Website Sections
- Home Page
- Library of Eugenics
- Genetic Revolution News
- Science
- Philosophy
- Politics
- Nationalism
- Cosmic Heaven
- Eugenics
- Transhuman News Blog
- Future Art Gallery
- NeoEugenics
- Contact Us
- About the Website
- Site Map
News Categories
- Artificial Intelligence
- Astronomy
- Cyborg
- Eugenics
- Freedom
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Liberty
- Nanotechnology
- NASA
- Spirituality
- Transhuman
- Mesothelioma
Partners
IQ Decline
How can we best protect the interests of still unborn generations?
This is extremely difficult in a world where many regard
children as an ordinary commodity. The so-called
“demographic transition,” in which people in advanced societies
choose to have fewer children, is even studied by economists
and demographers in all manner of curves, graphs, and
charts, establishing the cost of one child as the equivalent of
X number of automobiles, televisions, or what have you.
What are the consequences for the gene pool of selecting
out young women of ability to pursue education and careers,
thus reducing their fertility (in 20% of U.S. couples, delayed
fertility turns out to be cancelled fertility) while remunerating
young women of lesser ability on the basis of how many
children they bear, even denying them abortions when they
themselves request them?
Whereas girls in countries with developed welfare programs
can choose to escape school by becoming pregnant if
they find themselves unable to cope with an academic program,
an early 2001 study showed that fully a third of American
women earning more than $55,000 a year are childless at
age 40 and are likely to live out their lives without ever giving
birth.
While “Total Fertility Rates” (TFR – the number of children
a woman has in her lifetime) represent an important
yardstick in measuring fertility patterns, generational length
also plays a role. Obviously, the earlier a woman begins having
children, the more offspring she can bear. Imagine two
groups, in one of which women have their children at the average
age of 20 and the other at 30. The first group will effectively
have 50% more children than the other group even if
the TFR is identical. In the New York Longitudinal Study of
Youth, for example, women in the bottom 5% of intelligence
had their first baby more than seven years earlier than
women in the top 5%.
Abortion is significant in terms of the eugenics argument
to the degree that it affects selection, particularly when the
service is readily available to high-IQ groups, who can easily
pay for it, but is denied to low-IQ groups, who are dependent
on receiving the service on a subsidized or free basis. The
abortion rate is related to years of education, which can be
used as an imperfect substitute for IQ. In 1979, the standardized
U.S. abortion rate by years of education for women 20
years of age and older was 44.3 for women with a high school
education but only 3.2 for those who had less than eight years
of schooling.
Another significant dysgenic factor is war. The creature
who sees himself as molded in the image of God has used his
improved technology to do vastly greater violence not only to
his environment but also to himself. And it has been the
egalitarians, not the hereditarians, who have been the least
squeamish about murder and exile, be it in Russia, China, or
Cambodia. There is a sad consistency to their logic: if everyone
is the same, anyone who interferes with achieving utopia
in our time can simply be eliminated and replaced when the
next generation shows up.
War as a destructive mechanism of natural selection became
a frequently discussed topic when “the flower” of
Europe’s youth marched off to die en masse in the trenches of
World War I. It was, after all, this particular conflict which
introduced IQ testing to select out young men of ability more
accurately for use as cannon fodder.
In instances of violent civil conflict, too, force is targeted
most heavily at the real and potential opposition. Since opposition
by definition involves thought and ideological dedication,
the targets of destruction, more frequently than not, are
persons of ability. The historian Nathaniel Weyl christened
the phenomenon “aristocide.”18 Statistical analysis demonstrates
that such a process produces a relatively modest lowering
of the mean population IQ, but disastrous reductions in
the number of persons with exceptionally high scores.
The contribution of outstanding individuals to culture,
science, and the general quality of life is disproportionate to
their numbers. Just imagine what the history of music would
be like without just a handful of the great composers – Bach,
Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Stravinsky, Mendelssohn. The
same sort of “short list” could be made up of physicists,
mathematicians, philosophers. Eliminate these geniuses and
the average ability level of the next generations will not be
altered perceptibly, but how impoverished our world would
be!
The consequences of such a process are obviously alarming.
Even with a relatively stable mean IQ, a society in which
the intellectual leadership is significantly reduced is an impoverished
society – at least relative to its original state. The
lesson to be drawn is that the turbulence and magnitude of
social upheaval do not have a necessary relationship to their
genetic consequences.