/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12591559]

Scientifically speaking, how pronounced is the dysgenic effect of the modern welfare state? Assuming this goes on more or less the same, how long before humans are no longer smart enough to maintain the systems (ie electrical/water grids, telecommunications) that we have today?

[Anonymous No.12591650]

>>12591559
I'd give it about 3 generations more. From what I've seen we're declining by about .1 sd per generation, which over 3 generations is "only" 4.5 iq points. BUT consider that a drop in 4.5 IQ points will about triple the number of severely mentally retarded individuals in our society, and that's assuming we don't experience compounding declines. Of course, it will also triple the number of people in the intelligence "criminal window" at about 80 IQ points which could have devastating effects on the number of incarcerated people across the world, not to mention causing crime rates to skyrocket in already relatively developed places, like America.

Of course, there will almost always be people qualified to run the bare bones of society, like grid maintenance and so forth, but it's the income of the overall society that's important. Income will decline drastically across the board, likely putting companies out of business which would then have a domino effect on society until the 1st world no longer exists.

[Anonymous No.12591664]

>>12591559
>all 1s
this must be proof of intent, an intellect behind the universe

[Anonymous No.12591681]

>>12591559
>Scientifically speaking
sure, pal, whatever you say.

[Anonymous No.12591688]

>>12591664
This has to be bait, you do know the meaning of "per capita" right?

[Anonymous No.12591711]

>>12591559
>dysgenic effect of the modern welfare state?
I don't think welfare has done much. People don't die from being poor, and poor and bad genes have fairly bad correlation over lifetimes and generations. Welfare socialist countries like Canada and Denmark aren't obviously doing worse than non-welfare states like China and Liberia.

Antibiotics and vaccines have done far more. They've dropped child mortality in the lower class way down compared to 100 years ago.

[Anonymous No.12591732]

>>12591688
yes anon it was all a ruse

[Anonymous No.12591741]

>>12591559
Humans are diverging not converging

We will not become a crap set of genetics, but a segment of the population will.

The velocity at which we are evolving increases with population and is going in multiple directions

[Anonymous No.12591765]

>>12591559
>SHYUNTIFFUCKLY SHPEEKIN
shut the fuck up and go back

[Anonymous No.12591780]

>>12591711
Is this it? Will we either have to turn into an authoritarian eugenic state like China, or become stupid and atrophy?

Even China's IQ will inevitably decline once they achieve a certain standard of living inside their middle and upper class and their population starts to decline. It seems the only winning move is not to play.

[Anonymous No.12591877]

>>12591732
Huehuehue.gif

[Anonymous No.12592559]

>>12591650
I would disagree. Its obvious this is coming and smart people will position themselves to avoid the outcome. For example they will build private, defensible communities, effectively small but high tech independent nations, where they can exclude pig fucking stupid boring people like this one >>12591688

[Anonymous No.12592680]

>Idiocracy was a documentary

[Anonymous No.12592850]

for multiple centuries anyone remotely intellectual was either exiled/executed or castrated and became a monk in europe. we turned out fine.

[Anonymous No.12592854]

>>12591559
very pronounced

[Anonymous No.12592887]

>>12591664
kek

[Anonymous No.12592890]

>>12591681
it is you that must answer scientifically to his question, retarded monkey

[Anonymous No.12592937]

what interests me is this: most people who are university graduats marry, procreate wit other graduats. more generally, inetlligent people mostly get with intelligent people. on a long enough timeline, with a low enough migration between thes quazi pupulations, wouldnt that leed to speciation?

[Anonymous No.12592969]

>>12592559
I hate this cope so much. Try starting your little commune and get killed by feds in 5 minutes. This system doesnt tolerate any serius separation from it

[Anonymous No.12593006]

>>12591559
>Scientifically speaking, how pronounced is the dysgenic effect of the modern welfare state?
Scientifically speaking, you might have mild mental retardation. And to answer your question: no effect.

[Anonymous No.12593122]

>>12592680
Oh no you greentexted a statement and attached a wojak, that means you win the argument

[Anonymous No.12593126]

>>12591559
quite pronounced. white IQs in norway have been falling for over a decade.

C-sections select for quick maturing r-types

It's even worse than it looks because all 1st world IQs are inflated by about 10 points. Yes, including basketball americans

[Anonymous No.12593132]

>>12592969
>I hate this cope so much. Try starting your little commune and get killed by feds in 5 minutes
that doesn't happen when the guys who start the commune are the same guys who control the feds

[Anonymous No.12593151]

>>12591559
>dysgenic

>all these serious replies
God, how low this place has sunk.

[Anonymous No.12593203]

>>12593151
you think that dysgenics don't exist? are all living humans equally eugenic?

[Anonymous No.12593303]

>>12593203
The entire premise is false. What genes are better and what genes are worse is for the most subjective. Also that intelligence isn't as explicitly sexually attractive as other physical characteristics is interesting if not telling. It could imply that intelligence is significantly determined by environmental factors in the same way wealth is or that deviations in intelligence aren't significant/important as deviations in physical aptitude.

[Anonymous No.12593336]

>>12593126
Are you talking about the Flynn effect ? Why is it "inflated" ?

[Anonymous No.12593362]

>>12593303
Oh wow, Apparently if you have 2 schizophrenic parent you have 40% chance to be schizophrenic. Almost no people on earth would want to get this disease knowing the symptoms. Genes are very subjective alright.

In conclusion : you are a retard and don't have the mental capacity to judge this place.

[Anonymous No.12593392]

>>12591559
That is the least of your problem. Free market is much worse, as it selects for viciousness, and all the human advancement from language onwards depends on the DESIRE to communicate. You can already see that people already behave more like beasts than people, and indeed the ability to speak is on a noticeable decline. A few generations were enough to undo thousands of years of development, not being able to speak might be seen as perfectly normal in the following decades and being able to could be considered a form of autism (to the degree the beast will be able to have such thoughts) and deserving mockery in the following century.

[Anonymous No.12593439]

>>12593303
clearly 'dysgenic' means less conducive to being a productive, stable member of civilized society

[Anonymous No.12593442]

>>12591559
A race of beautiful thicc amazon women and small cute boys with big dicks is coming.

[Anonymous No.12594597]

>>12593392
autists are much less likely to be sexually successful though

[Anonymous No.12594845]

>>12592850
>for multiple centuries anyone remotely intellectual was either exiled/executed or castrated and became a monk in europe. we turned out fine.

but the entire population was also getting smarter, if the entire population becomes dumber, smart people will not "turn out fine"

[Anonymous No.12594850]

>>12593126
>for over a decade
since the 90's so its more like 25 years, close to 3 decades

[Anonymous No.12595971]

>>12591559
>Scientifically speaking, how pronounced is the dysgenic effect of the modern welfare state?
Absolutely zero. In fact, it can possibly have an eugenic effect since it implies people have more free time to dedicate to intellectual activities.

>Assuming this goes on more or less the same
The assumption is wrong, since the welfare state is being completely demolished since at least the late 70s, and the demolition is now almost complete.

[Anonymous No.12595981]

Oh look another thinly veiled iq thread

[Anonymous No.12596034]

>>12594597
That's kind of the point.

[Anonymous No.12596075]

>>12593336
Flynn effect is measuring increases in education, thus people are better more familiar with the content on IQ tests before they actually do them, thus they do better, despite no genuine increases in general intelligence . James Flynn calls this event "scientific spectacles". Different subtests are more prone to these. For example some IQ subtests tests you can increase your performance by practicing them, or doing similar tasks that carry over. Meanwhile some are more immune to any performance increases. Any rises in IQ test performance, so the Flynn are only found in the more environmentally impressionable subtests called the Jensen effect (more precisely the Jensen effect just means More g loaded the task = More heritable the performance on the task)

When looking at performance on the more innate measures of intelligence (which includes per capita rate of major innovations per year), There is a clear decline in performance since the 1850's (called the Woodley effect). Furthermore less intelligent people have more children, and the gene frequencies of particular genes found in Higher IQ people have been decreasing per year indicating ,for genetic reasons, general intelligence should be going down. Simultaneously we have the increases in the environmentally impressionable components of IQ test to mask the genetic decline in intelligence (called the co-occurrence model)

I would provide sources but I couldn't be bothered. You can look up all the effects and model shit on google, you will find plenty of sources.

Also pic related is us by the end of the century, that or we're all dead.

[Anonymous No.12596089]

>>12593303
>What genes are better and what genes are worse is for the most subjective
>how long before humans are no longer smart enough to maintain the systems (ie electrical/water grids, telecommunications) that we have today?

OP is considering genes opposed to modern infrastructure to be dysgenic. So no the entire premise is not false wetard.

[Anonymous No.12596092]

>>12593392
>Free market is much worse, as it selects for viciousness
No it don't wetard.

[Anonymous No.12596718]

>>12596092
You succeed by being a selfish bastard, being cooperative ruins you in free market.

[Anonymous No.12598874]

>>12596718
>You succeed by being a selfish bastard
Financially succeed* (firstly that's a huge incorrect assertion but whatever). That's halve the equation, you have to prove that being financially well off results in increase fecundity. In reality people sacrifice their own fertility by abstaining to have kids, to give them an edge up in the corporate ladder.

In reality, People with more cooperative, less psychopathic personalizes are breading more.

http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1619.pdf