Dysgenic fertility likely slowly leading to real-world Idiocracy

[Prokhor Zakharov]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000463
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2008.pdf

Dysgenic fertility means that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and number of children. Its presence during the last century has been demonstrated in several countries. We show here that there is dysgenic fertility in the world population quantified by a correlation of −0.73 between IQ and fertility across nations. It is estimated that the effect of this has been a decline in the world's genotypic IQ of 0.86 IQ points for the years 1950–2000. A further decline of 1.28 IQ points in the world's genotypic IQ is projected for the years 2000–2050. In the period 1950–2000 this decline has been compensated for by a rise in phenotypic intelligence known as the Flynn Effect, but recent studies in four economically developed countries have found that this has now ceased or gone into reverse. It seems probable that this “negative Flynn Effect” will spread to economically developing countries and the whole world will move into a period of declining genotypic and phenotypic intelligence. It is possible that “the new eugenics” of biotechnology may evolve to counteract dysgenic fertility.​

This is one of those issues where the deficiencies of secular humanism and other strains of pollyannaish liberal thought shine through, with their constant pull-string responses of "We just need more education!" and "All of humanity is deeply valuable!" How pray tell is acting on failed egalitarian ideas about human psychology from the 18th century going to avert "it's got what plants crave"?

This is also why I don't understand why people are so up in arms about using biotechnology to create better people. Or cybernetic methods for that matter. Seriously, just get the **** out of the way before your misguided compassion ruins society totally.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Because the last time we had eugenics, millions were marched into gas chambers.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

So exactly how bad do things have to get for "water? like out the toilet?" to be a preferable outcome?

Also, as I've stated elsewhere, if these successors, biological or otherwise, wanted to march (most of) normal humanity into gas chambers or the like it would be a fully understandable decision on their part.

 

[marplots]

This is one of those issues where the deficiencies of secular humanism and other strains of pollyannaish liberal thought shine through, with their constant pull-string responses of "We just need more education!" and "All of humanity is deeply valuable!" How pray tell is acting on failed egalitarian ideas about human psychology from the 18th century going to avert "it's got what plants crave"?

More education seems like a good response to an average drop of 1.28 IQ points over 50 years. Considering the variability of the test and improvements in the score by way of training. As to: "all of humanity is deeply valuable," I don't have a problem with that. It's a categorical imperative for me.

This seems like a non-issue. I'd say it was a solution looking for a problem, but I honestly don't see a real problem to fix.

What does "it's got what plants crave" refer to?

 

[marplots]

So exactly how bad do things have to get for "water? like out the toilet?" to be a preferable outcome?

Also, as I've stated elsewhere, if these successors, biological or otherwise, wanted to march (most of) normal humanity into gas chambers or the like it would be a fully understandable decision on their part.

Isn't an increase in violent behavior associated with lower IQ? If so, the dumber we get, the more likely your solution would be adopted as a good one. The problem solves itself!

 

[TragicMonkey]

The inherent problem with eugenics is that belief in eugenics is itself a good indication the believer is one of the problem population who should be discontinued.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

More education seems like a good response to an average drop of 1.28 IQ points over 50 years.

How is "more education!" a lasting response to a long-term decline in genotypic IQ?

By the way: the more g-loaded an IQ test is, the more heritable the results are.

Considering the variability of the test and improvements in the score by way of training.

Where are you reading that the impact of heredity on these kinds of psychometric outcomes is negligible?

As to: "all of humanity is deeply valuable," I don't have a problem with that. It's a categorical imperative for me.

Why?

This seems like a non-issue. I'd say it was a solution looking for a problem, but I honestly don't see a real problem to fix.

The planet slowly getting stupider by the decade isn't a problem?

What does "it's got what plants crave" refer to?

The film Idiocracy.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Isn't an increase in violent behavior associated with lower IQ? If so, the dumber we get, the more likely your solution would be adopted as a good one. The problem solves itself!

Was this meant to be a serious response?

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

The inherent problem with eugenics is that belief in eugenics is itself a good indication the believer is one of the problem population who should be discontinued.

Observing dysgenic fertility patterns makes one have low intelligence?

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Just for the record: I'm not going to let you guys just talk around the issue of declining genotypic IQ with fatuous "NO U!" responses. You're going to have to address whether you think this is acceptable at some point.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Observing dysgenic fertility patterns makes one have low intelligence?

Oh, not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact! It's the low intelligence that makes one observe such things.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Oh, not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact! It's the low intelligence that makes one observe such things.

Two questions occur to me right now:

• Do you think that the research is faulty?
• If so, what are your sources on behavioral genetics, psychometrics, statistics etc. for coming to this conclusion beyond "this conflicts with my morals"?

 

[fagin]

First define 'better people'.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Two questions occur to me right now:

Asking questions is the path to knowledge; from what I've read here you ought to have a great many more than just two.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Better people: those who desire to lead examined lives and won't, for example, use "because it's got what plants crave" as a rationale for using a sports drink as an agricultural input.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Asking questions is the path to knowledge; from what I've read here you ought to have a great many more than just two.

I do have a lot more than two. You can help resolve some of them by answering the two I gave you rather than making more futile attempts to divert my attention away from them.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

So, I ask you again:

• Do you think that the research is faulty?
• If so, what are your sources on behavioral genetics, psychometrics, statistics etc. for coming to this conclusion beyond "this conflicts with my morals"?

 

[fuelair]

More education seems like a good response to an average drop of 1.28 IQ points over 50 years. Considering the variability of the test and improvements in the score by way of training. As to: "all of humanity is deeply valuable," I don't have a problem with that. It's a categorical imperative for me.

This seems like a non-issue. I'd say it was a Final
] solution looking for a problem, but I honestly don't see a real problem to fix.

What does "it's got what plants crave" refer to?

FTFY !!!!

 

[TragicMonkey]

I do have a lot more than two. You can help resolve some of them by answering the two I gave you rather than making more futile attempts to divert my attention away from them.

First you must prove to me that you are not an inferior person, else I would be wasting my time dispensing wisdom to a pumpkin. Can you provide such proof?

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Again, as said, if some successor to status quo humanity, particularly a race of artificial general intelligences, proposed an Endlösung der Menschenfrage this would be entirely understandable.

But the real question here is whether you think that humanity becoming stupider every decade is an acceptable outcome.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

First you must prove to me that you are not an inferior person

I don't see why I should have to prove I am not an inferior person to someone whose scholarly source on the subject seems to be MUH FEELS (2016).

protip: trying to convince me that the Emperor is in fact clothed is unlikely to get you anywhere

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't see why I should have to prove I am not an inferior person to someone whose scholarly source on the subject seems to be MUH FEELS (2016).

protip: trying to convince me that the Emperor is in fact clothed is unlikely to get you anywhere

You don't know anything about my thought. It certainly isn't the crude strawman mentioned above.

But since you cannot prove you are not yourself one of the inferior people you complain about (and complaining is itself a symptom of inferiority) it seems pretty clear you are one, and thus there's no point to discussing the topic with you.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

You don't know anything about my thought.

If so, that is entirely your own fault. Either explain why you think dysgenic fertility doesn't exist, get out of my thread, or stay here and continue to have the deficiency and indeed nonexistence of your case pointed out to you and everyone else.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

But since you cannot prove you are not yourself one of the inferior people you complain about

Looks like this is another area where you don't understand how burden of proof works.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Looks like this is another area where you don't understand how burden of proof works.

Looks like you're missing the point.

You cannot talk about inferior people and superior people unless you can define them, and prove which is which. I demand you prove you are a superior person. You cannot provide such proof because there is no such thing, and even if there were you certainly wouldn't be one. That's the point. In a world that actually ran along the lines you are suggesting you'd be very confused to find yourself sterilized but it'd happen anyway.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

The existence of dysgenic fertility as defined in the OP as patterns in fertility leading to declining genotypic IQ is not an issue of justice or fairness; it is an empirical issue.

Saying "b-b-b-but accepting this as true would have terribibble consequences!" does not constitute empirical evidence contrary to the notion of dysgenic fertility.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

On a related note, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly many members of the septic community will sacrifice the truth when it stops being expedient for them.

 

[marplots]

More education seems like a good response to an average drop of 1.28 IQ points over 50 years.

How is "more education!" a lasting response to a long-term decline in genotypic IQ?

Because a drop of that magnitude isn't significant, given how IQ is measured and the purported benefits. Your point depends on establishing a trend that can't really be established with the data set and the time period given.

Considering the variability of the test and improvements in the score by way of training.

Where are you reading that the impact of heredity on these kinds of psychometric outcomes is negligible?

It doesn't matter if it is negligible so long as other factors (like education) are available to affect IQ positively to at least the same degree.

As to: "all of humanity is deeply valuable," I don't have a problem with that. It's a categorical imperative for me.

Why?

Because I am human.

This seems like a non-issue. I'd say it was a solution looking for a problem, but I honestly don't see a real problem to fix.

The planet slowly getting stupider by the decade isn't a problem?

Not necessarily. But I don't think you've even demonstrated the effect, so it's premature to predict the consequences.

What does "it's got what plants crave" refer to?

The film Idiocracy.

Ah, gotcha. Good movie.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The existence of dysgenic fertility as defined in the OP as patterns in fertility leading to declining genotypic IQ is not an issue of justice or fairness; it is an empirical issue.

Saying "b-b-b-but accepting this as true would have terribibble consequences!" does not constitute empirical evidence contrary to the notion of dysgenic fertility.

You're arguing with your own strawmen. Which is good because you will have an opponent quite equal to you!

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Your point depends on establishing a trend that can't really be established with the data set and the time period given.

You seem to be saying this from a position of substantial experience with statistics. Do tell.

It doesn't matter if it is negligible so long as other factors (like education) are available to affect IQ positively to at least the same degree.

There is evidence that the negative Flynn effect described in the abstract is already happening. E.g.:

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/dutton2013.pdf

Because I am human.

Does "being human" mean "universal regard for all conspecifics"?

Not necessarily. But I don't think you've even demonstrated the effect

By what standard have I not done this?

 

[Cain]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000463
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2008.pdf

Dysgenic fertility means that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and number of children. Its presence during the last century has been demonstrated in several countries. We show here that there is dysgenic fertility in the world population quantified by a correlation of −0.73 between IQ and fertility across nations. It is estimated that the effect of this has been a decline in the world's genotypic IQ of 0.86 IQ points for the years 1950–2000. A further decline of 1.28 IQ points in the world's genotypic IQ is projected for the years 2000–2050. In the period 1950–2000 this decline has been compensated for by a rise in phenotypic intelligence known as the Flynn Effect, but recent studies in four economically developed countries have found that this has now ceased or gone into reverse. It seems probable that this “negative Flynn Effect” will spread to economically developing countries and the whole world will move into a period of declining genotypic and phenotypic intelligence. It is possible that “the new eugenics” of biotechnology may evolve to counteract dysgenic fertility.​

This is one of those issues where the deficiencies of secular humanism and other strains of pollyannaish liberal thought shine through, with their constant pull-string responses of "We just need more education!" and "All of humanity is deeply valuable!" How pray tell is acting on failed egalitarian ideas about human psychology from the 18th century going to avert "it's got what plants crave"?

This is also why I don't understand why people are so up in arms about using biotechnology to create better people. Or cybernetic methods for that matter. Seriously, just get the **** out of the way before your misguided compassion ruins society totally.

Historically, progressives were some of the more enthusiastic eugenicists. The most pollyannaish liberals are the subset of transhumanists who think we'll cure death and merge with technology.

Looking past these blurred ideological lines, we could very easily see an intelligence arms race instigated by the Chinese. They are much more openly racist, already aggressively pursue sex-selective abortion, and every so often we hear stories about those "communists" (communists are egalitarian, right) developing "super-babies." Funny thing, I don't think they're all that keen on engineering people who want to lead "more examined" lives.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

You're arguing with your own strawmen.

Blubbering about strawmen might hold a little more weight if you had ever actually followed up your claim that "It's the low intelligence that makes one observe such things [as dysgenic fertility]" with anything remotely resembling evidence.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Historically, progressives were some of the more enthusiastic eugenicists. The most pollyannaish liberals are the subset of transhumanists who think we'll cure death and merge with technology.

Looking past these blurred ideological lines, we could very easily see an intelligence arms race instigated by the Chinese. They are much more openly racist, already aggressively pursue sex-selective abortion, and every so often we hear stories about those "communists" (communists are egalitarian, right) developing "super-babies." Funny thing, I don't think they're all that keen on engineering people who want to lead "more examined" lives.

I am aware of those early experiments with manipulating the germline of human embryos in the PRC.

This is not a reason for letting eugenic biotechnology spread to the West ... how exactly?

 

[332nd]

What happens if the "inferior intelligence" folks are superior in other ways?

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Then take whatever it is that makes them better in that respect and include it in person engineering efforts to make someone better across the board.

 

[332nd]

Then take whatever it is that makes them better in that respect and include it in person engineering efforts to make someone better across the board.

Who gets to decide what is "better"?

 

[marplots]

You seem to be saying this from a position of substantial experience with statistics. Do tell.

I read the paper. Here's an example of the confounding factors:
These IQ gains of around 3 IQ points a decade (about 7.5 IQ points a generation) among school age children and 5 IQ points among adults are clearly much greater than the loss of around 0.43 IQ points a generation in the world's genotypic IQ that we have estimated for the period 1950 –
2000, plus a further loss arising from dysgenic fertility within countries that is unquantifiable. Thus, the situation for the world's IQ appears to be similar to that in the United States and other economically developed countries in so far as the genotypic IQ has been declining, but the phenotypic IQ has been increasing at a greater rate as a result of environmental improvements.

This is the Flynn effect that was discovered when the original trend line of falling IQ didn't pan out. Why do we think this new analysis has captured the relevant inputs either? You are looking for a genotype variation emerging in a population, and a variation we don't actually know how many alleles have a part in. How could you possibly expect to capture an effect without seeing many generations?

There is evidence that the negative Flynn effect described in the abstract is already happening. E.g.:

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/dutton2013.pdf

The net effect was positive over the 20-year period. It is not apparent why the effect varies and it cannot simply be put on the doorstep of genetics.

Does "being human" mean "universal regard for all conspecifics"?

Yes. Empathy is a character trait of humans.

By what standard have I not done this?

Relying on a speculative paper from 7 years ago. Failure to acknowledge the inherent fuzziness of the underlying metrics. Presenting a trend line from insufficient data.

I actually have no problem with the idea - it's interesting and should be investigated. I just think it's premature to draw any solid conclusions. This is common in epidemiology - it can point to interesting things but rarely gives you the details needed to really understand something.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Who gets to decide what is "better"?

I suppose the same parties that get to decide that, like, everyone is actually equal, man.

Incidentally I do support the right of people not to better themselves with technology (and get left behind in the process).

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

You are looking for a genotype variation emerging in a population, and a variation we don't actually know how many alleles have a part in. How could you possibly expect to capture an effect without seeing many generations?

Saying things like this reveals ignorance of how behavioral genetics works. For example, the effects of breeding maze-bright and maze-dull rats can be seen within a few generations and the set of alleles involved is not all known at all. In fact, that's seldom, if ever the case in behavioral genetics. A lot of it still relies entirely on "black box" methods like twin studies even as knowledge of the human genome and of other comparable genomes increases explosively. (This is not necessarily bad.)

Your knowledge of this topic seems rather seriously inadequate.

Yes. Empathy is a character trait of humans.

What you're talking about is humanity being a global eusocial supercolony like that of the Argentine ants. Please present evidence that this is the case.

Relying on a speculative paper

It's not "speculative".

from 7 years ago.

So?

Failure to acknowledge the inherent fuzziness of the underlying metrics. Presenting a trend line from insufficient data.

Do tell, Professor. Tell me what "sufficient data" would look like, quantifying if possible, and why.

I actually have no problem with the idea - it's interesting and should be investigated. I just think it's premature to draw any solid conclusions.

Even if there weren't any evidence for dysgenic fertility on average humans are pretty stupid regardless. Why not try to put an end to it now?

 

[fagin]

So all we need in a Ministry of Truth, and anyone not cooperating will be managed by the Ministry of Love.