3 ms·

Isn't this the plot to Idiocracy?

burfog 7y ago
No, but it is similar. A smart person with a burning desire to produce offspring will have the greatest advantage. A smart person who dislikes children will have the greatest disadvantage. In between those people are the people who screw up birth control. If the human population contains a million people with the trait for wanting lots of kids and a billion people who are just dumb about birth control, both will be selected by evolution. Once those traits are the norm, it would likely turn out that wanting kids is the more successful strategy. We could thus see intelligence go both directions, first dropping and then rising.
- XorNot 7y ago
  Assuming intelligence can only be the direct result of genes is not supported in the literature. The relevance of individual genes to the success of the human population disappeared when we became a tribal species hundreds of thousands of years ago. Since then the useful selective function for individual survival has been the ability to operate in a tribe and make the tribe successful. Who's to say what that has really been selecting for? Intelligence may very well have almost no correlation with individual genes, and simply be an emergent phenomenon optimized for by pro-social behaviors, or activated by being in the presence of people who are already fulfilling that role. Maybe what we regard as individual intellect is repressed pathways only chemically triggered in childhood after the development cycle casts around to try and figure out the status of the tribe and specialize into the optimum addition?
  - hackinthebochs 7y ago
    It is long past reasonable to doubt that intelligence is at least 50% heritable.
    - XorNot 7y ago
      It really isn't, by the simple question of: what does "50% heritable" even mean? 50% of what? (which is to say, you picked that number because 50% genetics 50% environment feels like a good split, and how do you even measure that?)
      - concordDance 7y ago
        > what does "50% heritable" even mean? It means that if you plotted a graph of orphaned children IQs on the X axis and their biological parents IQs on the Y axis you'll get a messy and very bulgy line going up and to the right. And this kind of thing is discovered by noticing that the IQs of identical twins are much more similar than those of non-identical twins. Wikipedia has a fairly good overview: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
  - concordDance 7y ago
    > Assuming intelligence can only be the direct result of genes is not supported in the literature. Huh, guess I missed the news that we'd discovered human level problem solving abilities in sheep.
api 7y ago
No. This implies that desire for children or religiosity implies stupidity. I don't see much evidence for this outside pop-atheist iamverysmart cliches. People with lower intelligence may be just as likely to adopt a short term hedonic lifestyle and use contraception more. Totally depends on cultural trends. What we are selecting for is any heritable trait that might durably make people more likely to intentionally reproduce. That could be a lot of things: a stronger biological clock, later menopause for women, changes in cognitive patterns to the degree that they are heritable, maybe even longevity or longer healthspan. Its complex and hard to predict.
- VladimirIvanov 7y ago
  There are studies that show are an inverse correlation between female fertility and IQ.
  - yocheckitdawg 7y ago
    More specifically, it is female fertility and educational achievement. Not quite the same thing, although I don't dispute the overall point.
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
      Makes sense actually, it is harder to get degrees when you are busy with children. So higher fertility -- better chance to have kids, more kids -- fewer diplomas. Doesn't necessarily involve latent ability to get diplomas.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
marcosdumay 7y ago
Evolution is quite good on untangling confounding factors (the larger the population, the better it works with them), so while that's literally the plot, the consequences of it on real life should be very different.

No, but it is similar. A smart person with a burning desire to produce offspring will have the greatest advantage. A smart person who dislikes children will have the greatest disadvantage. In between those people are the people who screw up birth control. If the human population contains a million people with the trait for wanting lots of kids and a billion people who are just dumb about birth control, both will be selected by evolution. Once those traits are the norm, it would likely turn out that wanting kids is the more successful strategy. We could thus see intelligence go both directions, first dropping and then rising.

XorNot 7y ago
Assuming intelligence can only be the direct result of genes is not supported in the literature. The relevance of individual genes to the success of the human population disappeared when we became a tribal species hundreds of thousands of years ago. Since then the useful selective function for individual survival has been the ability to operate in a tribe and make the tribe successful. Who's to say what that has really been selecting for? Intelligence may very well have almost no correlation with individual genes, and simply be an emergent phenomenon optimized for by pro-social behaviors, or activated by being in the presence of people who are already fulfilling that role. Maybe what we regard as individual intellect is repressed pathways only chemically triggered in childhood after the development cycle casts around to try and figure out the status of the tribe and specialize into the optimum addition?
- hackinthebochs 7y ago
  It is long past reasonable to doubt that intelligence is at least 50% heritable.
  - XorNot 7y ago
    It really isn't, by the simple question of: what does "50% heritable" even mean? 50% of what? (which is to say, you picked that number because 50% genetics 50% environment feels like a good split, and how do you even measure that?)
    - concordDance 7y ago
      > what does "50% heritable" even mean? It means that if you plotted a graph of orphaned children IQs on the X axis and their biological parents IQs on the Y axis you'll get a messy and very bulgy line going up and to the right. And this kind of thing is discovered by noticing that the IQs of identical twins are much more similar than those of non-identical twins. Wikipedia has a fairly good overview: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
- concordDance 7y ago
  > Assuming intelligence can only be the direct result of genes is not supported in the literature. Huh, guess I missed the news that we'd discovered human level problem solving abilities in sheep.

api 7y ago

No. This implies that desire for children or religiosity implies stupidity. I don't see much evidence for this outside pop-atheist iamverysmart cliches. People with lower intelligence may be just as likely to adopt a short term hedonic lifestyle and use contraception more. Totally depends on cultural trends. What we are selecting for is any heritable trait that might durably make people more likely to intentionally reproduce. That could be a lot of things: a stronger biological clock, later menopause for women, changes in cognitive patterns to the degree that they are heritable, maybe even longevity or longer healthspan. Its complex and hard to predict.

VladimirIvanov 7y ago
There are studies that show are an inverse correlation between female fertility and IQ.
- yocheckitdawg 7y ago
  More specifically, it is female fertility and educational achievement. Not quite the same thing, although I don't dispute the overall point.
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    Makes sense actually, it is harder to get degrees when you are busy with children. So higher fertility -- better chance to have kids, more kids -- fewer diplomas. Doesn't necessarily involve latent ability to get diplomas.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

marcosdumay 7y ago

Evolution is quite good on untangling confounding factors (the larger the population, the better it works with them), so while that's literally the plot, the consequences of it on real life should be very different.