about the tactics they have been called on to execute, including the IDF's occasional deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilans, specifically children. According to today's NY Times, "[o]ne soldier said he was court-martialed after refusing to fire from a machine gun at a civilian area." The Times also reports that Israel's army chief will take "tough action" against the dissident soldiers.


Found at www.seruv.org (http://www.seruv.org):


• We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces,

• who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, sacrifice and giving to the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.

• We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty all over the Occupied Territories, and were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people. We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation exacts from both sides.

• We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories, destroy all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country.

• We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF’s human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society.

• We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements are bound to be evacuated in the end.

• We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the Settlements.

We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.

• We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israel’s defense.

The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose – and we shall take no part in them.

They deserve to be interned for insubordination at hard labor, and to be investigated financially to potential bribes. You don't believe Israel has a right to exist. Nor do you belive that Palestinian terrorism targets civiians. Palestinians target almost exclusively civilians. They also target USA forces. They are synonimous with Al Queda, Hamas, Iraq and Iran. Clinton gave the Palestinians more on the table than they ever will get again. They answered not with peace. They answered with bombing school children in buses,and lynching old men. Keep it up. Keep stating how the Israelis and the USA are trrorists. Keep donating funds to these terrorists. The feds will then find your illegal gambling money in the audit they conduct. You will wind up in jail, Herr Alger.

Mason,


Someone is continually making personal attacks against Mr. Alger in an anonymous fashion. They use name calling and always distort his position beyond any logical conclusions, in addition to likening him to a criminal for what he thinks.


I think these posts are harassment and should be deleted. Chris is showing an alternative viewpoint to an world conflict that has many sides and interpretations. He is speaking with an open mind, not using this forum to attack individuals. I welcome his submissions and think that his being targeted is unfortunate. The person (I suspect it is one person using several monikers) doing so is not abiding by the posting guidelines, in my opinion.


KJS

He's made a habit of it. Let's delete the truth, and permit radical Islamic propaganda to stand.

Mason has done a pretty good job of deleting many of these posts, but the forum has been terrorized for years by this guy, and it's hard to keep up with all the junk. He even flamed some guy below simply because his name was "Chris."


He's not really anonymous, either. His name is Ray Springfield and he lives in Golden Colorado. He's the same guy on the internet forum that used to post under the names of other posters, including wb, Andrew Prock, me and quite a few others, to the point where the "profile" became necessary. Bob L is his most recent victim. He's the same guy that's constantly raving, under various aliases, about the FBI, the IRS, international crime, terrorism and money laundering associated with internet poker.


He doesn't beleive any of this, of course. He doesn't think that I'm antisemitic or donate money to terrorists or that internet poker is a "federal felony, as he's claimed in the past, or that it's crooked. Indeed, he played on Paradise and Planet for a long time until the losses became unbearable. He does this because he hates poker players and he hates poker players because he's a degenerate gambler. If you check the archives, you'll see him admitting that he thinks Paradise is legitimate, and that he was trying to reactivate his account. Paradise won't let him, however, because he triggered a "problem gambler" flag. He therefore spends all his time trying to trash these forums because they represent everything he'd like to be but isn't. It's his way of getting even.


When his posts contain some defamatory lie, like the one above accusing me of donating money to terrorsists I ask that the post be deleted, but I otherwise I no longer respond to these things.

But the truth is the truth. You do falgrantly and illegally participate in online gambling in Colorado. Your views toward Israel are radical.


Still, I cannot take credit for your admirers. You have at least 4 to 5 other people here that find your views outrageous. Your paranoia is setting in again.

If you wish to sue me for stating that online gambling is illegal in Colorado, and that you openly participate, or that your views on Israel are radical, be my guest. You do participate in online gambling, have openly posted that in your opinion online gambling is legal in this state (contrary to statue and published opinion of the current AG and gaming commission), and your position on Israel is offensively biased. I'd love to discuss your activities in the Colorado courts. You won't have the automatic gag order of the Colorado Supreme Court to hide behind.


A counter suit would follow immediately, and the outcome and proceedings would be freely forwarded to the authorities.


I have some Jewish attorney friends in town that would love to get you on the stand explaining your position, and defending me. Some of them are very well known.

I agree with vigorous debate. Even though I rarely agree with what Mr. Alger says, he has a right to his opinion and as long as he presents it in a proper manner it is welcome here. It's a shame that this Springfield fellow has to take the contstant personal attacks and damage these forums. It's precisely this type of attitude that stops compromises from being created and accepted, and difficult problems don't get solved.

Prove to all of us that internet gambling is legal in Colorado.


Prove that the USA and Israel are terrorists and that this whole war (and the war in Israel) is nothing more than a zionist conspiracy to rule America, and thus the world.


Prove in the courts that he is wrong. Then all the others will have to quit posting that you participate in an illegal activity, that officers of the court can play internet poker in Colorado above the 5 dollar limit, and that anyone that believes that the issue of Palestine has nothing to do with Israel's right to exist is objective and educated.


The entire free world stands waiting to be told how things truly are by a courageous man like you.

This material was posted as a link by itchyball:


House Financial Services Committee Chairman and former FBI agent Michael Oxley told the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee yesterday that Internet gambling and credit card fraud are still vital means of disguising the paper trail that leads to terrorists.


Oxley said the FBI is aware that credit card fraud is 'used extensively in Internet gambling and to transact business through unregulated offshore secrecy havens.


'At a minimum, credit card associations should be required to implement anti-money laundering programs, as mandated for all financial institutions in the PATRIOT Act,' he added.


House Financial Services Committee Ranking Democrat John LaFalce said that the government needs to 'have a much better handle on (Internet gambling). The problem is growing astronomically,” adding 'If we don't deal with that issue, we're going to have unbelievable money laundering taking place globally.”


Another anti-gambling bill, H.R. 3215, introduced by Rep. Robert Goodlatte, gives U.S. attorneys general the power to require financial institutions to refuse transactions for online gaming. It would become illegal for banks and individuals to knowingly accept credit cards, checks or electronic fund transfer as payment for Internet gambling.

More lies. I played briefly on Planet. I stopped before the scandal broke. I insisted that their cards could be read. Alger and Prock viciously attacked me as a net kook. Then the truth came out. They then switched to Paradise. I quit on Paradise slightly ahead.


I do believe that you play illegally. I do believe that your positions on Israel reveal your bias.

All of those congressman (both the Democrats, and the Republican) are all just net kooks. Only Chris Alger knows the real law and the truth!


Seriously, it would be fun to see Alger cross- examined. It won't ever happen. He would claim the 5th amendment.

If Israel removed its settlements in the occupied territories, granted amnesty to all Palestinians who were believed to be involed in "freedom fighting" as you probably call it, and vowed to recognize a palestinian state do you think there would be peace?


A simple yes or no will do.

Yes, but it's more complicated than simply doing what you propose (don't forget "right of return" and Jerusalem), and it will probably be many generations before these countries are as free from sporadic terrorism by the occasional fanatic or splinter group. And the likely key won't be specific actions by Israel, but by the U.S.


I'm not sure what amnesty you're referring to. I certainly don't think that the terrorist bombings of civilians have anything to do with "freedom fighting." They're atrocious crimes against humanity that deserve punishment to the letter of the law. The only thing they provide is a pretext for Israel's intransigence. There's a difference between blowing up a marketplace and resisting an occupying army by throwing rocks at tanks or shooting at soldiers trying to demolish homes.

No difference whatsoever. Guerilla warfare is what it is called. Counter insurgency techniques have proven effective in the past.

The Israelis have to do something. It sounds to me like you believe tht they should do nothing in the face of daily suicide attacks.


You do fail to mention the rejection of offers made by Barak and supported by Clinton. The bottom line is that radical Islam will not rest until the last Jew in Israel has been murdered. You know that.You apparentky support it.

The answer is clearly no. Radical Islamic supporters like Mr.Alger clearly know that the goal of the jihad is to kill every Jew in Israel.

ALger supported another radical last year who thought the world would have been better off if the Nazis had defeeated the Russians, and thus won WWII. Alger is a brown shirt.

The Palestinian birth rate exceeded so much the respective Israeli one that the Israelis realized that, short of a Middle Eastern 'Final solution', the only way to avoid a Palestinian majority inside Israel (and the eventual fate of South Africa, where horrors! the blackies came to rule over the white man), would be to create a Palestinian state (a bandustan really, much like what South Africa tried to do, when the apartheid regime was beathing its last).


It all came to nought because the Palestinians realized this and asked what they have beena sking all along: Not the destruction of Israel - but the destruction of an Israel only for Jews.


Remember : Israel is the only country that styles itself as a western democracy that wants nothing to do with people who are not of a specific religion or race. Israelis do not even want people who used to live in Israel, when Israel wasd created, to come back and live there. They call them 'self exiles' , making it sound as if the Palestinians drove off their lands thorugh systematic official terrorisation were going to live in the south of France.


The fate of Israel is sealed, just like any imperialist country throughout History: The Jews managed to keep their culture aflame for millenia precisely because they possessed no state (viz. Otto Frank's ultimate oeuvre). They have come to realize their Zionist Dream and Israel was born. In 3-4 decades, Israel will be awash in the dirty, slimy, unclean, heathen sperm of its current helots, the Palestinian animals.


Ugh! 'Sgonna be one ugly sight.

I'm not surprised that Alger has supporters that cite eugenics. It's a large part of the philosophy of the master race.

Your views are sad, Cyrus. I'm forced now to include you in the class of Algerian brown shirts.

The Palestinian situation has very little to do with radical islam. Many of the people taking action against the Israelis are far from religious zealots, like the woman suicide bomber last week. They just get tired of getting shot at and living in refugee camps in their own country. Wouldn't you? Or do you condone the destruction of the Palestinian territory? I think you hate Muslims in general, and Palestinians in particular.

You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. Nowhere did I come out as a supporter of any brand of 'eugenics' - which, by the way, is a different animal than what you make it to be. (I'm against it by the way, whether it is the American early 20th century version or the Biotech late 20th century version. You didn't know about the American one, did you?)


My post was a very bsic, simplistic maybe, presentation of the demographic situation in Israel: namely, that the Palestinians are ahead in the birth rate. This is a fact of life. You cannot alter it. And it's not unlike what we witness in every part of the world, where the chasm in the birth rates between advanced and backward societies is most prominent. (This is very unfortunate from a global sustenance point of view, of course, but that's another issue.)


My point, in case you still choose to misinterpret what I wrote is this : the Israelis, after many efforts to lure Jews from abroad, encourage child bearing, forbid abortions, invite settlers, etc, found themselves in the middle of an unforeseen demographic dilemma. If the situation was to be left alone, Israel would soon ("3-4 decades") be a country where the Jews would be a minority. The horror of it!.. (I personally don't give a shit either way about these things. But Zionists are very serious about race! Just another tragicomedy in human affairs.)


That's the precise point in time when they decided to embark on a "peace mission" with PLO. It was for that reason and that reason alone. It wasn't american or int'l pressure at all. (Never happen.) They simply did not want to suffer the fate of the white Afrikaners in the Mandela-ruled South Africa, i.e. find themselves with a Prime Minister of dark-colored skin! And that's why the Israelis were never sincere about a Palestinian free & indepenedent state. (Sharon has firmly stated so, repeatedly.) Their motives were ethnically-driven and not peace-motivated.


If you want to look for "brown shirts", as you say, look elsewhere, not here. Try the Aksa Mosque for starters.


--Cyrus

No. You are wrong. The Palestinians are armed by radical Islam and Iran. Alger, who is probably you, deosn't believe Israel is Israel. He believes that it is Palestine. Therefore he, or you, believe that all the Jews are squaters and deserve to be annihilated. If being in favor of Israel existing equates to your definition of being anti-muslim, then so be it. I don't see it that way. Neither has any American Administration since Israel's inception.


If you wish to support radical terrorism against Israelis and Amercians, then you belong in Cuba at the prison for Al Queda members.


Alger is a Nazi.


Mr.Springfield rightly indicates that the Palestinians have rejected every reasonable offer put before them. The Barak, Arafat and Clinton summit clearly indicated that the Palestinians have no interest in peaceful coexistence.

The wording and tone of your presentation indicates that you indeed do give a shit. You dislike Israeli Jews. It's pure radical Islamic propaganda. Two Plus Two should distance themselves from Alger, and your perspective.

Cyrus, I'd like to take the opportunity to step away from this thread a bit and raise a mildly related topic--and get your thoughts on it, too;-)


Let's assume that no race is inherently or genetically smarter or dumber than any other race. Let's also assume that in today's world people of lower intelligence tend to bear more children than people of higher intelligence (at least this is true in this country, and probably in many first-world countries). All I'm saying here is that generally speaking, as groups, the smarter (and often more financially successful) people tend to bear fewer offspring than their less intelligent counterparts. So something interesting is occurring. Successive generations are on average getting dumber from an inherent or genetic standpoint. For a while, the reverse was true...better nutrition and medical care meant that newer generations were actually probably getting smarter. Anyway, I don't much care if one race or another has greater numbers of offspring, but it worries me a bit that dumber people of any race have been more prolific through recent generations than their more intelligent counterparts. The future implications could be significant (and I actually believe we are already seeing some of the effects of this). So, if Palestinians grow to greatly outnumber Jews, or blacks grow to outnumber whites, that really wouldn't worry me all that much--but if it happened because the dumber ones were the ones reproducing most, I think that could be cause for concern (just as it would be if the converse were true and the dumber whites started overpopulating--which of course is happening as well;-)... however, when you compare the relative rates...hmmm...).


Anyway, what do you think about all this?

I bet that would throw you off your rocker. Which is as good a place as any to begin a honest self-examination and re-evaluate your prejudices and obsessive ideas.


(Would you believe atheist?..)

Great nations wither and die. The lower and humbler species, and particularly the parasites, eventually thrive. No family manages to hold on to power or money for more than 2-3 generations (and the excpetions confirm the rule). Man's greatest ambitions eventually turn out to be follies. The greatest and most honestly valiant objectives, when achieved, turn trivial (e.g. the Rock 'n Roll good times rebellion against the heroic and duty-concious generation which fough World War II). The rich nations will be (have been historically) overcome by their 'subjects' (today it's the Third World immigrants - we need them fuckers to mow the lawn and pick up the trash). And so on and so forth.


A species' interest to strengthen & extend its presence is NOT the driving force of Life (viz. The Selfish Gene).


You write "It worries me a bit that dumber people of any race have been more prolific through recent generations than their more intelligent counterparts."


Well, worry no more. This is pure crap, scientifically speaking. This has been the fear of all nationalists ever since nationalism appeared on the scene (oh, some 3-4 centuries ago, approx). The truth of the matter is that in order to survive and to prolong your species' life in History, you must NOT be dominant.


You want more deep insights? Call the cockroach exterminator.

How is it pure crap? Are you saying that in the USA, dumber people are NOT having more babies than more intelligent people (on average)? Or are you saying that this is somehow desirable in the long-term? Are you saying that being more intelligent does not help the species survive? And if you are saying that, I would say, fine, maybe so, but increased average intelligence is still a good thing relative to the opposite. I'm NOT talking nationalism here, but if the human race as a whole is GETTING DUMBER, that would worry me, and I would think it matters, and should worry you too. Not to mention overpopulation...maybe there should be a 2-kid limit or something, I don't know all the answers...but I don't think the answer is entropy for the good of the human race.

...the species' survival is not affected by oveall average intelligence, the quality of life most certainly is. Many or most of mankind's woes are due to stupidity, or stupid courses of action...and more smart people = more cool and efficient ways of doing things, more practical inventions, etc....more dummies does = more cheap labor, but that is not as desirable as more useful inventions or ideas. Intelligence contributes greatly to our potential quality of life. I'm NOT advocating any form preventive measures so that stupid people can't procreate oir any horrific measures of any kind...but I AM questioning whether the apparent pattern of stupid people producing more offspring than more intelligent people produce is a good thing. Considering that the planet can only support x number of people anyway (and we are going to be pushing that limit soon if we aren't already), perhaps some kind of limit on child-bearing might be in order for EVERYONE.

I understand that the concept of Entropy and the laws of Thermodynamics are not familiar to you. Well, here's a hint: I give you Alexander Dumas the father and Alexander Dumas the son. Got anybody else??


See, I told you. Look what is left of yr arguments abt "wise men" and their offspring, now. The reality is that Nature has no morals - and certainly no obligation to see us through another thousand years. Either we take care of our little home or we perish (you are right about depleting resources). So far we have found no way of doing this. On the contrary, the statistical/probabilistic models show that we are heading full speed ahead to some sort of a BingBang - what a finale!


As to whether "intelligent" people multiply less fast than "dumb" people, this is a myth (I called it crap, for good reasons). The fact is that rich and in general better-off people have better things to do than taking care of children. The poor/uneducated/less well off need children for financial support, they practice unprotected sex, etc. Those children, then, go on to "inherit the Earth". And become, in their turn, well off, with children of their own.


Etcetera.


--Cyrus


PS: Check up on Heraclitos. The title of the first George Harrison LP is where you start.

Well, I agree that many factors are at work regarding number of offspring--but I just don't believe it's entirely a myth, especially in this country. For one thing, on average, smarter people tend to earn more--and you just can't tell me that inherent intelligence has on average NOTHING to do with earning power, because I wouldn't believe it and I wouldn't believe that you believe it either. Granted other factors play a huge role, but for it to be ENTIRELY a myth, inherent intelligence would have to have NOTHING to do with earning power or economic status.


If you don't want to dwell on this, fine, I'll drop the thread with you, but I will ask you to consider on your own whether the average person ringing a cash register today doesn't seem considerably dumber than the average person ringing a cash register 25 years ago.

I think you are Ray Springfield. He is the type of chap who never questions US policy but just follows it like a lemming. I think he is doing this because he knows the US government is watching HIM. Even though he denounces internet poker now, there is proof on this site that he played. There is proof that he contributed money to offshore terrorists. The US government will get him, and no amount of his butt kissing will save him then.

Whoever you are, you are quite ill. Alger is a Nazi. You are just plain mentally ill.

I wouldn't believe that you are Jewish. Some dissaffected Jews (Bobby Fischer)have demonstrated hatred for their own race.

Notice the troll doesn't say who is. It's pretty clear that it's Alger. He's running scared. He should be. I haven't played online since I did some research and discovered that it was illegal in Colorado. It's been almost 2 years.


Alger plays from his office in downtown Denver if his posts are to be believed. Normally, I'd say someone like Alger is just a compulsive gambler and needs psychological help. His radical views towards Israel, and open disregard for the law (he's an attorney, they are held to a higher standard in legal ethics than ordinary citizens)

makes mr believe that he may well br prone to violence. The above post sounds like it's coming from a desparate individual on the verge of violently cracking.

Can you cite one instance of a player getting busted for internet gambling? I'm talking just playing, not owning or operating a site. Please do this.


Actually, from the sounds of it, if Alger is winning money he is taking it out of the hands of terrorists. I think this makes him a real American hero. Meanwhile, your degenerate gambling ways have given precious funds over to the offshore scum. You claim you quit internet gambling two years ago. Yet you also posted on this site that you tried to activate your Paradise account within the last six months. Is there something you aren't telling me Ray?

"I agree that many factors are at work regarding number of offspring.."


Not "number"; rather, intelligence and overall abilities. Mind you, I'm aware that the offspring of actors tend to be actors, etc. What I'm saying is that the actor son of Laurence Olivier will not be an Olivier.


"On average, smarter people tend to earn more--and you just can't tell me that inherent intelligence has on average NOTHING to do with earning power."


I never disputed that. Smarter people will indeed earn on average more than the average person. What I said was that this "inherent intelligence" cannot be inherited.


"I will ask you to consider on your own whether the average person ringing a cash register today doesn't seem considerably dumber than the average person ringing a cash register 25 years ago."


No, it doesn't. It's just a perception. Statistics show that the average person today is much more informed and educated than in times past. This becomes more eminent when we go further back, to some centuries ago. We may have had the Beethovens then, but human knowledge (and information) was concentrated on an elite few.


(I do not confuse Information with Intelligence. The abundance of information, the de facto information overload of our day, is in a way the antithesis of education proper about human affairs. ...But that's for another thread.)


--Cyrus

.....

OK, so we differ on at least one thing here: I believe that inherent potential for intelligence (or lack thereof) can indeed be passed on genetically--I believe that IQ, or whatever measure of intelligence we try to apply, is partially environmentally developed and partially genetically determined. This is demonstrated in a far more obvious way in the natural kingdom...dogs and pigs are smarter than cows and sheep, for instance, and that's genetic. Smart dogs are also more likely to produce smart puppies, I believe, although of course nutrition and environment play a role here too. So I don't see why this shouldn't apply humans too, to a certain extent. I think it would be clearly erroneous to claim that IQ is entirely environmentally determined. Even some infants are far more alert than others.


As for greater availability of information and education today, I think that the effects of this are to somewhat offset the effects of having greater numbers of kids produced by less intelligent members of society. I simply meet more dummies today...granted they are probably better informed today...and I've run this by quite a few people who all seem to have the similar impressions (except you, who believe it is a perception-based mirage). I'm not saying it cannot be a mirage, I'm just saying it is my definite and strong impression that this is so. I'm also not speaking of things like mental handicaps, I'm just talking about people who act and think like nitwits a lot of the time.

"I believe that inherent potential for intelligence (or lack thereof) can indeed be passed on genetically--I believe that IQ, or whatever measure of intelligence we try to apply, is partially environmentally developed and partially genetically determined. This is demonstrated in a far more obvious way in the natural kingdom...dogs and pigs are smarter than cows and sheep, for instance, and that's genetic."


There are different abilities in the brains of the various species and that is, of course, genetically inherited. I didn't say otherwise. Where we differ is not about one species being 'smarter', as you put it, than another. We differ in that you seem to believe that a 'smart' gazelle will necessarily beget a smart offspring. Well, this is a veritable Pandora's Box in Genetic Biology - and I'm not professionally qualified in that field to give you all the evidence. But I know this: The offsrping of a gazelle that's faster and thus able to better evade the tiger, wil also be faster. Same applies for what appear to be 'mental tricks' and not just somatic abilities. Among the pool of genes that constitues a gazelle herd, the 'smarter' ones survive through selection process (ie the tiger eats the weak or 'stupud').


Now, to humans: we are also the descendants of our 'smarter' progeny and the ones who possessed somatic skills needed to survive. The other branches, for various reasons, some possibly due to chance, perished unto History.


"I think it would be clearly erroneous to claim that IQ is entirely environmentally determined. Even some infants are far more alert than others."


IQ (or, in general, brain ability) is first determined genetically. You inherit sertain possibilities from your parents (parents in the sense of all the genes you carry along, some of whom are truly ancient). These possibilities, are sustained through nutrition and are taken advantage of if developed in a proper environment (my great hunter's skills will never be tested if I'm raised to be the King of France).


But, once more: how exactly is effected the distribution of 'intelligence' among a pool of genes (such as the human population) is mostly, if not entirely, due to chance. You get your Beethoven out of an otherwise undistinguished family line. You get the offspring of Martin Sheen,a great actor, to be ..well, you get my point1


"I simply meet more dummies today...granted they are probably better informed today...and I've run this by quite a few people who all seem to have the similar impressions (except you, who believe it is a perception-based mirage)."


You don't meet more dummies today because the percentage of dummies has changed. You meet more dummies because you meet more people. The population has increased; mobility between geographical areas increases all the time; our lives make us interact with more and more people; etc. It's a perception-based mirage, easily explained by statistics: your population is 1000 people and you have say 30% dummies. My grandad's population was 100 people and he was seeing about 30 dummies. It appears that dummies have mutliplied 10-fold and are taking over but it ain't so. (The genetic biologists would know.)


Of course, we could start discussing the effects of real environmental changes, human-induced even, such as the lead content in Gasolines, on the human brain. This is, indeed, a factor. But not that much evident - yet...


--Cyrus

Cyrus, you wrote this:


"We differ in that you seem to believe that a 'smart' gazelle will necessarily beget a smart offspring."


I don't believe that, and I don't believe it about humans either (and I don't know how you got the impression that I did). Your explanation corresponds with my own understanding of this subject.


I am simply saying that if the greatest numbers of offspring tend to be produced by the members of the species which on average have slightly lower intelligence, then the offspring will on average inherit less genetic potential for intelligence. So what are we arguing about? Aren't you agreeing with this? And doesn't this support what I suggested in the first couple of posts? I'm not saying there has to be a necessary correlation in every case, or that you can't get Beethoven out of Mr. and Mrs. Average. I'm discussing this in a very general sense; groups, averages, etc. And it disturbs me a bit to think that we may be becoming, on average, a bit inherently dumber as a species because of greater proliferation by those who on average possess less genetic potential for intelligence. Don't take anything I say as supporting racism or nationalism or anything else with similar negative implications...I'm just commenting on what appears to be happening to some degree, on average. And it is probably happening to varying extents in different parts of the world.


Look, for ages the smarter people were better able to survive and reproduce--and this was evolution in a sense. But that isn't what happens anymore and this is entirely a very recent development in historical terms. Now the reverse is true...the smarter people have less kids and the dumber ones manage to have more, on average. So isn't it completely logical that we will soon be seeing a reverse-evolution sort of effect in this regard, if we aren't already seeing it? Of course we don't know if the effects will be neglible or significant. My guess however is that they will be significant over time. We will still get Beethovens out of laborers and so forth on occasion just as the converse may occur.


I'm not trying to use this argument for any political type of purpose; I'm just commenting on something I believe stands up to reason and which I feel I am already seeing the effects of. Perhaps what I am observing is, as you say, an illusion. However I don't believe the argument is an illusion; the only thing that remains to be seen is the potential significance or lack thereof of this described effect.