In a difficult world, nature selects for intelligence. In an easy world, nature selects for wanton reproduction. In a world with birth control and abortion, nature selects for intentional reproduction combined with low time preference. We’re only a few generations into the new natural selection regime, and populations are slowly crashing while we wait to figure out who “the fittest” are.
After the introduction of hormonal birth control in NZ in 1961, it only took about 20 years to go from a TFR of well over 4 to a TFR of 2.1. That was quite a shock. The TFR then oscillated around 2.1 for about 30 years until about 2010 when it started to progressively declined to its current 1.6. Let's call that latter shock the advent of mobile digital social media.
So, while your thesis has validity it is not taking into account human's ability to respond to new information. I expect there will be a generational return to higher levels of completed fertility, at least in NZ as the information about unsustainable TFR percolates through society.
The choices of such women increased TFR from 2.4 in 1935 to 4.1 in 1960, cut TFR from 4.1 to 2.1 between 1960 and 1980 then stabilised TFR around 2.1 from 1980.
Granted, such swings are also a product of economic circumstances that are somewhat affected by government policy, technological shocks and cultural/societal changes.
East Asian nations. CCP demanding obedience to their ideology will hamper their eugenic policies. Singapore is not afraid of eugenics and would adopt embryo selection quickly, although Singapore now has been invaded by Indians through CECA. Somehow Indians are outcompeting some sinkies in getting hired, which is very very suspicious given sinkies higher intelligence levels and achievement. If the hiring manager is a CECA, no point in applying to that job.
Do you think finding polygenic scores for different subscores of intelligence could give a more nuanced picture for the Greco-Roman world, or would it prove redundant?
For example, there must be something that accounts for relatively lower (or at least, different) scientific productivity in East Asia compared to Europe, despite higher general intelligence and a greater number of people. Perhaps that is due to a mix of psychological traits besides intelligence, as well as specific facets of intelligence (spatial vs. verbal).
A similar dynamic could also have been at play in the Classical era. Ancient Greeks produced vastly more science than the Romans did, and their greater rates of innovation are also seen in cultural domains, though this is of course harder to measure objectively. It cannot simply be that the Greeks were higher in general intelligence, because the Republican-era Romans (in central Italy, at least) were already very intelligent, and that would imply a ridiculously high intelligence for the Greeks (given the contrast of almost no science vs. most of notable pre-modern science). Moreover, the Romans very easily bested the Greeks militarily, often tactically and not just through sheer demographics, which means that the Greeks could not have been intelligent enough to simply toy with the romans.
Seeking polygenic scores on psychological traits like extraversion and openness to experience will be important, I presume, as well as on intelligence subscores? What if the Ancient Greeks had, for example, much higher verbal intelligence than spatial intelligence relative to the Republican-era Romans? It might have important implications for embryo selection and gene editing.
If the difference in creative achievement is from sub-speciation, then we should see that difference in both europeans and west asians (like southeast europe versus near east). Lots of shared admixture.
There's no such thing as the black race as there's multiple sub-species of black africans. Andaman Islanders look similar, but are east eurasians (much closer to Japanese than africans), and a lot of eurasians probably looked similar to them 40k years ago.
The strong geography-genetic relatedness relationship in Eurasia makes it extremely hard to define the sub-species. I can tell you North europeans and south asians or east asians are different subspecies. But for North europeans and say levantines, I really can't say. Too many ways to divide up europeans, west asians and a couple central asians.
Then other than that, it might come from personality traits especially some psychopathic ones (full blown ASPD is not helpful). They help in challenging the establishment's belief, experimenting and alternative thinking. Creative accomplishments sets apart the gifted from geniuses. Most geniuses are gifted, but a small minority are somewhat gifted.
Since 2020, fwiw, in the US, births among the unmarried, and among native blacks whether married or not, have been crashing, which may possibly indicate a reversal of declining IQ — that IQ may be actually going up.
(The CDC WONDER database is great for that kind of investigation.)
Eugenicists actually care more about blacks than today's egalitarian types. One would fix up black American's gene pool so they behave better, have some dignity, and can achieve something. It's futile to be angry about a group's dispositions affecting how they behave, but that can't stop you from creating healthy distance between them like with segregation or apartheid.
And we all need some eugenics now anyways. We should have better elite cryobanks and get better donators.
Maybe men should fertilize elite women's eggs and have his wife be implanted and the surrogate mother. And vice versa. We should be subsidizing this as gifted who aren't squandered will make back that tax $$$ and more.
Also we should provide generous financial incentives for high-I.Q. people to create children with each other, ideally (but not necessarily) within marriage or a committed relationship. Unfortunately it is highly unlikely that any Western government will dare to do this in the foreseeable future, but why can't one or more of our billionaires establish a fund for this? Paging Elon Musk...
I suspect married black women have crashing births because the vast majority still vote Democrat.
As for eugenics, the only thing that appears to have worked effectively was traditional Christianity, especially Catholicism and the ethical elements that old-style Protestantism inherited from it. I remember reading a Joinville history of the Frankish kings and royal families, who hadn’t been Christian for very long, and they sounded like murderous, conniving cutthroats straight out of “Game of Thrones”.
Fertility vs wealth/income has a U-turn distribution, with higher left than right limb (poor breed like rabbits, very rich have somewhat more kids than the middle). I wonder if there is a similar U-turn for fertility vs intelligence?
For intelligence, the apex is multi-generational professional families. Their fertility rate is the most important.
Either way, the left side of the bell curve should assist the far right side in reproduction and be rewarded/subsidized for doing so.
That way there's ways for poor, average/below average families to make contributions to society similar to upper class/gifted members.
Could mean average men fertilizing elite egg donors and implanting it in his wife for surrogacy, vice versa. Or they go to an elite cryobank and select donors for fertility clinics to make embryos with. Both transmit their genes, just not with each other to create offspring that are inherently superior to them, which is genuine progress.
As long as the child is the same ethnic group or genetic cluster as you (e.g if you are of NW euro descent, look for donors with any NW euro ancestry).
There is only one man in Canada the single-handedly responsible for the destruction the demobilization to deconstructionization the defuncting the design thing the defecting of these four clones in Canada what are you talking about men for Brenda you don't know men you know how to pick up weakman but no one will ever f****** give any question to the one man that has led us to this point will blame Trump or you'll blame true though or you'll blame this what happens if this is the wind and the wind was by the game master himself in Canada.
You're all looking for nothing your babies your children find the architect find the hero let's bring this home
In a difficult world, nature selects for intelligence. In an easy world, nature selects for wanton reproduction. In a world with birth control and abortion, nature selects for intentional reproduction combined with low time preference. We’re only a few generations into the new natural selection regime, and populations are slowly crashing while we wait to figure out who “the fittest” are.
After the introduction of hormonal birth control in NZ in 1961, it only took about 20 years to go from a TFR of well over 4 to a TFR of 2.1. That was quite a shock. The TFR then oscillated around 2.1 for about 30 years until about 2010 when it started to progressively declined to its current 1.6. Let's call that latter shock the advent of mobile digital social media.
So, while your thesis has validity it is not taking into account human's ability to respond to new information. I expect there will be a generational return to higher levels of completed fertility, at least in NZ as the information about unsustainable TFR percolates through society.
I don’t think pretty young fertile women are going to solve the tragedy of the commons and the free rider problem in a generation.
You underestimate "pretty young fertile women".
The choices of such women increased TFR from 2.4 in 1935 to 4.1 in 1960, cut TFR from 4.1 to 2.1 between 1960 and 1980 then stabilised TFR around 2.1 from 1980.
Granted, such swings are also a product of economic circumstances that are somewhat affected by government policy, technological shocks and cultural/societal changes.
see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033465/fertility-rate-new-zealand-1855-2020/ though this doesn't show the post 2010 decline of TFR to 1.6 in the 15 years from 2010 (there are better data sources but this shows the long term changes well).
Emil (or anyone else with an opinion), what country or countries in the world do you feel the most optimistic about the long-term trajectory of?
East Asian nations. CCP demanding obedience to their ideology will hamper their eugenic policies. Singapore is not afraid of eugenics and would adopt embryo selection quickly, although Singapore now has been invaded by Indians through CECA. Somehow Indians are outcompeting some sinkies in getting hired, which is very very suspicious given sinkies higher intelligence levels and achievement. If the hiring manager is a CECA, no point in applying to that job.
This data is quite old yes? It's PISA 2000 so people born in the mid-1980s. Might be outdated.
Do you think finding polygenic scores for different subscores of intelligence could give a more nuanced picture for the Greco-Roman world, or would it prove redundant?
For example, there must be something that accounts for relatively lower (or at least, different) scientific productivity in East Asia compared to Europe, despite higher general intelligence and a greater number of people. Perhaps that is due to a mix of psychological traits besides intelligence, as well as specific facets of intelligence (spatial vs. verbal).
A similar dynamic could also have been at play in the Classical era. Ancient Greeks produced vastly more science than the Romans did, and their greater rates of innovation are also seen in cultural domains, though this is of course harder to measure objectively. It cannot simply be that the Greeks were higher in general intelligence, because the Republican-era Romans (in central Italy, at least) were already very intelligent, and that would imply a ridiculously high intelligence for the Greeks (given the contrast of almost no science vs. most of notable pre-modern science). Moreover, the Romans very easily bested the Greeks militarily, often tactically and not just through sheer demographics, which means that the Greeks could not have been intelligent enough to simply toy with the romans.
Seeking polygenic scores on psychological traits like extraversion and openness to experience will be important, I presume, as well as on intelligence subscores? What if the Ancient Greeks had, for example, much higher verbal intelligence than spatial intelligence relative to the Republican-era Romans? It might have important implications for embryo selection and gene editing.
If the difference in creative achievement is from sub-speciation, then we should see that difference in both europeans and west asians (like southeast europe versus near east). Lots of shared admixture.
There's no such thing as the black race as there's multiple sub-species of black africans. Andaman Islanders look similar, but are east eurasians (much closer to Japanese than africans), and a lot of eurasians probably looked similar to them 40k years ago.
The strong geography-genetic relatedness relationship in Eurasia makes it extremely hard to define the sub-species. I can tell you North europeans and south asians or east asians are different subspecies. But for North europeans and say levantines, I really can't say. Too many ways to divide up europeans, west asians and a couple central asians.
Then other than that, it might come from personality traits especially some psychopathic ones (full blown ASPD is not helpful). They help in challenging the establishment's belief, experimenting and alternative thinking. Creative accomplishments sets apart the gifted from geniuses. Most geniuses are gifted, but a small minority are somewhat gifted.
Since 2020, fwiw, in the US, births among the unmarried, and among native blacks whether married or not, have been crashing, which may possibly indicate a reversal of declining IQ — that IQ may be actually going up.
(The CDC WONDER database is great for that kind of investigation.)
Eugenicists actually care more about blacks than today's egalitarian types. One would fix up black American's gene pool so they behave better, have some dignity, and can achieve something. It's futile to be angry about a group's dispositions affecting how they behave, but that can't stop you from creating healthy distance between them like with segregation or apartheid.
And we all need some eugenics now anyways. We should have better elite cryobanks and get better donators.
Maybe men should fertilize elite women's eggs and have his wife be implanted and the surrogate mother. And vice versa. We should be subsidizing this as gifted who aren't squandered will make back that tax $$$ and more.
Better than subsidizing dysgenics.
Also we should provide generous financial incentives for high-I.Q. people to create children with each other, ideally (but not necessarily) within marriage or a committed relationship. Unfortunately it is highly unlikely that any Western government will dare to do this in the foreseeable future, but why can't one or more of our billionaires establish a fund for this? Paging Elon Musk...
I suspect married black women have crashing births because the vast majority still vote Democrat.
As for eugenics, the only thing that appears to have worked effectively was traditional Christianity, especially Catholicism and the ethical elements that old-style Protestantism inherited from it. I remember reading a Joinville history of the Frankish kings and royal families, who hadn’t been Christian for very long, and they sounded like murderous, conniving cutthroats straight out of “Game of Thrones”.
Absolutely cursed graph putting the UK in Europe, not the Anglosphere
Fertility vs wealth/income has a U-turn distribution, with higher left than right limb (poor breed like rabbits, very rich have somewhat more kids than the middle). I wonder if there is a similar U-turn for fertility vs intelligence?
For intelligence, the apex is multi-generational professional families. Their fertility rate is the most important.
Either way, the left side of the bell curve should assist the far right side in reproduction and be rewarded/subsidized for doing so.
That way there's ways for poor, average/below average families to make contributions to society similar to upper class/gifted members.
Could mean average men fertilizing elite egg donors and implanting it in his wife for surrogacy, vice versa. Or they go to an elite cryobank and select donors for fertility clinics to make embryos with. Both transmit their genes, just not with each other to create offspring that are inherently superior to them, which is genuine progress.
As long as the child is the same ethnic group or genetic cluster as you (e.g if you are of NW euro descent, look for donors with any NW euro ancestry).
The question is of course, is mixing genius gametes with run of the mill or worse, gametes safe?
There is only one man in Canada the single-handedly responsible for the destruction the demobilization to deconstructionization the defuncting the design thing the defecting of these four clones in Canada what are you talking about men for Brenda you don't know men you know how to pick up weakman but no one will ever f****** give any question to the one man that has led us to this point will blame Trump or you'll blame true though or you'll blame this what happens if this is the wind and the wind was by the game master himself in Canada.
You're all looking for nothing your babies your children find the architect find the hero let's bring this home