Do humans get smarter "all the time"?

Post Reply New Topic

I have come across some theories suggesting man hasn't been selecting for intelligence since the end of the neolithic age. The idea implies that all progress from that time on is the result of accumulated knowledge passed down from one generation to the next.

Whether that's true or not, man has obviously been in an IQ decline. It could be argued that it began with the fall of Rome or perhaps the French Revolution. It certainly began no later than the early part of the twentieth century when innovation and scientific advances reached the point to where the genetically-unfit (in the Darwinian sense) were able to survive, reproduce and even thrive. Studies indicate that in the last 100 years each successive generation averages about one IQ point lower than the previous.

The advancements and wealth that came, in the period after the Industrial Revolution was firmly established, insulated much of society from the harshness of natural selection. The thing about this is that as society degrades, its ability to maintain this insulation goes down with it. Eventually returning to a state where the unfit die off and only the strong and intelligent survive.

This digression can be avoided. Unfortunately however there doesn't seem to be any effort from any sector of society to halt the trend. In fact they do just the opposite. With the way things look now I believe we will go down much further before the overall quality of man begins to improve.

There is more to effective intelligence than the basic intellectual capacity itself. Many very intelligent people have neither the will nor the motivation for independent thinking and many very intelligent people are trapped in cultural tunnel vision that does not permit them to use their intellectual capacity in a socially beneficial way. The availability of information and a wide spectrum of ideas now flowing more or less freely throughout the world which was not possible even a few score of years ago no doubt has increased not only basic intellect to a degree but also its capability for a wider range of handling new mental material. Obviously this is rather disturbing to governments such as China and some of the more restrictive Muslim countries and is also creeping through the more democratic areas of the world. It will be a contest to see if freedom of information can prevail and foster more incisive use of the intelligence humans have the potential for.

Actually although humans delight in their intellect much of it throughout history seems to be devoted to spinning utter nonsense to justify intra-human brutality which is unmatched by any other species. Our vaunted intelligence is well on the way to destroying almost every other species for little or no reason whatsoever with no comprehension that life on Earth is a tightly woven web of the interaction of different kinds of life and when humans have successfully shredded that web they will look in horror at the rapidly increasing impossibility of the planet to sustain life at all - or at least at the level we are familiar with. For the first billions of years of Earth's existence life consisted of mats of single celled life and I suppose a return to that may eventually result in some other novel direction to be explored.

Sand, I doubt we will destroy the planet. When photosynthesis first evolved, it was a major ecological crisis that resulted in a mass extinction. Which was followed by a great diversification period which produced an even richer variety of life. Trees in the Carboniferous period used up so much carbon dioxide in photosynthesis that they nearly eliminated the greenhouse effect and triggered a global ice age that was also accompanied by a mass extinction. Changes in the ecology of the planet don't mean the end of life forever.

Good for you that you're optimistic. I don't see grounds for it but what the hell - it's better to die happy.

Here's the first article related to this topic I've found...

Ah yes! Eugenics where some self appointed superior group decides that only it has the right to live. Henry Ford and a good many well respected people like Bernard Shaw and H.G.Wells appraised it favorably until Nazi Germany took it seriously. After that it didn't do too well. It does advocate mass execution with no problems of conscience but extreme religions do the same thing with a higher authority.

Of course doctors, health insurance people, the military, governments etc. decide every day who shall live and who shall die. But it is unwise they should be comfortable in the decision.