A thought on the big moose post. [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

tdarko

10-08-2005, 04:43 PM

i have always been close to hunting b/c of my father, so i was either going to love it or hate it. my dad has traveled to africa 3 times and killed a lion, leopard and cape buffalo and is going back in november to tajikistan to kill a rare ram. he has been to alaska numerous times and killed bears, moose, elk, caribou, and this doesn't even crack the surface on the big game that he has hunted and killed.

with him he started like every hunter killing his first dove, or 8 point...something small. then he graduated to driving down to south and west texas ranches killing big white tail (some boon & crockett). then after two decades it was as if he had hunted everything and he moved on to animals in other countries such as africa and spain. i have always thought this was odd, why would someone spend so much money and time on this?

the answer is power. in our life we want power and control over something and hunting is exactly that. now my dad is strange and if you ask any of my friends [censored] crazy cause he adds an element of danger when he hunts by climbing mountains and hunting in the most extreme conditions. i hate hunting, i think its stupid and a waste of time but thats just my opinion, if i thought about it the things in my life that i really care about come down to control and having power over someone too (baseball, p**er etc).

this has at least been my theory for a few years since i have always thought my dad was crazy when it came to hunting and i wanted to at least put an answer to it.

ThaSaltCracka

10-08-2005, 04:44 PM

well one thing to think about, certain animals are likely to decrease in size, while others are likely to increase in size. It just depends on what humans hunt.

wacki

10-08-2005, 04:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I had never thought about this. I am googling for research right now. Very interesting. Thanks for posting a very interesting point to consider and discuss. I will return to this thread after having done some reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn you diablo. Here is one link from Nature which is a top journal.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6967/abs/nature02177.html;jsessionid=74CDEAC538FB67ADBA4AF5 FAF9FDAE00

speirs

10-08-2005, 04:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus.

[/ QUOTE ]

SackUp

10-08-2005, 04:58 PM

This idea negates the fact that most animals are not killed by humans. Most animals have natural predators which require them to be the biggest, fastest, and strongest.

Almost all of our food is mass produced. We are not getting most food from a game hunter.

There is no way that evolution is making a trend towards weaker and smaller animals...not at this point anyhow. Not unless natural predators get guns and start going for big kills only.

Further, it takes a long as time for any major trends in evolution to occur, not just a few hundred years.

Paluka

10-08-2005, 05:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I had never thought about this. I am googling for research right now. Very interesting. Thanks for posting a very interesting point to consider and discuss. I will return to this thread after having done some reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had never thought of this either, and I'm surprised that this could actually be a big effect.

SackUp

10-08-2005, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I had never thought about this. I am googling for research right now. Very interesting. Thanks for posting a very interesting point to consider and discuss. I will return to this thread after having done some reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn you diablo. Here is one link from Nature which is a top journal.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6967/abs/nature02177.html;jsessionid=74CDEAC538FB67ADBA4AF5 FAF9FDAE00

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting article, but I would predict this type of study would only hold true for animals with very few natural predators and who do not rely on their size and strength to do their own hunting - i.e. grazers or herbivores.

I highly doubt this will hold true for many fish or something like a deer.

wacki

10-08-2005, 05:06 PM

Evolution takes hundreds of years when the environment is stable.

Bacteria under a UV lamp evolve in days if not hours. I know I've done hundreds of experiments. It's all about the strength of the selective mechanism. Humans are a very strong selective mechanism. You also vastly underestimate the impact humans have on the planet. There has been a 90% decrease in large oceanic fish since 1960. Google it for articles. There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin.

DcifrThs

10-08-2005, 05:06 PM

ok, time for you kids with your college's library to get crackin.

please link/post J-Stor results for the following searches:

1) evolution + hunting

2) Hunter Selection + effect

3) [censored] sapien + Evolution+ hunting

this should give us a nice bredth of papers on the subject.

thanks guys.

Barron

wacki

10-08-2005, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Interesting article, but I would predict this type of study would only hold true for animals with very few natural predators and who do not rely on their size and strength to do their own hunting - i.e. grazers or herbivores.

I highly doubt this will hold true for many fish or something like a deer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, watch strange days on planet earth w/ edward norton.

djoyce003

10-08-2005, 05:16 PM

I can speak to the whitetail deer portion of this.

On a public land type situation, where there is typically lots of hunting pressure, this isn't often an issue because most animals of young age are killed....only the smartest tend to survive and there aren't nearly as many animals with large antlers.

On private land, if there is a good management program, there are actually MORE big deer because the hunters shoot off the inferior deer in addition to the large deer, and we never shot any deer that were less than fully mature, unless they were inferior. So what you end up with is fewer deer, the bigger dominant deer are the ones that mate, and the inferior deer aren't able to pass on their genes, or they are simply dead....either way there are actually a larger number of big deer on a properly managed property than smaller deer.

SackUp

10-08-2005, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution takes hundreds of years when the environment is stable.

Bacteria under a UV lamp evolve in days if not hours. I know I've done hundreds of experiments. It's all about the strength of the selective mechanism. Humans are a very strong selective mechanism. You also vastly underestimate the impact humans have on the planet. There has been a 90% decrease in large oceanic fish since 1960. Google it for articles. There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are definitely a HUGE selective mechanism, but moreso via endeavors other than big game hunting. I didn't say that hunting does not have an influence, but it would seem rather counterintuitive to think that animals would develop a mechanism to stop getting hunted by a limited predator (humans) compared to a natural predator which would be greatly advantaged by having its prey weaker.

Please show me some articles that where an animals gets smaller when that animal has lots of natural predators and is hunted by humans. I'm just hard pressed to see that happening. Not saying it could not be the case, I'm just don't see it happening.

SackUp

10-08-2005, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Interesting article, but I would predict this type of study would only hold true for animals with very few natural predators and who do not rely on their size and strength to do their own hunting - i.e. grazers or herbivores.

I highly doubt this will hold true for many fish or something like a deer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, watch strange days on planet earth w/ edward norton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was much more impressed when you quoted the Nature article.

wacki

10-08-2005, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, watch strange days on planet earth w/ edward norton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was much more impressed when you quoted the Nature article.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a well made series and your comment sounds like something a pedantic moron would say.

[ QUOTE ]

Please show me some articles that where an animals gets smaller when that animal has lots of natural predators and is hunted by humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

as far as fish:
Strange days w/ planet earth has lots of good info.
So does the bbc.

As far as land animals:

Come on man we hunt the predators. If it's a big animal we kill it. Wolves went extinct in yellowstone in 1930 and weren't replaced until recently (with much protest). Deer in most parts of the planet don't get the pressure because everyone kills the wolves. African lions and leapords recieve the same pressure from trophy hunting.

Use your brain.

Phoenix1010

10-08-2005, 05:43 PM

Very interesting post. Thanks for the link.

RunDownHouse

10-08-2005, 05:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This idea negates the fact that most animals are not killed by humans. Most animals have natural predators which require them to be the biggest, fastest, and strongest.

Almost all of our food is mass produced. We are not getting most food from a game hunter.

There is no way that evolution is making a trend towards weaker and smaller animals...not at this point anyhow. Not unless natural predators get guns and start going for big kills only.

Further, it takes a long as time for any major trends in evolution to occur, not just a few hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was my first reaction as well. However, I haven't done any serious study on the subject, so I chose not to post until I had at least read whatever links I could find or Wacki provided.

Since you've apparently researched the other side of the coin, care to post some links or references for those of us trying to learn more?

tolbiny

10-08-2005, 05:49 PM

This is such a garbage quote- animlas don't set themselves into equilibirm, competition and predators (and other natural selection measures) set limits. Without these limits basically every single species would eat them selves out of thier food sources.
Also viruses do not do this (any more than anything else)- the only times that viruses wipe out huge segments of populations is where there is massive overcrowding or a lack of genetic variability or another "unnatural" circumstance.
This quote shows an utter lack of understanding of biologicalorganisms... guess thats why its made by a computer.

Ulysses

10-08-2005, 05:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Damn you diablo. Here is one link from Nature which is a top journal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, wacki. FYI, I'm familiar with Nature, as I have been either a co-author or contributor to articles published in both Nature and Science. It was stuff long ago having to do with cellular mechanisms of learning. This type of stuff:

We use simple animals such as the marine snail Aplysia as models that permit detailed tests of hypotheses about the evolution of memory mechanisms from adaptive cellular reactions to injury. Knowing the neuronal circuitry involved in defensive behavior, we are examining alterations in individual neurons that contribute to aversive learning and memory, neural regeneration, and to the functional equivalents of neuropathic pain, hyperalgesia, and analgesia. Neurophysiological (intracellular recording/stimulation, microinjection, voltage clamping), pharmacological, morphological, molecular, and behavioral methods are used.

I worked for Terry Walters (who worked under Eric Kandel) for a few years in high school and college.

Ulysses

10-08-2005, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This idea negates the fact that most animals are not killed by humans. Most animals have natural predators which require them to be the biggest, fastest, and strongest.

Almost all of our food is mass produced. We are not getting most food from a game hunter.

There is no way that evolution is making a trend towards weaker and smaller animals...not at this point anyhow. Not unless natural predators get guns and start going for big kills only.

Further, it takes a long as time for any major trends in evolution to occur, not just a few hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was my first reaction as well. However, I haven't done any serious study on the subject, so I chose not to post until I had at least read whatever links I could find or Wacki provided.

Since you've apparently researched the other side of the coin, care to post some links or references for those of us trying to learn more?

[/ QUOTE ]

I had the same reaction and had not chimed in yet for the same reasons.

MMMMMM

10-08-2005, 06:23 PM

Interesting.

Tangentially, a good while ago I suggested the following: since, ON AVERAGE, dumber humans are having more kids and smarter humans are having fewer, the human race might be devolving in terms of average genetic potential for intelligence.

It used to be that rich or successful people had loads of kids--this was the pattern for untold centuries, when having kids who survived the high mortality rates was in fact a form of insurance for the parents. At some point in the 20th century, however, this began to swing in the other direction. The current model of smarter, more successful people having fewer kids has been in place for decades now, and the lowest socio-economic groups has been having more kids.

I drew a lot of criticism for this suggestion, especially from Cyrus (lol), who maintained that intelligence is not passed on genetically. However I believe that intelligence is a result of the combination of genetics and environmental factors, and that some potential for intelligence can be passed on genetically--and probably is passed on to a degree, at least on average.

So I'm wondering if, from a genetic standpoint, humans on average are now in the process of getting somewhat dumber as generations go by. My guess would be "yes", but that's only a guess. And I admit to basing this guess not only on the above theory, but partially on personal anecdotal experience (such as my experiences buying things at checkout registers in stores, now versus 25 years ago), even though I know that anecdotal experience may be of limited or no value.

Any guesses from you guys as to whether this might possibly be happening?

10-08-2005, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm wondering if, from a genetic standpoint, humans on average are in the process of getting somewhat dumber as generations go by. My guess would be "yes", but that's only a guess. And I admit to basing this guess not only on the above theory, but partially on personal anecdotal experience (such as my experiences buying things at checkout registers in stores, now versus 25 years ago), even though I know that anecdotal experience may be of limited or no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are evaluating the entirety of human intelligence based on your experience checking out of the grocery store? IIRC, you are close to being a senior citizen. I guarantee you no one in my much younger age group would be dumb enough to make prognostications on human intelligence based on what they see in the Enquirer.

wacki

10-08-2005, 06:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I had the same reaction and had not chimed in yet for the same reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that is 3 people that have had the same reaction. And I insulted the OP (of this reaction). I guess this shows I have emotional issues or something, but whatever. I just know this thread is going to suck me in when I'm the only one giving sources. Sorry for being so hard on you sackup.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4281171.stm

There are world records still being set, but there are counter arguements to that.

Ugh... work to do. Later.

wacki

10-08-2005, 06:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Thanks, wacki. FYI, I'm familiar with Nature, as I have been either a co-author or contributor to articles published in both Nature and Science. It was stuff long ago having to do with cellular mechanisms of learning. This type of stuff: ....

I worked for Terry Walters (who worked under Eric Kandel) for a few years in high school and college.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF I thought you were a computer engineer.

Voltron87

10-08-2005, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Further, it takes a long as time for any major trends in evolution to occur, not just a few hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]

youre right technically about evolution, but genetic lines can be altered in a decade or two. if humans go and kill out all of the strongest of a species, the genetic lines of that species will be changed.

Say there are one million of an animal. 200,000 of them are big and strong. If humans go hunt 150,000 of them, that species' genetic line will be much different. It's not evolution, but the gene pool will be radically different.

wacki

10-08-2005, 06:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
youre right technically about evolution, but genetic lines can be altered in a decade or two. if humans go and kill out all of the strongest of a species, the genetic lines of that species will be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to systematic genocide, it can happen in months, days, or even hours depending on the size of the community.

MMMMMM

10-08-2005, 06:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are evaluating the entirety of human intelligence based on your experience checking out of the grocery store? IIRC, you are close to being a senior citizen. I guarantee you no one in my much younger age group would be dumb enough to make prognostications on human intelligence based on what they see in the Enquirer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no, that's not what I'm trying to say.

I'm saying the theory seems to make sense, at least on its surface; and that I've also encountered many more retards ringing cash registers than I used to encounter. When I was in my teens and twenties it seemed people ringing registers at corner drugstores, gas stations, and later convenience stores, weren't half-wits. They were just average people, give or take a bit. I didn't run into ones who could hardly do their job. Now however I seem to run into a lot of them. Granted it's personal anecdotal evidence which may be of little or no significance, and may actually illustrate another principal at work in some way, but it does seem to fit in with the theory I came up with. Basically I seem to run into more nitwits everyehere than I did two or three decades ago. And it isn't even close. But that's not the main reason I suspect this sort of devolution may be happening; rather it just seems like it would quite possibly happen if on average the dumber people were to start outbreeding the smarter people. And actually they have been doing so for quite a few decades now.

Voltron87

10-08-2005, 06:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
youre right technically about evolution, but genetic lines can be altered in a decade or two. if humans go and kill out all of the strongest of a species, the genetic lines of that species will be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to systematic genocide, it can happen in months, days, or even hours depending on the size of the community.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true. my "decades" word was mostly referring to game hunting.

i get the impression that im in a thread with people who know more than AP bio, but you can have a change in teh gene pool without evolution

Ulysses

10-08-2005, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Thanks, wacki. FYI, I'm familiar with Nature, as I have been either a co-author or contributor to articles published in both Nature and Science. It was stuff long ago having to do with cellular mechanisms of learning. This type of stuff: ....

I worked for Terry Walters (who worked under Eric Kandel) for a few years in high school and college.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF I thought you were a computer engineer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was contemplating going into science, but stuff just took too long. I happened to be working for Terry for a few years (summers and part-time job) when he was at the tail-end of some research that had been going on for about 15 years. It was a fun time, but not for me long-term.

I did high-tech tech stuff (a little development and some distributed systems architecture/design) for a couple of years, then got bored and switched to the business side of things. Have pretty much just been doing software-related business stuff as an adult.

Phoenix1010

10-08-2005, 07:15 PM

Well, I think your idea actually has some merit. The big problem with it is that you're assuming that wealth = intelligence. While there is probably some correlation, there's a LOT more that goes into who is wealthy and who isn't than just natural intelligence. The people having the most kids these days, people in third world countries, have almost no chance at success no matter what their natural intelligence might be. It has a lot more to do with the history of race and lingering economic inequality than it does actual intelligence.

toddw8

10-08-2005, 07:22 PM

MMMMMM

10-08-2005, 07:25 PM

Yes Phoenix, that's all part of it; now do upwardly mobile professionals today tend to have lots of kids? No, they don't, whereas blue-collar and welfare types do tend to have more kids.

I agree some of it has to do with the things you mention; yet how many really bright people today--even not rich folk--say scientists, researchers, good writers, etc.--how many of them are having lots of kids? Not many, so their genes aren't being passed on as much.

Phoenix1010

10-08-2005, 07:36 PM

Oh of course I agree with the trends you're mentioning (although I'm no sociologist so I can't definitively say they're true). It does seem like the current trend is successful people having fewer kids than in the past (this is for a lot of reasons, including women's increased involvement in the workforce). What I'm saying is that while it may be true that wealthier people are having fewer kids than poor people these days, that does not necessarily mean that smarter people are having fewer kids than dumb people. The correlation between wealth and intelligence isn't definitely direct, and this is especially true on a global level.

MMMMMM

10-08-2005, 07:45 PM

I agree there are many variables, and other things to consider, and I'm not trying to argue that this is a sound theory. It just seems to me that there might be something to it.

radek2166

10-08-2005, 08:09 PM

Swordfisy used to weigh ~250 lbs if I remeber correctly. The big ones now are~100 lbs. Due to over fishing.

RunDownHouse

10-08-2005, 08:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Swordfisy used to weigh ~250 lbs if I remeber correctly. The big ones now are~100 lbs. Due to over fishing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be shocked if the reason for this was that fisherman were keeping the ~250 lb fish and throwing back the ~215 lb fish.

Also, for this kind of thing, post a link or a reference. That way people won't dismiss your comment out of hand.

peachy

10-08-2005, 08:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
badgers the size of bears

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? How big were the bears?

[/ QUOTE ]

lobsters used to grow to 6ft + before we started mass harvesting them

SackUp

10-08-2005, 08:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I had the same reaction and had not chimed in yet for the same reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that is 3 people that have had the same reaction. And I insulted the OP (of this reaction). I guess this shows I have emotional issues or something, but whatever. I just know this thread is going to suck me in when I'm the only one giving sources. Sorry for being so hard on you sackup.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4281171.stm

There are world records still being set, but there are counter arguements to that.

Ugh... work to do. Later.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Worries at all. I definitely think it is an interesting topic and something I wish more people did consider. Most people have zero clue how much of an impact humans have on things from their different endeavors.

I have not been up to date on this stuff as much as I would like recently. I was a bio major in undergrad, which was like 4 years ago and I'm now finishing up law school so not as much time to keep up with the science stuff.

I'll have to check out the show you suggested...I'm usually just a little hesitant when someone suggests a movie with a hollywood actor talking about science...probably not fair, but I think an understandable reaction.

Maybe I'll get motivated and have my old g/f who is a phd student in EEB look into this for me /images/graemlins/smile.gif

According to her, she would love to get rid of all the house cats. Apparently they destroy more habitats than anything else. Super stealthy hunters.

wacki

10-08-2005, 09:08 PM

check this out

http://www.pbs.org/strangedays/episodes/troubledwaters/experts/

I have a lot of respect for Edward Norton, he is no ordinary hollywood balloon.

rusellmj

10-08-2005, 09:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest and the strongest fish are being replaced with smaller and often more sickly animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mismanagement of resources will screw things up every time.

I used to hunt elk and deer in WA every year. Over the years, F&G instituted many changes in order to beef up the heard for the reasons you site. Usually through changes in what type, gender and size an animal had to be in order to be legally hunted. No longer are they managing just the size of the heard but also the quality.

Many state F&G's have watersheads and fisheries that are catch and release only or have very stingy keeper regs. For instance when you fish for sturgeon it has to fall within a certain range in order to be kept. Not just anything over 3ft.

There is no doubt much much more work needs to be done.

DavidC

10-08-2005, 10:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I had never thought about this. I am googling for research right now. Very interesting. Thanks for posting a very interesting point to consider and discuss. I will return to this thread after having done some reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn you diablo. Here is one link from Nature which is a top journal.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6967/abs/nature02177.html;jsessionid=74CDEAC538FB67ADBA4AF5 FAF9FDAE00

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's my problem with this study: it wasn't/can't be done in isolation. Maybe other factors are involved also?

It does seem to be common sense, but as players-of-a-certain-game, we're aware that common sense isn't always correct.

--Dave.

Blarg

10-08-2005, 11:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution takes hundreds of years when the environment is stable.

Bacteria under a UV lamp evolve in days if not hours. I know I've done hundreds of experiments. It's all about the strength of the selective mechanism. Humans are a very strong selective mechanism. You also vastly underestimate the impact humans have on the planet. There has been a 90% decrease in large oceanic fish since 1960. Google it for articles. There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are definitely a HUGE selective mechanism, but moreso via endeavors other than big game hunting. I didn't say that hunting does not have an influence, but it would seem rather counterintuitive to think that animals would develop a mechanism to stop getting hunted by a limited predator (humans) compared to a natural predator which would be greatly advantaged by having its prey weaker.

Please show me some articles that where an animals gets smaller when that animal has lots of natural predators and is hunted by humans. I'm just hard pressed to see that happening. Not saying it could not be the case, I'm just don't see it happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolutionary theory suggests that something in many ways analogous to this happened with mammals vs. dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were such successful predators that mammals couldn't evolve past the size of rodents.

Blarg

10-08-2005, 11:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is such a garbage quote- animlas don't set themselves into equilibirm, competition and predators (and other natural selection measures) set limits. Without these limits basically every single species would eat them selves out of thier food sources.
Also viruses do not do this (any more than anything else)- the only times that viruses wipe out huge segments of populations is where there is massive overcrowding or a lack of genetic variability or another "unnatural" circumstance.
This quote shows an utter lack of understanding of biologicalorganisms... guess thats why its made by a computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too easy. Viruses like the Black Plague killed millions, from Asia to Africa to Europe, involving an obviously wide genetic variety in the death toll. At this time most people did not live in cities, so it wasn't from overcrowding, either, that this virus got its historical-scale deadliness.

Blarg

10-08-2005, 11:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'm wondering if, from a genetic standpoint, humans on average are in the process of getting somewhat dumber as generations go by. My guess would be "yes", but that's only a guess. And I admit to basing this guess not only on the above theory, but partially on personal anecdotal experience (such as my experiences buying things at checkout registers in stores, now versus 25 years ago), even though I know that anecdotal experience may be of limited or no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are evaluating the entirety of human intelligence based on your experience checking out of the grocery store? IIRC, you are close to being a senior citizen. I guarantee you no one in my much younger age group would be dumb enough to make prognostications on human intelligence based on what they see in the Enquirer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullsh*t.

People of every age make stupid statements and have stupid ideas as a matter of course, and the idea that every generation is somehow smarter or better than the last is a narcissistic fantasy only the most naive among the young could possibly have.

vulturesrow

10-08-2005, 11:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'm wondering if, from a genetic standpoint, humans on average are in the process of getting somewhat dumber as generations go by. My guess would be "yes", but that's only a guess. And I admit to basing this guess not only on the above theory, but partially on personal anecdotal experience (such as my experiences buying things at checkout registers in stores, now versus 25 years ago), even though I know that anecdotal experience may be of limited or no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are evaluating the entirety of human intelligence based on your experience checking out of the grocery store? IIRC, you are close to being a senior citizen. I guarantee you no one in my much younger age group would be dumb enough to make prognostications on human intelligence based on what they see in the Enquirer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullsh*t.

People of every age make stupid statements and have stupid ideas as a matter of course, and the idea that every generation is somehow smarter or better than the last is a narcissistic fantasy only the most naive among the young could possibly have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Google Flynn effect and get back to me. That goes for you too MMMMMM.

Blarg

10-08-2005, 11:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are evaluating the entirety of human intelligence based on your experience checking out of the grocery store? IIRC, you are close to being a senior citizen. I guarantee you no one in my much younger age group would be dumb enough to make prognostications on human intelligence based on what they see in the Enquirer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no, that's not what I'm trying to say.

I'm saying the theory seems to make sense, at least on its surface; and that I've also encountered many more retards ringing cash registers than I used to encounter. When I was in my teens and twenties it seemed people ringing registers at corner drugstores, gas stations, and later convenience stores, weren't half-wits. They were just average people, give or take a bit. I didn't run into ones who could hardly do their job. Now however I seem to run into a lot of them. Granted it's personal anecdotal evidence which may be of little or no significance, and may actually illustrate another principal at work in some way, but it does seem to fit in with the theory I came up with. Basically I seem to run into more nitwits everyehere than I did two or three decades ago. And it isn't even close. But that's not the main reason I suspect this sort of devolution may be happening; rather it just seems like it would quite possibly happen if on average the dumber people were to start outbreeding the smarter people. And actually they have been doing so for quite a few decades now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it isn't close.

And I think the reason is that young kids are very vulnerable to insufficient brain development from inadequate nutrition and inadequate stimulation. I think both have gone up in my time on the planet.

Worse Nutrition:

-- more fast foods
-- more prepared foods
-- tremendous societal acceptance of feeding same to children, even infants; this did not used to be socially acceptable
-- school lunches for children have been cut even to orphanages
-- early childhood programs which get kids out of the house, like HeadStart, have been cut back a lot
-- drug epidemics have left lots of people having kids who don't feed them (or stimulate their mental growth properly)
-- the explosion of welfare encouraged poor, lazy, drug-addicted, or just unambitious women to have as many children as possible, turning childbearing into an acceptable career path

Worse Mental Stimulation

-- a number of the above items
-- television has become a perfectly acceptable babysitter
-- sports heroes have become virtually our only important societal role models, and sports don't demand a great deal of intelligence and are even as often as not part of an anti-intellectual culture
-- reading has fallen out of favor with both adults and children; many kids grow up with no adult role models who read or care if they read either

And finally, societally, wealth has concentrated tremendously in the hands of the wealthy and upper middle classes in the past 25 years. This of course will make people of other classes both more prone to things like alcholism and drug abuse, with their terrible effects on the development of their children, and simply leave them with less ability to properly care for their kids and feed them right even if they're not in some way crippling themselves.

All those things have happened in less than half a century, and each is a powerful shaper of which kids come into the world, and whether kids come into this world in full development of their mental and physical powers, and full genetic potential.

The huge religious upsurge in America in the last 30-odd years has also had a lot to do with it. This is partly from enormous immigration from lands in which both birth control and abortion are traditionally shunned, and partly from our indigenous populations persistently trying to keep sex education out of schools, trying to criminalize and make socially unacceptable and sometimes unavailable abortion and other forms of birth control.

One way or the other, native population or immigrants, we're spewing out the babies pretty heedlessly now, on a very large scale, consequences be damned, including the health and futures of the children. Or should I say, that is being damned especially.

Blarg

10-08-2005, 11:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think your idea actually has some merit. The big problem with it is that you're assuming that wealth = intelligence. While there is probably some correlation, there's a LOT more that goes into who is wealthy and who isn't than just natural intelligence. The people having the most kids these days, people in third world countries, have almost no chance at success no matter what their natural intelligence might be. It has a lot more to do with the history of race and lingering economic inequality than it does actual intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhh, this is America. You're supposed to sweep that part under the rug.

Blarg

10-09-2005, 12:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]

According to her, she would love to get rid of all the house cats. Apparently they destroy more habitats than anything else. Super stealthy hunters.

[/ QUOTE ]

They tried it, sort of by accident, in Vietnam, where Little Tiger restaurants that served cat became so enormously popular that the country was virtually stripped clean of cats a few years back. Their crop harvests were decimated because nothing was killing the rats and mice, at least not fast enough. The restaurants were forcibly closed, and cat became a forbidden food item by government decree.

Blarg

10-09-2005, 12:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'm wondering if, from a genetic standpoint, humans on average are in the process of getting somewhat dumber as generations go by. My guess would be "yes", but that's only a guess. And I admit to basing this guess not only on the above theory, but partially on personal anecdotal experience (such as my experiences buying things at checkout registers in stores, now versus 25 years ago), even though I know that anecdotal experience may be of limited or no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are evaluating the entirety of human intelligence based on your experience checking out of the grocery store? IIRC, you are close to being a senior citizen. I guarantee you no one in my much younger age group would be dumb enough to make prognostications on human intelligence based on what they see in the Enquirer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullsh*t.

People of every age make stupid statements and have stupid ideas as a matter of course, and the idea that every generation is somehow smarter or better than the last is a narcissistic fantasy only the most naive among the young could possibly have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Google Flynn effect and get back to me. That goes for you too MMMMMM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Learn to get by without being so silly and making such self flattering statements, and get back to me.

You don't need to use Google.

You can do better than this. Much better.

vulturesrow

10-09-2005, 12:11 AM

Basically you and MMMMMM are saying people are getting dumber and there is empirical evidence that shows that, by the only objective standard we have, average intelligence increases from year to year. What is silly about that?

Blarg

10-09-2005, 01:02 AM

I'm not talking about empirical evidence at all one way or the other.

I'm talking about my observations about changes in society specifically affecting the mental development of children, which is very fragile, especially through declines in nutrition and early mental stimulation. Poor nutrition and lack of mental stimulation have been shown to be critically important factors in childhood development and lifelong intelligence.

It sounds like you are saying that I.Q test scores rising must in some way be evidence that either the things I mentioned don't exist or are to some degree not important, as they don't seem to be reflected in those I.Q. test scores.

I think a single test is inadequate to handle the questions involved.

In the case of the IQ test, I think it's extremely likely that more kids from good backgrounds get tested than bad, and that that slants the tests a lot. If this is the case, I'm not sure that any test would be any good, or much better than the ones we use now.

The test itself has changed a lot, too, as have ideas of intelligence themselves. I used to put more faith in things like I.Q. tests giving us reliable knowledge, but now I'm one of the crowd that has serious doubts about them.

MMMMMM

10-09-2005, 06:29 AM

Hi Vulturesrow,

I have before read of how IQ scores have increased, and have also read that it is thought in part to be due to the fact that people have simply gotten better at taking IQ-type tests. Maybe too, it has something to do with learning or teaching being more geared towards such things. People get better at SAT-type tests too if they practice in that direction or if what they are taught is more geared in that direction.

I agree, though, that the Flyn effect looks to be contradictory towards what I am suggesting. Maybe the two aren't really contradictory, though, because it is possible that the average has increased even while the lower end has been dropping. That could be the case if the middle and upper end were both rising. Also, Blarg mentioned things like increased drug usage and poorer nutrition which may seriously and especially impact the lower end.