I've had a "reverse evolution" theory for some years now. It's not very politically correct, and I haven't really had any strong objections or arguments against it when presenting it to various people. So, I thought I would run it by this group and see what you think.

First off, I believe that "natural selection/survival of the fittest" stopped being a factor in the human ability to reproduce a long time ago. In our advanced society, there is no longer anadvantage to be of a certain intellegence or to be in any kind of physical condition to find a mate and have your offspring survive. There may be an advantage as far as the quality of mate you may attract, but not in the ability to have offspring. We will assume this as a fact. If you disagree, please let me know why.

Now is where it gets politically incorrect. I believe that we are currently witnessing an era in human history in which (in general) the most intellegent humans are purposefully limiting the amount of offspring that they produce for various reasons, including: career demands, environmental concerns, choice of "quality over quantity", they are more "responsible" in general so are less likely to have an accidental pregnancy etc.

Then you have the less intellegent/responsible members of our species. Let's start out with the real zinger-they are more likely to hold fundamental religious beliefs which are influencing them to have more offspring. They are going to be less responsible and more likely to have accidental pregnancies (may also be less likely to get an abortion due to their religious beliefs). I feel that there is a tendancy for the less intellegent to percieve less "meaning" in their life and are trying to fill this void with children. Some (not all) may be taking advantage of our welfare system. I could list more, but I'm already feeling "dirty" for this last paragraph, so I won't go on.
Please realize that I realize that I am making many broad generalizations in these assumptions/claims. I know there are many exceptions.
However, I will not back down from my claim that there is a generalized trend for the less intellegently fit/mentally unstable members of our society to reproduce at a faster rate than the more "fit" members. After a few generations, if this trend continues-it could theoretically snowball with unpredictable and unhealthy consequences.
So there it is in a nutshell. Am I ignorant, nuts, classist, racist, right on, stating the obivious(and thinking that I'm coming up with an original thought when I'm not)?
What do you think?
I'm not easily offended, so let me hear it.

Views: 1280

Replies to This Discussion

I suspect that it is they who have written us off, since they live a half continent away when there is a job (empty church pulpit) here whenever he wants it. We have visited them and they have visited us on numerous occasions, but there no longer seems to be any communication, in either direction. I accept that my wife and I are partially at fault because we refuse to get back into the box we escaped from again.
Forget where they live, many children who get along very well with their parents move far, far away from them nonetheless, there's a biological imperative to move away from your parents. I suspect that if both you and he agreed to call that topic of conversation off-limits, you would be able to resume a reasonably normal relationship. Forget boxes, don't try to convince him he's wrong, don't let him try to convince you he's right, just agree not to bring it up at all. Talk about football, or current events, or whatever. He's still the same wonderful kid you raised, he just disagrees with you on one issue.
John, I have a son (a good atheist) and two daughters (one a good atheist and the other who went 'Jesus loopy' 10 years ago because of some enlightenment vision she claims to have had). We can never talk about that subject. She went so goofy as to throw out the evolutionary experiments of a million scientists over the last 100 years and accepts instead the fairytales of the bible.
I suspect that we have given this topic about all it can stand. I have just reread your statement at the top of the page, and I have to agree that it would certainly seem that you are correct. However, one is left with the question, "What does one do about it, particularly in a democracy?" Eugenics certainly does not seem to be the answer particularly if the experience of programs set up between the world wars is any indication of their unworkability. The currently enforced one child limit on Chinese reproduction cannot be considered in a democracy, and the program currently being carried out in India is resulting in abortions of female fetuses which will eventually result in a severe imbalance between the sexes. I do not have any answers other than to recognize that an answer acceptable to all people is going to be necessary if we, as a species, are going to continue to progress. The "dumbing down" of America, and the rest of the world is now underway. I am not sure, but I feel that we are becoming victims of our success. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of babies a year are born and raised to breeding age who would not have survived early childhood were it not for the wonders of modern medicine. Maybe this is not necessarily a good thing (of course I am done breeding, so I would suggest this.) Population control for obvious reasons is not a popular subject, but sooner or later it will become a necessary topic of debate.
I'm still not sure that I agree with the original premise, since it doesn't take things like sexual selection and meme evolution into account, population control is an easy topic. At current population growth rates, in roughly 750 years there will be one human being for every square meter of land on Earth. Since this is obviously unsupportable, population control is inevitable. The open questions are whether we'll do it voluntarily or whether we'll let war/disease/famine do it for us and when we'll run out of natural resources to support us.
To suggest that we, through the auspices of government enforcement, use population control to breed in or breed out certain "desirable" characteristics is, in my view, loathsome. Who decides what those "desirable" characteristics are? We already have a mechanism for making that decision, namely sexual selection, lets just stick with that.
Teen birth rates highest in most religious states

I've heard this said before... many years ago, actually. I agree that it is "politically incorrect" and that this overtone can have quite a chilling effect on any honest, no-holds-barred discussion.

That being said... heck, yes! I'd love to spout off about this. I'd love to be completely frank, tactless and utterly politically incorrect about it, too.

That'll do for starters......
Actually I agree with most of what has been said - however we are on a cusp of perhaps a divergence of the species - this is the only time in history where there has been only one hominid.

So perhaps the way forward is as per Euan Enrqueiz's recent lecture - Homo Evolutis - a hominid who controls their future evolution - a splitting of the species - shame in circa 400 years We will not be around to see if this is the case unless ...................................
You are right and before Hitler miss-used eugenics and made the whole subject taboo, most European and American intellectuals advocated rational eugenics. The USA actually had a eugenic immigration policy and my personal tutor at the University of Surrey was a member of the Eugenics Society. After the personal details of members were published on the internet by a leftist group called Eugenics Watch the society changed it's name to The Galton Society. Nazi eugenics was wrong and unscientific. There are many very intelligent and creative Jews, indeed I am one myself. This is because Jewish law as laid down by Moses and practised for 3000 years amounts to a system of eugenics by another name. The above average intelligence of Jews is maintained by the law against marrying out. Thus racial purity is maintained. Most geneticists are secretly in favour of a rational system of artificial selection but dare not call it eugenics. I discovered all this for myself in the 1970s and made notes towards book. When I got internet access I found that others had reached the same conclusions. See www.euvolution.com for the new eugenics. Unfortunately this site also links to some blatantly racialist sites. The word eugenics was untainted by fascist association in China which has a eugenic birth control policy. Unfortunately the Chinese believe in their own racial superiority which is not supported by science. Many Chinese reject the "out of Africa" view of Human Evolution but the science supports it.
We must take control of the evolutionary process before it's too late or we face the extinction of all primates including ourselves.
EVOLOVE Spencer Primate PoE [The Primates of Earth Agents of the evolutionary process.]
"Racial purity"?

What exactly does that mean?

Unfortunately the Chinese believe in their own racial superiority which is not supported by science.

But science does support the racial "superiority" of your your particular ethnicity?
Scientifically "racial purity" is not a valid concept. Neither is racial superiority, but you cannot deny that despite their relatively small numbers Jews are prominent in science, films and entertainment, especially humour and most quantifiably as chess grandmasters. IQ testing also shows that Jews are above average and well above Africans. I make no claims of superiority, racial or otherwise. Science does not make value judgements: people do.

Spencer ©¿©¬
You used the term racial purity in your comment. You did not speak of it as being less than valid. You suggested that it is real and that its preservation has been very positive. Are you now recognizing that the concepts of racial superiority and racial purity are without scientific basis?

IQ testing also shows that Jews are above average and well above Africans.

Could it be that IQ tests are designed by some very smart Jews and, logically, slanted to favor individuals with a similar background/perspective?

I scored very well on IQ tests at a young age and was placed in a "gifted" program in elementary school. I also understand how the tests are by no means exhaustive for testing for intelligence as they're limited by considerable cultural bias.

Science does not make value judgements: people do.

People can attempt to manipulate science to make it support their biased value judgments. It's been going on for a long time. Are you doing that?




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service