It's just baffling. If Europeans are super-intelligence, civilized beings, and South Americans were super-intelligence, civilized beings (I mean Fred's right, it's not like you can use one metric to determine one without likewise the other - save the human sacrifice bit) why then would the resulting hispanics be lowering our intelligence by coming to America?What bugs me about some of these race realists and they seem to have gone overboard with the gene beliefs and seem to think everything nowadays is "locked in." Well... I mean, just look at what mankind has accomplished with dog breeding. Things that would have probably taken millenia to evolve we accomplished within decades of focused, conscious effort.And I'm not talking about eugenics, but what if there was social or cultural pressures on a society, could they push IQ up or down? (well they'd almost have to otherwise IQs would have to be perma-static)Hypothetically civilization itself might be boiled down to the aggregate of female selection. If on average females select for and breed with long-term thinking, more adv-civ inclined males than short-term, low-civ males, then advance civilization will start to rise. If, however, more low-civ males breed, then civilization will decline. Thus the rise & fall of civilizations might be predictable: conditions cause females to prefer adv-civ men -> more are bred -> adv-civ is created -> it advances enough to reach a "leisure" or decadent stage -> women start selecting for the low-civ males (who give them tingles) -> civilization starts falling apart. Orientals thus have maintained civilization stability at least as it seems they've set up a culture/society to keep adv-civ men in preference. Jews, with their long history & culture of valuing scholars likewise maintains a strong adv-civ population. Being born from that root, many Christian nations seem to follow the same example, which would further explain the fall of atheist nations as they have no strong culture to force & encourage the breeding of adv-civ men.It's rather ironic in that it seems like leftism has embraced that culture is the source of all human outcomes, so many on the right are now embracing that genes are the source of all human outcomes. But what if it's a flexible feedback loop? Genes lead to culture, but changes in culture can lead to changes in genes? It's an idea so big, no wonder they all try to simplify it.
Post a Comment