Are Human Beings Becoming Dumber?

[Comrade Hill]

Do you believe this study? It's arguments seem largely unscientific to me. Your thoughts?

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/13/dumb-and-dumber-study-says-humans-are-slowly-losing-their-smarts


In the last century, humans have landed a man on the moon, sequenced the genome, and created the Internet — but, surprisingly, we may be slowly evolving to be less intelligent than our ancestors.

That's because a series of mutations affecting the estimated 5,000 genes controlling human intellect have crept into our DNA, says Gerald Crabtree, a geneticist at Stanford University, whose findings were published in the journal Trends in Genetics.

"I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to suddenly appear among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companies, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues," he writes.

[RELATED: Use of Neuroscience as a Defense Skyrockets]

Because human beings have evolved to live in a society, as opposed to fending for themselves, deficiencies in intellect haven't made it impossible for reproduction, he says. Humans no longer (or rarely) die because they were unable to outwit a predator. Humans were much more likely to die due to "lack of judgment" thousands of years ago, he says.

"Intelligence doesn't play as significant a selection in our present, supportive wonderful society," he says. "I don't think we should revert back to the terrible times of extreme selection" where only the strongest survive, he adds.

Crabtree says that simple math makes it likely that humans are getting dumber. In the past 3,000 years, about 120 generations, Crabtree estimates that random, naturally occurring mutations have likely occurred in nearly every human.

[VIDEO: Koala Has Lucky Escape From Bushfire]

"It's worth mentioning these changes are very slow. You wouldn't see an effect in 20 or 100 years," he says. "It's happening so slowly that it's not something that anyone alive should worry about."

So why are modern humans seemingly light years ahead of their ancestors? Crabtree says it comes down to education and the growing sum of human knowledge. Modern society allows people to focus on becoming an expert in one thing — people no longer need a wide breadth of knowledge or even cognitive ability in order to thrive.

"Education makes it so the strongest insights of one individual can be rapidly distributed through our society," he says.

[READ: Breastfeeding Doll: Creepy or Groundbreaking?]

Though he says he's fairly certain human cognition is in decline, modern society's ability to solve problems means we're likely to come up with a solution if humans start acting more like Neanderthals.

"We have a long time to solve it. People 300 years ago had no idea where we'd be scientifically now," he says. "We'll be able to deal with this problem with a range of humane and ethical solutions."

From what I gather from this, human beings are not actually becoming "dumber." Rather, they are being conditioned to live with the growing division of labor and the privatization of "ideas" in capitalism.

[doesn't even make sense]

Well he does invoke natural selection. It's pure conjecture.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Probably.

[hetz]

Could be.

[helot]

So mutations have been found in genes that are directly linked to human intelligence? And? We're living organisms, all our genes are subject to mutations. I fail to see anything that suggests what if any effects these mutations have besides wild claims that we're becoming less intelligent. Premusably they've also done genetic tests on remains of ancient people as a sort of control group. Are those with the mutations finding issues with problem-solving, abstract thought etc?

It seems to me that what's been found is various mutations, the effects if any not being known and so there's rampant speculation based on a rose-tinted view of the intellectual powers of ancient people as apparently, everyone from Athens between 1200BC and 400AD were philosophers.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A dubious assertion, with no facts to back it up.

[Kenco Smooth]

Whilst there's very littl,e supporting the claim it's not too unlikely. In the West especially a dysgenic effect has almost certainly been occuring for the last 50 years at least.

[Tenka]

Whilst there's very littl,e supporting the claim it's not too unlikely. In the West especially a dysgenic effect has almost certainly been occuring for the last 50 years at least.

If we are stupid it is not because of our genes. Please don't out yourself in favour of eugenics on this forum, thanks.

[Kenco Smooth]

If we are stupid it is not because of our genes. Please don't out yourself in favour of eugenics on this forum, thanks.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Dysgenic and eugenic are genetic terms which have a whole world of meaning that doesn't even touch on the political. Advocating eugenics no more follows from recognizing a probable dysgenic effect than support for mandatory fitness camps follow from recognising rising obesity rates.

[Tenka]

Please don't put words in my mouth. Dysgenic and eugenic are genetic terms which have a whole world of meaning that doesn't even touch on the political. Advocating eugenics no more follows from recognizing a probable dysgenic effect than support for mandatory fitness camps follow from recognising rising obesity rates.

But level of intelligence is not actually genetically determined, so recognising a dysgenic effect on it is nonsense a eugenicist might like (in that intelligence could be linked to "race") and sounds like the beginning of the film Idiocracy. Sorry for the possibly accusatory tone in any case, but I remain suspicious of the arse quoted in the OP.

[Sea]

That's because a series of mutations affecting the estimated 5,000 genes controlling human intellect have crept into our DNA, says Gerald Crabtree, a geneticist at Stanford University, whose findings were published in the journal Trends in Genetics.Don't mean a thing unless you can show these mutations will have a negative impact.


Because human beings have evolved to live in a society, as opposed to fending for themselves, deficiencies in intellect haven't made it impossible for reproduction, he says. Adapted, not evolved, and humans have been living in societies (however primitive by comparison) for a looooong time.
Humans no longer (or rarely) die because they were unable to outwit a predator. Humans were much more likely to die due to "lack of judgment" thousands of years ago, he says.By this logic, animals in the wild would need human-level intelligence to survive.
"Intelligence doesn't play as significant a selection in our present, supportive wonderful society," he says. "I don't think we should revert back to the terrible times of extreme selection" where only the strongest survive, he adds.Strongest =/= most intelligent. Come on, man, there's a hell a lot more involved and when it comes to fending for ones self in the wild, mental capacity isn't on the top of the list of things needed by a longshot.
Crabtree says that simple math makes it likely that humans are getting dumber. In the past 3,000 years, about 120 generations, Crabtree estimates that random, naturally occurring mutations have likely occurred in nearly every human.ZIPPIDY FUCKING DOO DA DAY
"Education makes it so the strongest insights of one individual can be rapidly distributed through our society," he says.knowledge =/= intellegence
[READ: Breastfeeding Doll: Creepy or Groundbreaking?]I seriously hope this this wasn't "suggested reading based on your browsing history", comrade.

Obviously this guy has never heard of the Flynn effect, though this is all just observation with no concrete reason behind it.



Whilst there's very littl,e supporting the claim it's not too unlikely. In the West especially a dysgenic effect has almost certainly been occuring for the last 50 years at least.I'm gonna call shenanigans on this one considering 50 years is only what, like 1.4 generations?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I know a bunch of Africans, Latin Americans and western poor people are stupid as fuck because they were never taught how to read or had time where they did not have to work where they could think. What good is having brains and not having time to ever use them? I'd rather have no brains than be enslaved to never using my brains. So, in a sense, this is good news.

[hetz]

I know a bunch of Africans, Latin Americans and western poor people are stupid as fuck because they were never taught how to read or had time where they did not have to work where they could think.
I know several barely-literate people who are, however, very intelligent. At least that's the impression I got from talking with them.

[Philosophos]

so they can become dumber than they are right now? interesting....

[Kenco Smooth]

But level of intelligence is not actually genetically determined, so recognising a dysgenic effect on it is nonsense a eugenicist might like (in that intelligence could be linked to "race") and sounds like the beginning of the film Idiocracy. Sorry for the possibly accusatory tone in any case, but I remain suspicious of the arse quoted in the OP.

Variance in general intelligence is about 45-55% genetically determined. There is no debate about it in mainstream psychology anymore. Recognising that, it is then extremely important to highlight that there's no way those findings can be generalised between populations. The case for genetic differences between races in intelligence needs to be made on other grounds (ones I've never seen produced).

This all said, like I wrote in my first post, Crabtree provides no data to back up his claims but they do remain plausible.




Obviously this guy has never heard of the Flynn effect, though this is all just observation with no concrete reason behind it.



Whilst I've not read the paper and so can't be sure I'd assume it refers to general psychometric intelligence, g. It's a slightly obtuse statistical argument but The Flynn effect has not produced increases which are loaded on g. That makes it most likely that Flynn effect gains represent increased ability on localised tests rather than a general increase in ability (if it represented that then almost half the population 100 years ago in Europe would have suffered from learning difficulties). The Flynn effect makes it a nightmare to try and identify trends in g but it provides no evidence against decreasing general intelligence.



I'm gonna call shenanigans on this one considering 50 years is only what, like 1.4 generations?



Oh it'll be a tiny effect so far no doubt and at the moment nothing to get worried about but it seems likely that it'd be occurring. Whilst on the subject of Flynn, having fought against the idea of genetic racial differences in intelligence for about thirty years now, he still recognises that a dysgenic trend with potential social consequences is likely to arise if current demographic trends continue (and he also highlights that recognising that in no way amounts to an acceptance of eugenic policies).

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Variance in general intelligence is about 45-55% genetically determined. There is no debate about it in mainstream psychology anymore. Recognising that, it is then extremely important to highlight that there's no way those findings can be generalised between populations. The case for genetic differences between races in intelligence needs to be made on other grounds (ones I've never seen produced).

What is 'general intelligence' if you don't mind me asking?

[Kenco Smooth]

What is 'general intelligence' if you don't mind me asking?

The principle lies on the fact that pretty much whatever test of mental ability you throw at a person (vocabulary, arithmetic, logical operations, similarities, categories, what have you). This allows for a a statistical technique called factor analysis to be carried out to identify if the variation between scores lies on any underlying factors. Doing that produces a top level, single factor which explains about half the variance between individual's test scores. That's g.

[Avanti]

there are different needs today

3000 years ago, people had natural needs

today, we have artificial needs and artificial survival skills

mitt romney would not survive one day in the jungle, i would

but i am a small-scale petty thief and he's a multi-millionaire oligarch

time to destroy the system

[Rafiq]

Yes, but this phenomena is exclusive today, to the capitalist base. There is a clear degeneration but this "linear" regression cannot be traces to, say, 1000 B.C.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The principle lies on the fact that pretty much whatever test of mental ability you throw at a person (vocabulary, arithmetic, logical operations, similarities, categories, what have you). This allows for a a statistical technique called factor analysis to be carried out to identify if the variation between scores lies on any underlying factors. Doing that produces a top level, single factor which explains about half the variance between individual's test scores. That's g.
So, in other words, it's a measurable score that's averaged by objective tallies of mental abilities completely unrelated to each other?

How does that work? In fact, how can you objectively measure an ability for problem solving accurately?

[Kenco Smooth]

So, in other words, it's a measurable score that's averaged by objective tallies of mental abilities completely unrelated to each other?


Well, related to each other in that they all correlate positively, and it's not quite averaging, but otherwise yeah precisely.



How does that work? In fact, how can you objectively measure an ability for problem solving accurately?
Typically by simply assigning a mental problem to solve. Something like the tower of Hanoi task is a good example. These tests are pretty much by definition objective because there is an objectively correct answer and a faster time is the objective criteria for higher success.

The test can be assessed on whether it's accurate on a number of criteria, typically reliability and validity. Reliability can be assessed, for example, by re-testing someone and seeing if they score pretty much the same (if not it's an unreliable test) and if the differences between people are generally in the same ballpark (again big differences are a sign of low reliability). Validity concerns whether it actually measures what it purports to. In the case of intelligence, given the huge number of real life outcomes that IQ correlates with, validity can basically be assessed on how well test scores correlate with g.

[Ocean Seal]

There is no Darwinian explanation for this and in turn it is most likely false.

[l'Enfermé]

Guys, here's from Stanford. Stanford. Obviously, he's correct.

Right? Right...?

[zoot_allures]

I don't like judging scientific studies based on news reports, but here are some first-impression comments about what's said in that article:

First of all, I'm skeptical of any claims about "intelligence". I'm skeptical that there's such a thing as "intelligence" and I'm skeptical that the concept is helpful even if we think of it as a useful fiction (of course, this isn't to claim that everybody is mentally equal - there are many different kinds of cognitive abilities and different people have different skills with regard to each.) Secondly, even assuming intelligence does literally exist, I'm very skeptical of claims about its genetic basis. Thirdly, assuming that intelligence does literally exist and has some genetic basis, I'm very skeptical that it's possible to compare intelligence across different societies. Nobody would say that intelligence is entirely genetic (the received view in psychology, as far as I'm aware, is an interactionism giving genetics and environment about equal weight), and different societies have very different environments, where individuals face different problems and are judged on different standards. I don't think it makes much sense to ask whether modern humans are more or less intelligent than our ancestors.

Beyond those general comments:

- as I mentioned, nobody argues that intelligence is entirely genetic. So why should we assume that a decrease of "natural intelligence" hasn't been more than made up for by "nurtured intelligence"? We need to have some reasons for assuming that this hasn't taken place, if we're to say that modern humans are less intelligent than our ancestors. In fact, prima facie, there seems to me to be good reason to assume the opposite: living in a far more complex society, we have to deal constantly with arguably a wider range of problems; we have to process far, far more information; we have to navigate an expanded social world; etc. (The notion that "people no longer need a wide breadth of knowledge or even cognitive ability in order to thrive" is, I think, quite clearly absurd, although maybe they don't need it for survival and reproduction (which is what's relevant if we're talking about genetics).)

- it's very questionable that humans today are less likely to die due to "lack of judgment" (however we're interpreting that phrase). As society has developed, some dangers, such as surprise attacks from predators, have been almost entirely eliminated, but plenty of other dangers now take their place - such as those huge chunks of metal we have racing around highly populated areas 24/7. It's also questionable that there was ever an extended time of "extreme selection", where society wasn't "supportive" and "only the strongest survive[d]".

- deficiencies of intellect might not make it impossible for reproduction, but they've never made it impossible for reproduction. At most they could only influence your chances. But isn't that still the case? - it ain't easy to find sexual partners; doesn't it take intelligence to do that? It seems to me that a better argument for declining intelligence would be that intelligent people tend to use birth control more frequently (this is, in fact, an argument that I've encountered more than once, though I'm not sure I've ever seen it in a scientific publication).

It's also interesting to consider that on his argument, the places currently breeding the most intelligent people would presumably be those ravaged with crime and poverty, where there's very little social support, where only the strongest survive - where it sometimes really is a matter of survival to outwit your competitors. Intelligence is more usually used to demonstrate the genetic inferiority of such populations.

[Avanti]

Yes, but this phenomena is exclusive today, to the capitalist base. There is a clear degeneration but this "linear" regression cannot be traces to, say, 1000 B.C.

its not capitalism. its technology.

look, i'm not some tree-hugger hippie dope-smoker (i like videogames, hamburgers and alcohol shops), but even in a "socialist" society people would not need survival skills to handle themselves.

actually, the best modern society for stimulating survival skill is dog-eat-dog inner city ghetto capitalism, because you have to think like an animal to survive.

most people, in both "capitalist" and "socialist" societies are accustomed to be stuffed into narrow boxes, be indoctrinated and then shuffled to other boxes where they sit and produce meaningless shit that nobody wants and attune all skills for that.

the only "real" humans today are the homeless, the criminals and the mentally unsound. those who cannot be stuffed into boxes. those who have to dumpster-dive or steal and fight to eat.

those are "real" people.

the rest of you don't know how it is to be alive.

seriously.

[Goblin]

Not dumber, but more self centered

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Not dumber, but more self centered

As Goblin has already pointed out, i too don't think people are getting dumber.
In fact, i think they are getting smarter! Only more selfish, self-centered and, above all, more propagised upon.



I know a bunch of Africans, Latin Americans and western poor people are stupid as fuck because they were never taught how to read or had time where they did not have to work where they could think. What good is having brains and not having time to ever use them? I'd rather have no brains than be enslaved to never using my brains. So, in a sense, this is good news.


I know several barely-literate people who are, however, very intelligent. At least that's the impression I got from talking with them.

Intelligence has absolutly nothing to do with what you can do. If you haven't been tought, how could you do?
It is more the posibility to do something. A potential.

Wether you succeed in life depends on three factors: Nature (natural talent or 'inteligence'), Nurture (the things you get tought) and good old fashioned luck (i certainly didn't have the luck...don't think it's one of the "N"-s)

[Red Banana]

People are definitely becoming dumber, but not because of genetics. It's what they eat and drink and the lack of any means to educate themselves.
A lot of people where I live got really bad lead poisoning as children and grew up to be stupid and violent as a result. The produce people eat everyday that is literally sprayed with poison and sold in stores has been shown to negatively affect intelligence (surprise, surprise).
The schools are a tragic farce. They've basically been turned into daycares used to instill subordination, nationalism, and neoliberalism into the malleable minds of children.

I didn't get the part where the author said someone from Athens 1000 BC would be smarter than us then went on to denounce society as the reason we're dumb. Athens wasn't a society? And the whole mutations thing, does the 'researcher' only recognize bad mutations? No good ones? I thought the whole basis of evolution was good mutations becoming dominant and more prevalent and bad ones dying out.

[zoot_allures]

And the whole mutations thing, does the 'researcher' only recognize bad mutations? No good ones? I thought the whole basis of evolution was good mutations becoming dominant and more prevalent and bad ones dying out.
The basis of evolution is rather more complicated than that. The primary factors are listed on this wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_factor

Anyway, this guy's idea is that the "bad" mutations aren't dying out, because we live in a supportive society and we aren't exposed to such extreme selection as there were in the past. The problem is that while there will be beneficial mutations, they're pretty rare in comparison to ones that cause damage. Most mutations are harmful.

[Red Banana]

Anyway, this guy's idea is that the "bad" mutations aren't dying out, because we live in a supportive society and we aren't exposed to such extreme selection as there were in the past.

That is definitely true to an extent but new circumstances also bring new forms of selection, for example most people aren't ever put in the situation of having to make quick prudent decisions to stop an attacking predator anymore, but they do have to when driving a car or they could end up dead. Old methods of selection die and new ones emerge along with our material progress.

[maskerade]

i could believe it.

on another note, crabtree is a nice name.

[zoot_allures]

That is definitely true to an extent but new circumstances also bring new forms of selection, for example most people aren't ever put in the situation of having to make quick prudent decisions to stop an attacking predator anymore, but they do have to when driving a car or they could end up dead. Old methods of selection die and new ones emerge along with our material progress.
I agree - in fact I made a similar criticism earlier in the thread. I was just clarifying his idea; I don't at all agree with it.

[Rafiq]

its not capitalism. its technology.

look, i'm not some tree-hugger hippie dope-smoker (i like videogames, hamburgers and alcohol shops), but even in a "socialist" society people would not need survival skills to handle themselves.

actually, the best modern society for stimulating survival skill is dog-eat-dog inner city ghetto capitalism, because you have to think like an animal to survive.

most people, in both "capitalist" and "socialist" societies are accustomed to be stuffed into narrow boxes, be indoctrinated and then shuffled to other boxes where they sit and produce meaningless shit that nobody wants and attune all skills for that.

the only "real" humans today are the homeless, the criminals and the mentally unsound. those who cannot be stuffed into boxes. those who have to dumpster-dive or steal and fight to eat.

those are "real" people.

the rest of you don't know how it is to be alive.

seriously.

Well, regardless of whether people have become "dumber" from the past thousand years, the intellectual degeneration existent in capitalism, of which is most exclusive to recent developments, namely the mid 80's to the 90's, exist objectively and not on a (biologically) evolutionary scale.

[Avanti]

Well, regardless of whether people have become "dumber" from the past thousand years, the intellectual degeneration existent in capitalism, of which is most exclusive to recent developments, namely the mid 80's to the 90's, exist objectively and not on a (biologically) evolutionary scale.

its not a matter of biology, but a matter of being sheltered.

while most of my age group prodded through the public school brain holocaust system, i was from age 12 loitering out in the streets. might not be fit for this society, but know how to survive. i've done it the darwinian way.

and don't talk badly of the 90s. it was the best time evah. so wondeerfully liberatingly stupid. :)

[Lynx]

If I had a choice between being introverted and being dumb, I'd choose dumb. My chances for survival would increase.

[Doflamingo]

I blame consumerism.

[Avanti]

I blame consumerism.

i love consumerism.

it is an improvement to the previous calvinist, puritan and victorian waves...

srsly...

the only problem with consumerism is homogenity, fetishisation of items and of brands. but it is the right direction, definetly. it is a rediscovery of the primal human need to attach meanings through symbols, and far more productive and stimulating for the brain than for example political propaganda.

just saying.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

And you people called me a troll. Either this thing is trolling or in desperate need of reeducation. To the Gulag!!1 (danananana)

Edit: Consumerism is bad uumkay

[Avanti]

And you people called me a troll. Either this thing is trolling or in desperate need of reeducation. To the Gulag!!1 (danananana)

Edit: Consumerism is bad uumkay

what is it bad in relation to? you need to specify comrade...

what do you want instead of consumerism?

also, you cannot reeducate me. i dropped school since i was 12 years old.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

what is it bad in relation to? you need to specify comrade...

what do you want instead of consumerism?

also, you cannot reeducate me. i dropped school since i was 12 years old.

So...your lack of education is totally showing!

Consumerism is the manifestation of capitalism.
Capitalism is the key to all unfairness in the world. It kills people! For example: blood-diamonds, oil-spills, chem-dumps in voor countries etc.

[Sea]

And you people called me a troll. Either this thing is trolling or in desperate need of reeducation. To the Gulag!!1 (danananana)

Edit: Consumerism is bad uumkayI never called you a troll, Toady. :wub:

[Devrim]

I don't think that the idea that today's people are 'dumber' than their hunter gatherer ancestors to be that ridiculous, and would imagine that there is quite possibly something to it. Certainly domesticated animals are 'dumber' than their wild ancestors, just compare a Cocker Spaniel to a wolf. I think that it is quite possible to imagine that today's 'domesticated' humans would be 'dumber' compared to wild hunter gatherers.

Devrim

[Avanti]

So...your lack of education is totally showing!

Consumerism is the manifestation of capitalism.
Capitalism is the key to all unfairness in the world. It kills people! For example: blood-diamonds, oil-spills, chem-dumps in voor countries etc.

consumerism's only used by capitalism. traditional capitalism was moralist and puritan. the only problem with consumerism is a fetish for items as a signal of mating status.

blood diamonds, oil-spills and chem-dumps in "voor" (what that now is, lol) countries existed before capitalism.

[Hit The North]

I don't think that the idea that today's people are 'dumber' than their hunter gatherer ancestors to be that ridiculous, and would imagine that there is quite possibly something to it. Certainly domesticated animals are 'dumber' than their wild ancestors, just compare a Cocker Spaniel to a wolf. I think that it is quite possible to imagine that today's 'domesticated' humans would be 'dumber' compared to wild hunter gatherers.

Devrim

Yeah, but Cocker Spaniels are notoriously stupid dogs. Compare a German Sheppard or a Border Collie to a wolf. But the point is obviously behaviour which is fit for particular environments. If dogs behaved like wolves they could not live with humans. Dogs have different skills to wolves - less able to fend for themselves in the wild but more able to live comfortably, without expending much effort, with humans.

Likewise, if a human from the last ice age could be transported to modern society, he wouldn't appear as a genius but as an idiot, unable to read and write and reacting to modern technology with alarm and fear.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but surely urban environments require more intelligence to operate in, not less?

While food and shelter may be considerably easier to come by in such an environment, since humans are social animals there is that dimension which goes completely without any serious examination in the article quoted by the OP. Cities are full of novelty and challenges not because day-to-day survival is hard, but because urban living brings one into contact with a great variety of the other things that people introduce to such places.

Another consideration is that while intelligence may no longer be selected for for humans living within an urban environment, that in no way implies that intelligence is being selected against. In other words, it may be the case that while intelligence is no longer the major plus it used to be in reproductive terms, that does not mean it is now a negative.

I would have thought that in a social context, intelligence is an asset rather than a liability. Surely intelligence is useful for say, telling if someone is being deceitful.

[Avanti]

there are different forms of intelligence.

but today's society do not support the kind of intelligence that normal humans are evolved to cope with. we should be running around like 80% of our waken time, not sit on a damn chair getting a big bum.

today's society is constricting children to sitting for 6-7 hours a day. is that natural? and most activities are built on sitting down. it is perverse. when you sit down, you submit.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

blood diamonds, oil-spills and chem-dumps in "voor" (what that now is, lol) countries existed before capitalism.

Haha, 'voor' had to be 'poor'! It's my tablet's dutch dictionairy fucking my texts up.

Anyway...do you even know when capitalism began? There was little to no chemicals or oil-usage. Consumerism leads to cheaper products, which leads to cheaper workers, which in turn leads to worse living conditions. It drives capitalism.
Everyone giving in to consumerism feeds a capitalists succes.

How do you see a world without capitalism but with consumerism?



P.s. where are you from? Your bracketed text (" what that now is") sounds a bit like germanic grammar (especially it's syntaxis)

[Devrim]

Yeah, but Cocker Spaniels are notoriously stupid dogs. Compare a German Sheppard or a Border Collie to a wolf.

Yes, Cockers are particularly stupid, which is why I used them as an example.;) I think that a wolf would still be more intelligent than a German Shepard though even if not by as much as with the Spaniel.


But the point is obviously behaviour which is fit for particular environments. If dogs behaved like wolves they could not live with humans. Dogs have different skills to wolves - less able to fend for themselves in the wild but more able to live comfortably, without expending much effort, with humans.

But the kill set you assign to dogs is actually saying that they are capable of being looked after, and not very suited for fending for themselves.


Likewise, if a human from the last ice age could be transported to modern society, he wouldn't appear as a genius but as an idiot, unable to read and write and reacting to modern technology with alarm and fear.

I am pretty sure though that if you could transport a human infant from the last Ice Age to the present day, he would grow up capable of dealing with all modern technology, and would probably come across as quite bright if a little aggressive.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

Wouldn't it depend on whether the infant was old enough to be marked by his ice-age culture?

[Devrim]

Wouldn't it depend on whether the infant was old enough to be marked by his ice-age culture?

Let's say new born baby then, just to make it clear.

What the original post was talking about though was a genetic change that made man 'dumber'. If the change is genetic, the best way to judge it would be to take away as many of the environmental factors as possible.

Devrim

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

it is perverse. when you sit down, you submit.

Get the fuck off your computer, then! Why are you here all the bloody day spamming your nonsense?

[Avanti]

Get the fuck off your computer, then! Why are you here all the bloody day spamming your nonsense?

maybe the avanti is laying in bed with his computer?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

maybe the avanti is laying in bed with his computer?

Then maybe computer needs to get off the Avanti !? :confused:

[Comrade #138672]

If people are becoming dumber, then it's because of our apathic, consumerist, Capitalist culture. I think this is partly true.

However, I think that people are at the same time also becoming smarter, because of the internet which supplies us with an enormous amount of knowledge. Also, on the internet many people are able to communicate with each other more effectively, regardless of their locations. Since our intelligence is mostly social, I think it's making us smarter.

[Fnord]

If people are becoming dumber, then it's because of our apathic, consumerist, Capitalist culture. I think this is partly true.

However, I think that people are at the same time also becoming smarter, because of the internet which supplies us with an enormous amount of knowledge. Also, on the internet many people are able to communicate with each other more effectively, regardless of their locations. Since our intelligence is mostly social, I think it's making us smarter.

I agree with Wecan, and besides, I'm not sure if anyone here looks up random scientific articles occasionally when their bored but this article seems not as sound as other articles from more credible studies. I can't post links right now but I'm just saying I am skeptical of this, other studies have shown that human intelligence is greatly increasing, regardless of any articles, I personally have noticed people who were originally closed minded, opening up to new creative ideas. If anything, it would seem that the concept of "intelligence" is completely subjective and is thus prone to bias, especially in a capitalist society.