|
|
#31
10-08-2005, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A thought on the big moose post.
[ 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. 
|
|
#32
10-08-2005, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A thought on the big moose post.
[ 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.
|
|
#33
10-08-2005, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A thought on the big moose post.
[ 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
|
|
#34
10-08-2005, 06:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A thought on the big moose post.
[ 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.
|
|
#35
10-08-2005, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A thought on the big moose post.
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.
|
|
#36
10-08-2005, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A thought on the big moose post.
[ 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 ]  Aw bull [censored], man. Come on Vern, the kids haven't changed, you have!
|
|
#37
10-08-2005, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A thought on the big moose post.
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.
|
|
#38
10-08-2005, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A thought on the big moose post.
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
