Humans becoming steadily STUPIDER, says brainiac boffin

Dominance

Genetics is a fascinating subject, as is the related ability of species to adapt to new environments.

Who could have guessed that the internet, for example, would so quickly become overrun with cats?

"One could argue that anything that occurs in Nature must be good for us," he says, "but this line of reasoning is quite incorrect."

Of course one could equally argue that anything that occurs in Nature must be bad for us. Just look at the earthquakes, tidal waves, tropical mega-storms, wild fires and tornadoes then add in other fun things like grizzly bears, lions, etc. and let's not forget other increasingly stupid people. Would prof. Crabby find this line of reasoning to be equally incorrect?

I'm even willing to concede that "an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC" would be far smarter than the average person of today without any proof. Mostly it's because he's selected such a small sample of the population of Athens as citizens only made up something like 15% of the general population. The general population, being slaves and other folks without access to education, wasn't likely dominated dominated by great thinkers. But hey, drop that average Athenian citizen in down town New York and see how long he survives. 10 to 1 says he couldn't make ten blocks by himself.

I propose an equally asinine theory. The amount of intelligence in the world is fixed and all the people are forced to live with the little piece they were born with. That means that the only intelligence for newborns is what is simultaneously given up by someone dying and as long as the birth rate exceeds the death rate people will get stupider. The only questions remaining are, was prof. Crabtree born in the morning and was it this morning?

Does Mrs Crabtree teach in South Park? This theory is a parody, right?

"[a] citizen from Athens... would be among the...most intellectually alive of our colleagues..."

...until a moment or two later, when he or she would presumably walk out in front of a moving bus.

How we measure "intellect" changes over the years - we're probably less intelligent in some areas, but have adapted to value skills that are more suited to the environment in which we live. Like bus avoidance.

I've often wondered how it would be to try the reverse hypothetical - to be plonked back in the ancient greeks time. And tell them about atoms, molecules, penicillin, internal combustion, etc... much of our knowledge has built on what the best and brightest have discovered over 1000's of years - whilst as individuals we may not have the same capacity as ancient greeks, we instead have the communication ability to work together with our neighbors and share advancements without instantly trying to kill each other (most of the time).

The Marching Morons by Cyril M. Kornbluth

"The Marching Morons" is a science fiction story written by Cyril M. Kornbluth, originally published in Galaxy in April 1951

It describes a world where intelligent people having less children than dumb ones and hence just getting out-bred, and without natural selection eliminating enough of the dumb people before they can procreate (e.g. earning a Darwin Award) the same genetic concept applies.

So this theory is hardly a new one.

Me fail IQ test? That's un-possible!

hes a proper idiot if he think he can look at number of genes and extrapolate out brainpower

its like trying to extrapolate penis length from number of penis hairs. nice idea, but misses the point entirely.

The argument fails even by its own standard.

If I understand it, Professor Crabtree is trying to point out that the Athenians of 1000BC are brighter than people today. But his problem is that the ancient Athenians that got themselves in the history books for being "smart" - blokes like Sophocles, Herodotus, Hippocrates, Socrates and Pericles - actually lived in the 400s BC. So if there's been a decline in intelligence since 1000BC, why did all the big names occur 600 years later?

The argument sounds suss to me.

Counter argument?

This is just a theory - what are the counter arguments against it?

I thought that genetic mutations could lead down countless evolutionary roads, some a dead-end, some disastrous and others advantageous?

Surely it would be more accurate to theorise that our intelligence is adapting to conditions, rather than deteriorating?

Whilst hunter gathering activities potentially further intellectual ability, surely mathematics, reading, writing and art would be just as beneficial?

Short of inbreeding, there's every chance two adults with low IQ could produce a child with high IQ - in fact, it happens all the time.

It all goes back to that age old question: "Nature or Nurture"

If a brain is left to stagnate, with very little stimulus from an early age, does that result in a stupid individual?

Conversely, if the brain is stimulated from an early age with problem solving tasks, would that result in an intelligent individual?

Gaaah, this is worse than discussing politics or religion!

visions of the world's population...

docilely watching reruns on televisions that they can no longer understand or build

How many could already? I could design and *construct* one, given the parts - though it would have to be a CRT type and it assumes that there's an industry base to create all the components. If I had to start from scratch, even knowing the principles, there would have to be a lot of experimentation in the glass-blowing, metallurgy, and phosphorescent chemistry areas at the very least.

There's no great intelligence required to understand complex technical systems, but to build and maintain those systems there's an awful lot of thinking going on up front...

And of course it could be argued that intelligence is less of a requirement for survival when one has everything organised, available, safe... nice for the Eloi but watch out for the Morlocks!

Idiocracy arrives

If cities are making people less intelligent then imagine what political propaganda, fake stories and hysterical information on Facebook is doing to young minds. We'll be having a good laugh on the 13th December 2012.

Previous Research

Here is some previous research into this pressing problem.

http://ia700402.us.archive.org/2/items/decadeofprogress00inte/decadeofprogress00inte.pdf

Natural selection faux pas

He reckons we started selecting against different characteristics when we moved into cities? We STOPPED selecting a long time ago, as selecting only works if people die before they can procreate. Nowadays almost anyone can find someone and live long enough to do that. Selection has pretty much stopped, at least in the places I've lived, and been replaced by ideas of equality and grace.

Assumption

If the article correctly presents the researcher's hypothesis, then he has ultimately failed before he has begun, simply because he has assumed that all genetic mutation is to the negative!

If all genetic mutation was negative, life (as we know it) wouldn't exist on this planet!

The only postulate that would verify his claim is that 'stupid' people have more children, with 'intelligent' people having fewer or none. Resulting in an increasing proportion of 'stupid' genes in the pool.

Given we have no accurate measure of intelligence, as far as I am concerned it's all speculative bulls**t!

Has he bothered to test this hypothesis?

There are still a reasonable number of hunter-gatherer groups dotted around the world who would not have been subject to this proposed decline. Compare their intellect to that of people in the industrialised world ... there's your proof one way or the other.

Am I missing something?

Cavemen

Thos new generation, poncing about, painting on the cave walls, we had to fight the giants, thirty of us in coordinated attacks with our newly developed spear throwers.... this new lot are getting weaker and stupider by the generation......

I've been saying this for years!

But I ascribe it to pollution — though that's an untested hypothesis...

OMG!

I see stupid people!

I find it odd that

a) it took to the middle of page two to find a reference to my favourite tagline:

The sum total of intelligence on the planet is a constant.

and

b) that it took to the middle of page three to find a notation that mutations can be both negative and beneficial.

But perhaps that is just proving the the hypothesis.

/runs and hides under a rock from the downvotes.

Obviously some XKCD is in order

http://xkcd.com/603/