Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Human Evolution and Possible IQ Degeneration

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Bittereinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, May 6th, 2019 @ 06:52 PM
    Ethnicity
    Boer
    Ancestry
    Netherlands, Germany & Norway
    Subrace
    Faordiby
    State
    Orange Free State Orange Free State
    Location
    Grootrivier
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Cognitive Dissident
    Politics
    Verwoerdian
    Religion
    Heretic
    Posts
    1,593
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    200
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    281
    Thanked in
    159 Posts

    Exclamation Human Evolution and Possible IQ Degeneration

    Human evolution

    By Paul Cooijmans


    Introduction


    Opinions differ on how humans have come to inhabit the world; Some think we really are pure mind, and have descended into material forms many times over the past few billions of years. Others believe it started with Adam and Eve, created by God. Again others say aliens from outer space landed here and interbred with apes, resulting in us; and currently popular is the theory we evolved in Africa about 100 000 years ago and spread out from there, replacing all other humans already living in Europe, Africa and Asia.

    I became interested in the scientific facts regarding this matter, and read a number of books and visited web sites about it. A review of what appeared to me follows. For consistency, I express time as "B.C." (Before Christ) throughout to avoid confusion with the unsatisfactory "years ago" that is often used in these matters. To express time in "years ago" is a bit like acting as the barge-hand who dropped his watch overboard at night and marked the railing with chalk to remember where to drag the next morning.


    From Australopithecus to Homo

    The, for humans, interesting phase of evolution starts about 2.5 million B.C. in Africa. Australopithecus afarensis (or perhaps another species of Australopithecus), an upright walking creature with a skeleton very much like modern humans, but a much smaller brain and matching skull, started a gradual transition into what is considered the first real human, Homo erectus. This transition took almost a million years. The first parts of these names, Australopithecus and Homo, refer to the "genus" in question; A genus is a family of species. The second part refers to the species. A possible third part refers to the subspecies (or race, which is the same). Important to know is that individuals of different species as a rule do not interbreed, although closely related species can interbreed, e.g. horse and donkey.

    A circumstance that is thought to be relevant is that the "gracile" variant of afarensis, originally a herbivore, forced by drought began to eat meat as a scavenger (not necessarily as a hunter) and by picking up small crawling animals from the ground (like ants). The extra protein and energy thus taken in may have allowed their (highly energy-consuming) brains to become larger than was possible on a herbivorous diet. The "robust" variant, which stuck to eating the plants and leaves still available, did not develop a larger brain. Afarensis' original cranial capacity was similar to that of modern chimpanzees and averaged in the low 400s (cubic centimetres), while early erectus had about 900 cc, which is in the bottom range of currently living humans. The intermediate forms, the larger-brained gracile afarensis which are often called Homo habilis and not generally accepted as humans, averaged at 640 cc. Current humans have on average 1300 cc, with a range of about 900 to 1800 (It differs per sex and population).

    Probably as a result of the larger brain, the habilis forms were able to use and make tools, and it is in particular this making of tools that is said to be unique to humans (The mere use of tools occurs in several other animals too). Habilis lived from somewhere between 2.5 and 2 million to 1.5 million B.C., and it is thought they were not one well-defined species but several parallel forms, of which perhaps only one evolved, via another intermediate stage that has been termed Homo ergaster, into Homo erectus while the other vanished. Erectus appeared around 1.8 to 1.6 million B.C. Even though one believes they evolved in Africa, the oldest erectus fossils have been found not too long ago in Georgia, Asia.
    The larger brain went with changes in the skull surrounding it. This process of changing skull features goes on until today; Here is an overview of archaic versus advanced features:


    Archaic

    • Receding lower jaw ("no chin");
    • Big teeth (adapted to chewing raw food);
    • Projecting upper jaw and middle part of the face (to allow for big teeth; a "round" face therefore);
    • Pronounced brow ridge above the eyes (interrupted in the middle in less archaic forms);
    • Receding forehead;
    • Relatively flat low top of the skull;
    • High attachment of the neck muscles at the back of the skull (a high neck).


    Advanced

    • Projecting lower jaw (a "pronounced chin");
    • Small teeth (adapted to chewing cooked food which is easier);
    • Less or not projecting upper jaw and middle part of the face (possible because of the smaller teeth; a "flat" face therefore);
    • No or very small brow ridges above the eyes;
    • Steep or vertical forehead;
    • High round top of the skull;
    • Low attachment of the neck muscles at the back of the skull.


    Homo erectus populates the world


    Between 1.8 million and 1 million B.C. erectus began to migrate from Africa to east Asia and Europe, arriving there some time before 800 000 B.C. (southeast Asia) and before 700 000 B.C. (Europe). China and the northern parts of Europe would be inhabited by their more advanced descendants somewhat later, because of the cold ice age conditions which required more adaptation.

    With respect to population size one must realize they lived as hunter-gatherers, which requires fairly much surface area per unit of population. Realistic is about one person per 10 to 25 square kilometres, and much more than that would have meant overpopulation and food shortage, forcing part of them to migrate. So, success at increasing population size would have been a driving force behind their spreading out over the world.

    In this period, erectus, thought to have been capable of some speech (though far from modern language and probably without grammar) which would have facilitated cooperation when hunting, learnt to master the fire on different locations and in different periods independently. Fire was useful for hunting, to inhabit caves, to stay warm, to keep wild animals away and to cook food. Chewing cooked food is easier, so this allowed for the transition to smaller teeth and less protruding jaws; to a flatter face. Cooking also transforms certain molecules in the food into forms more easily digestible, thus increasing the food's nutritional value. Cranial capacity increased to an average around 1100 cc for the later erectus. The upper limit of their cranial capacity is mostly given as 1225 cc, which is well into the range of current humans.

    Erectus is usually said to have lived until about 250 000 B.C., but this rests entirely on how the fossils are classified; Much more recent fossils of erectus-like humans have been found and are being found now and then (just follow the news and pay attention), but one then tends to use location-specific or popular names and avoids explicitly classifying them as either erectus or sapiens. There is great reluctance to use the name erectus for humans who lived as recently as tens of thousands, or even thousands or hundreds, of years ago, probably because using that word seems incompatible with the presently dominant "Out of Africa" theory. It is now clear though that the recently discovered Homo floriensis of Flores was a pygmee variant of Homo erectus and its fossils have been dated as late as 10 000 B.C., while the current local inhabitants still know tales of the extinct hairy creatures.


    "Archaic Homo sapiens" and Homo neanderthalensis

    The forms that appeared between about 500 000 and some time after 100 000 B.C. are now usually described as "archaic Homo sapiens"; These are transitional forms between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, with a cranial capacity averaging around 1200 cc. Should one choose to classify these under the species erectus, then the life span of erectus would extend much further than 250 000 B.C. The descriptive term "archaic Homo sapiens" is unsatisfactory in that it avoids assigning a proper species name to these transitional forms. I personally tend to include these forms, with their archaic skull features, with the species erectus, perhaps as a subspecies Homo erectus sapiens.

    The "archaic Homo sapiens" forms lived in Africa, Asia (including China) and Europe (including the cold northern parts up to what is now Germany and Belgium). They were capable of dealing with cold better than was erectus. Many different names have been given to these transitional forms, often related to the place where the fossils were found, but the general descriptive term "archaic Homo sapiens" seems to have replaced those, except for in the case of Homo neanderthalensis; the Neanderthals. Neanderthals, a cold-adapted European form of archaic sapiens with a large cranial capacity around 1450 cc but archaic skull features, have been given their own species name. Some scientists have even included them with Homo sapiens as the subspecies Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, after which actual Homo sapiens had to be renamed Homo sapiens sapiens, but more recently one has been inclined to return to the viewpoint that they are a species of their own - Homo neanderthalensis (And subsequently our second sapiens disappears and we become simply Homo sapiens again).

    The matter of how exactly to classify Neanderthals is related to the question whether or not they were (capable of) interbreeding with contemporary Homo sapiens; To call them Homo sapiens neanderthalensis would imply they were well capable of interbreeding, since with that name they would be two races of the same species. But nowadays consensus holds that Neanderthals did not interbreed on large scale with Homo sapiens, so that the name Homo neanderthalensis is more logical. It leaves open the possibility that they could interbreed, but says that as a rule they did not.

    Neanderthals lived from about 250 000 to 25 000 B.C. Again, this first date is arbitrary and depends on how one classifies the fossils. Pre-Neanderthal forms were already present around 400 000 B.C., but those are mostly included with "archaic Homo sapiens". Neanderthals as a separate group vanished around 25 000 B.C.; They were either replaced by the Cro-Magnons who entered their territories coming from the Middle-East around 35 000 B.C., or absorbed into them by interbreeding. I now think the first is the most likely.


    Homo sapiens


    By about 90 000 B.C., some groups of archaic Homo sapiens had evolved skull features sufficiently advanced for them to be given the species name Homo sapiens. These lived in the Middle-East and in Africa. The ones in the Middle-East migrated to Europe where they arrived around 35 000 B.C., and are called Cro-Magnon, after the place where they were first found. These Cro-Magnons had an even larger cranial capacity than had Neanderthals, perhaps averaging around 1550 cc. They were technologically somewhat more advanced than Neanderthals, and also produced art. Like the Neanderthals, they buried their dead.

    Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals both descended from erectus, but there is doubt as to whether Cro-Magnons were descendants from African erectus (via African archaic sapiens and sapiens forms who migrated to the Middle-East), or from European erectus. In the latter case, this would imply that European erectus, also called Homo heidelbergensis, split into two branches around 500 000 B.C., one in the north leading to Neanderthals, and one in the southeast leading to Cro-Magnons. Relevant in this respect is that the Pre-Neanderthal fossils found in Europe, dated 400 000 to 200 000 B.C., tend to display a mixture of Neanderthal and sapiens features, suggesting that European erectus had the potential to evolve into either. The later clustering of Neanderthal features into actual Neanderthals was adaptive in cold circumstances, while the clustering of sapiens features in humans from the Middle-East and Africa was adaptive in warmer areas.

    Cro-Magnons as a group - to be regarded a race or subspecies of Homo sapiens - lived at least until 10 000 B.C. For thousands of years they co-existed in Europe and the Middle-East with the Neanderthals, which disappeared around 25 000 B.C. Around 10 000 B.C. the ice age ended, and life became easier in Europe. People from other regions - Homo sapiens, presumably - migrated to Europe and fused with or pushed out the Cro-Magnons, which therefore as good as vanished between 10 000 and 2000 B.C. People with apparently Cro-Magnon ancestry, called Cro-Magnoids, existed until about 2000 B.C. Currently, only the indigenous inhabitants of the Canary Islands (Guanches) and the Dal people of Sweden are thought to be pure Cro-Magnon descendants. Les pure descendants of the Cro-Magnons may be the Berbers of north Africa (in the remote past considered identical or closely related to the Guanches), possibly the Basques, and, more speculatively, some of the native American tribes.

    Cro-Magnons were hunter-gatherers, but appear to have lived in a semi-settled way, inhabiting the same cave the whole year round for a number of years. This was possible because they made a more efficient use of the natural resources than did Neanderthals. For instance, they ate fish when available.


    Advent of agriculture

    Between 8000 and 4000 B.C., agriculture and cattle herding were discovered (presumably by the people who entered Europe after the end of the ice age, but also at several places elsewhere in the world in this same period), and the hunter-gatherers became or were replaced by farmers. Some think this may have resulted in a lower quality diet. Also, the groups which fused with or pushed aside the Cro-Magnons after 10 000 B.C. probably were less advanced and had smaller brains than the latter. They were only able to come to Europe after the ice age had ended, while Cro-Magnons had been living for over 25 000 years in harsh conditions already. In the milder post- ice age climate, there was less pressure for natural selection. All in all, this may have been a period of gradual degeneration resulting in modern Europeans, who have brains about 200 cc smaller than had Cro-Magnons.

    Relevant about farming is that it allows higher population densities than does the hunter-gatherer life style. The word "overpopulation" means something entirely different for farmers than it does for hunter-gatherers; Farming may sustain several to several dozens of people per square kilometre, while for hunter-gatherers "overpopulation" means to have more than one person per, say, 10 square kilometres. This is important also with regard to the question of famine in the Third World.

    Another fact on farming is that it requires higher intelligence than does the hunter-gatherer life style. To appreciate this, one may consider that many animals can hunt and gather food, but the only animal that can farm is also the only to have flown to the Moon.

    Recently (2008) D.N.A. studies are said to have suggested that a large majority of Western Europeans are descended from the long-skulled hunter-gatherers who lived here during the last ice age (so that must be Cro-Magnons, although one avoids that term now), and a minority from those who entered Europe after the ice age (broad-skulled people now called "farmers"). These results would imply that the newcomers did not replace the Cro-Magnons, but rather that the latter adopted the new agricultural technology (and Indo-European language) and stayed in place. The further west you go, the larger the proportion of Cro-Magnon-descendants. The distinction between Celtic and Germanic peoples is probably not a genetic one but a cultural and linguistic one; The Celts are those who retained their original ice-age language, the others adopted the new Indo-European languages brought along from the east.
    Australians

    Meanwhile from southeast Asia, Australia had been inhabited some time before 40 000 B.C., possibly as early as 60 000 B.C. These people, presumably Homo sapiens by that time, came from Indonesia, and perhaps there was also a group from south China. Judging from their skull features, including those of living Australians, they had plausibly evolved from the east Asian variants of archaic Homo sapiens, which in turn descended from the east Asian variants of erectus. East Asia in particular is a region where there is continuity in skull features from the regional erectus to the regional, currently living, sapiens.

    The popular "Out of Africa" theory though claims that ALL now living humans descend from a group of Homo sapiens that migrated from Africa after 70 000 B.C., humanity having gone through a "bottleneck" (near extinction) shortly before that and this tiny group being the only survivors. Since these were supposed to be anatomically modern, this theory seems to imply that, once in Australia, they must have evolved back into a form with archaic skull features (Current Australians still have projecting jaws, big teeth and pronounced brow ridges). Also, in the "Out of Africa" theory, the split between Europeans and east Asians supposedly took place around 40 000 B.C., which is not compatible with the archaeological evidence for inhabitation of north Australia (about 60 000 B.C.). To accept this earliest evidence of sapient life in Australia implies to reject "Out of Africa". I am therefore inclined to think that the "multi-regional" hypothesis is more likely; that is, the idea that erectus evolved regionally, via local archaic sapiens forms, into Homo sapiens, with of course migration going on.

    However, recent genetic studies seem to confirm "Out of Africa", so if we accept that, it means Australia got only inhabited around 40 000 B.C. by the very earliest migrants from Africa, and the archaeological evidence for much earlier inhabitation has to be rejected.

    The essential difference between "Out of Africa" and "Multi-regional" is that in the first the differentiation between present-day populations (races) was established within the last 70 000 years and most likely much later (the last about 12 000 years), while in the latter it was established within the last 1 to 1.5 million years. Unfortunately, this essentially scientific debate has become contaminated with ideology and politics, with Marxist intellectuals and the media generally supporting "Out of Africa" for other than scientific motives. "Out of Africa" is nearly always presented as an established fact in popular publications, documentaries, and in the news, and this is a misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs since it is merely a theory. What can be said is that modern genetic studies confirm "Out of Africa", but that the archaeological evidence in itself allows, and perhaps makes more likely, other interpretations.

    Interesting about southeast Asia is that on Java there is evidence that erectus survived until as recent as 25 000 B.C. Given that Australia got inhabited well before that via Indonesia by people who still have archaic features, this makes one wonder; Were those migrants Homo sapiens by the time of migration (and if so, were they "Out of Africa", or were they Asian sapiens?), were they local archaic sapiens, or were they even local erectus? The answer to that question lies in the dating of Aboriginal art (ochre on rock paintings), assuming that the production of art is characteristic of Homo sapiens. Such work has been dated between 25 000 and 30 000 B.C., and there is indirect evidence for art up to 38 000 B.C. (which is as far back as carbon dating goes). Even more indirect evidence suggests artistic activity (but without surviving work) virtually since Australia got inhabited, which might be about 60 000 B.C. So they may have been Homo sapiens when they arrived, or otherwise they were local archaic sapiens and made the transition not too long thereafter (in which case this transition took place later than it did in Africa and the Middle East).

    Again, recent genetic studies imply the Australians are "Out of Africa" sapiens who arrived not much earlier than about 40 000 B.C.


    Americans

    America got inhabited, as is now commonly assumed, via a land bridge to Alaska, by Asians, from about 13 000 B.C. on to the end of the ice age, when the land bridge disappeared again. The earliest Americans ended up in south and central America it seems, while the later migrants inhabited north America. It is possible the Americans came from different parts of Asia; the north Americans from the east, the central and south Americans perhaps from more western parts of Asia. However, there exist archaeological findings of mammoth hunters from Mexico that are as old as 20 000 to 25 000 B.C. (carbon-dated), that do not fit the current theory. If there were people there as early as that, they can almost only have come from across the Atlantic. Some also suggest that people from the Pacific islands have reached south America.

    So if the current theory about America's inhabitation is wrong, it is most likely wrong about the south and central Americans, and least likely wrong about the most northern Americans who actually LOOK like east Asians and had the land bridge to help them get where they are. Other relevant facts in this respect are that some native south American peoples are said to look or have looked like Africans, and that the language of some American tribes is or was very similar to that of the Basques. Those facts fit a cross-Atlantic presence of humans in Europe, Africa, and America, well before Asians came to Alaska. Some connect this to the legend of Atlantis, and to Cro-Magnons as a sea-faring people. All in all, the origin of Americans is still puzzling at this time. Recent information, as usual presented as establish fact, holds that they did come from Asia after all, along the very edge of Beringia and then further along the west coast of America. Supposedly, that coastal edge was still inhabitable even though the rest of the land bridge was covered with ice then.


    Civilization and intelligence


    Remarkable in the prehistoric part of the era from about 10 000 B.C. on is the decline that seems to occur after peaks in civilization and technology. The people who achieved tremendous feats like building the various types of pyramids in various parts of the world, Stonehenge, the statues on Easter Island and so on, subsequently lost that ability and even forgot what the purpose of such works had been and how they had been built. In the light of the future of our current civilization it is of key importance to understand how this decline came about.

    Considering what I know of intelligence and its relation to real life and society, such decline must have been caused by a decrease in modal (most occurring) intelligence in the population in question. Possibly also by a lower frequency or absence of genius. Apparently, modal intelligence rises in a population as an adaptation to environmental circumstances, initially to survive in the given environment. Once intelligence reaches certain levels, it causes forms of civilization to occur beyond mere survival, such as art, architecture, cities, large-scale organization, administration, ethics, and so on. But, once high civilization is reached, modal intelligence drops again, possibly through causes like relaxed selection pressures, various dysgenic effects, and migration. Then, they reached civilizational level is lost and sometimes even forgotten about. Other populations may pick up intelligence and civilization on their own meanwhile or thereafter. But whether the strain that degenerates will rise again anytime soon is doubtful. I advise not to take the risk.


    Estimates of modal intelligence for various stages in evolution and civilization


    Being interested in intelligence, I have tried to estimate the modal (most occurring) intelligence levels of the various populations and stages of human evolution. In this table they are expressed on the I.Q. scale where the current Western population has its mean at 100 and standard deviation at 15. These modes should be taken as the centres of actual modal ranges. For instance, a mode of 85 would mean that a large part of that population is within plus or minus 5 to 10 points from 85. Obviously, there exist individuals who are far removed from the mode, and important discoveries like tool-making and the mastery of the fire will have been made by the smarter ones from a group.



    Similar estimations, expressed in terms of minimal modal I.Q.'s required for various stages of civilization; These are still modal I.Q.s of populations, not individual I.Q.s:



    As an aside it may be noticed that when I.Q. levels are connected to civilizational stages like this, I.Q. becomes an absolute scale, rather than the merely relative scale it constitutes when derived from test score statistics.


    Origin and development of the intelligence required for the higher civilizational levels


    Societies with large-scale organization and other advanced features, that require a modal I.Q. of at least 80 according to the above section, have been founded by peoples who priorly had been living in areas with moderate to cold climates where they had to deal with periods of ice age conditions. In such periods they withdrew to places that were still inhabitable, but nevertheless many were undoubtedly killed by food shortage or cold, and those surviving were a select few.

    When later the climate became better permanently (or when they migrated to more friendly areas), these were the people who became the founders of large civilizations. The raw ice age intelligence was then apparently invested, crystallized, into culture. And again later, it appears the intelligence that had led to civilization was in some cases lost, possibly because the selective pressure that had produced it (cold conditions) had disappeared, possibly also by other dysgenic effects that inevitably occur in high civilization.

    The pattern seems to be that cold conditions produce peoples of high intelligence. This intelligence is initially of a raw and uncultured nature, visual-spatial and numerical rather than verbal. When conditions then improve, one uses this new intelligence to build civilizations. In that process, culture is produced, language refined, and verbal ability rises. For some time, overall intelligence may be rising as a result of increasing verbal ability. But then, through relaxed selection pressure and other dysgenic effects that are inherent to civilization, general intelligence starts going down, mainly on the visual-spatial and numerical aspects. Eventually, civilization may disappear again, or be taken over by another people still in the eugenic phase of this process.

    Characteristic for the eugenic phase of this rise to civilization are high spatial and numerical ability, lower verbal ability, and an uncultured, "barbaric" nature. For instance, the medieval Germanic peoples, having been pushed southward by severe climate cooling, appeared barbaric to the degenerating latter-day Romans; and several centuries later the sophisticated Arabs, then at their cultural summit, were still appalled by the Germanics' bad table manners. The Germanics (or "Germans", as some say) however rose to civilization during the Middle Ages and became the world's leading culture in the Renaissance. Currently, some east-Asian peoples are clearly in this rising phase.

    Characteristic for the dysgenic phase are high verbal ability (which facilitates deceit and relativistic philosophizing), decreasing spatial and numerical ability and therewith decreasing general intelligence, and a highly cultured, sophisticated, permissive, decadent-degenerative nature on the whole. Western civilization, the product of the Germanic peoples, has probably entered this phase in the second half of the twentieth century.
    Source

    Interesting website: http://www.paulcooijmans.com/
    Although the word "Commando" was wrongly used to describe all Boer soldiers, a commando was a unit formed from a particular district. None of the units was organized in regular companies, battalions or squadrons. The Boer commandos were individualists who were difficult to control, resented formal discipline or orders, and earned a British jibe that"every Boer was his own general".

  2. #2
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Bittereinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, May 6th, 2019 @ 06:52 PM
    Ethnicity
    Boer
    Ancestry
    Netherlands, Germany & Norway
    Subrace
    Faordiby
    State
    Orange Free State Orange Free State
    Location
    Grootrivier
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Cognitive Dissident
    Politics
    Verwoerdian
    Religion
    Heretic
    Posts
    1,593
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    200
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    281
    Thanked in
    159 Posts

    Down the ladder


    Writing my article Human evolution, I could not help but wonder what would happen if humans degenerated down the evolutionary ladder. Below is my vision of this chilling subject. Be warned that it will not be pretty but make you shiver and cold to the bone. Sensitive persons are advised to drink a good strong cup of coffee before proceeding, and to ascertain that the phone numbers of the emergency services are at hand.

    The modal population I.Q.'s given are my estimations and may still need fine-tuning, but the broad order of events will inevitably be as follows:


    Deeper and down
    Imagine a high technological society with a modal I.Q. around 100, where various causes - dysgenics, immigration, Marxism, possibly natural disaster - begin to shift this mode downward. Imagine that one fails to counteract this.


    100 and down

    As modal I.Q. decreases from 100 toward 90, one gradually begins to see more antisocial behaviour, intolerance, robbery, violent crime, and more animosity between groups in society and a tendency toward segregation. Illiteracy and retardation increase, and ever more people can no longer function independently as they can not cope with modern technology and bureaucracy, and require constant assistance from social workers who wonder why so many new clients are being referred to them. Institutes for higher education ask why ever more students do not master basic spelling, grammar and arithmetic, and begin to challenge the teaching methods of primary and secondary schools. The true cause of the problem remains opaque to most, as school tests and norms are carefully dumbed down to hide the decline of raw intelligence. School children in class, and later students in college, adopt behaviours priorly only known from inner city ghetto youths, making teaching a hazardous occupation. Public servants like ambulance and bus drivers are faced with aggression and violence in certain areas and become reluctant to go there. Politicians emphasize before camera that these magnificent residential areas have great potential, after heavily armed platoons have cleaned up and declared safe the street being filmed. Parts of cities are de facto surrendered to youth gangs, as the law and international human rights agreements do not allow forms of action that would effectively keep the scum in check. Good citizens who out of necessity defend themselves are mercilessly prosecuted. It is a public secret that organized crime has long infiltrated the judicial system and mainstream politics, to ensure the continuing velvet approach to crime and prohibition of sufficient defence violence. Laws are put in place to make it compulsory for robbery victims to surrender their possessions without resistance. It is more rewarding to be bad than to be good.


    90 and down

    When modal I.Q. drops below 90, one stops being an industrial society and loses high technology. There is a sharp increase in crime, violence and cruelty, and it becomes less safe for almost everyone. One finally abandons restricting human rights conventions, and those responsible for the previous softness on crime and other dysgenic policies are publicly executed. Society is kept together by strict rule, and corporal punishment and death penalty are used frequently as that is required to keep people from this I.Q. range under control. Modern medical care and formal education are only available to limited groups. The system of rule becomes more authoritarian, and shifts from democracy towards fascism. Not out of ideology or desire to oppress, but out of necessity. There will be some kind of strong hierarchy, like racial segregation, a caste system, or feudality. The minority of good people left are allowed to carry heavy arms and summarily execute the ransacking, murdering, raping hordes of degenerates that scourge the land.


    80 and down

    When modal I.Q. drops below 80, one loses large-scale organization and stops keeping written records; In other words, one enters prehistory. One now lives in local settlements as farmers in modest houses, and no longer produces impressive architecture or builds large cities. One is working hard, sometimes up to fourteen hours a day, and advanced science no longer exists. In modern society, individuals in this I.Q. range learn to read and write because they are taught that in schools. But when almost everyone is in this range, there are no schools and no teachers, and no one learns to read and write, and any remaining books are used as fuel to heat the house, not knowing what they originally were for.


    75 and down
    When modal I.Q. sinks under 75, one loses the abilities to practice agriculture and cattle herding. One then can no longer produce enough food to sustain oneself in significant numbers, and famine thins out population density to the level compatible with a hunter-gatherer life style in the relevant environment, which may be no more than one individual per several square kilometres, once even the most primitive forms of slash-and-burn agriculture have been forgotten. In other words, almost everyone dies. What remains are tribes of a few dozen to a few hundred people, who move on as they exhaust the local habitat, living in quickly built huts, or in caves or left-behind houses where available.


    70 and down

    As the decline goes on and modal I.Q. drops below 70, one stops producing art, and the huts get ever simpler. Deceased are no longer buried or ritually cremated, but left behind as waste, used to fuel the nightly fires, or cannibalized. It is now doubtful if one is still Homo sapiens; One is in transition, becoming a non-sapient species.

    This life style can be kept up for long and requires little effort; After all, many animals can hunt and gather food too. If nevertheless the degeneration can not be stopped, the next important landmark is reached:


    60 and down

    As modal I.Q. gets downward of 60, one loses the ability to make and use fire. As a result, one can no longer chase prey animals with fire, live in caves (too dark), live in cold climates (requires fire), keep wild animals away with fire, or cook food. One lives outdoors (unhoused) and only in warm areas where there may be dangerous animals. Raw food has lower nutritional value, so brain size shrinks rapidly, and one stops being sapient. Of the genus Homo one still is, but there is no one around to think of a new species name. Survival is now much harder than it was before.


    55 and down

    When modal I.Q. goes below 55, the unthinkable happens: One loses the ability to communicate through language, that is: speech. Not that one can physically not speak, but intelligence is simply too low to understand language, and there is no one around to teach one to speak as almost everyone is in this intelligence range now. Therefore one can no longer cooperate, organize, and coordinate in hunting and other activities, and is more on one's own. Social ties become weaker, hunting becomes difficult, and hunters become scavengers. At this point, one is no longer human, but enters a subhuman transitional existence between Homo and an undefined animal genus.


    50 and down
    And when modal I.Q. sinks under 50, one loses the ability to make tools or weapons. One now has to go for food with one's bare hands, without means to defend oneself against wild animals, and without communication. The hunters have become the hunted. One assumes a stooped posture to be less conspicuous, carrying one's hands close to the ground to readily pick up small crawling animals for immediate consumption. As a nonverbal and sometimes solitary scavenger and prey animal, no longer fully bipedal, one has become of a non-human genus.


    Considerations


    Of course, a full degeneration like this can only occur when there is no other society around to destroy, enslave, colonize, or "help" the degenerating population. In a very remote hostile place, like in a rain forest or a mountain range, it could happen, and in the past it could have happened on an oceanic island (Nowadays with all of the satellites one can not remain hidden on an island any more). Also, after a worldwide catastrophe with much of modern civilization and infrastructure destroyed it might happen to some groups, while other groups would bounce back to civilization.

    An interesting question is how long it would take to go all the way down. One needs to lose about 50 I.Q. points starting from 100, but the initial 10 to 15 may go fast through disaster or some other non-genetic event. Say that 40 points have to go the genetic way, and that the loss is between 1 and 3 I.Q. points per generation. Then it is done in 40 to 14 generations.

    The duration of a generation goes down with civilizational level. In modern society a generation is 25 to 30 years, but in the (hypothetical) most primitive communities where one procreates when this becomes physically possible, it would decrease to about 10 years. With an average of 15 years per generation this would mean 600 (conservative estimate) to 210 (bold) years are needed to go from human to animal if the decline is never interrupted.

    There is the possibility that one will go extinct before reaching the bottom. For animals in general, it is probably more common to die out than to degenerate into a lower species or genus. But for humans this is different, as we are so advanced that even with much degeneration we are still superior to all other animals, so we will survive a lot of this process. The risk of dying out grows as modal I.Q. comes closer to that of animals (which is about 45 and lower), but only below 60 it gets really serious.

    Also likely is to remain stationary at a certain level, like just over 60, or to rise to higher levels again. But in this article I have assumed a continuous decline to sketch what would happen. I hope this will open the eyes of those people who, knowing that I am occupied with intelligence, in a warning and patronizing manner say things to me like, "Intelligence is not important or valuable in itself!", "A more intelligent person is not a better person!", "A society with higher intelligence would not be a better society!", or "Higher intelligence is not something worth striving for!".

    They could not be further removed from the truth, and are a disgrace to their intelligence. Such remarks are typical for the highly intelligent, who do not know the limitations of having a low I.Q., and think that most people have by and large the same inborn potential. But in reality, intelligence is the sole causative agent of civilization, and a population's modal intelligence level is the only determinant of its civilizational level.
    Source
    Although the word "Commando" was wrongly used to describe all Boer soldiers, a commando was a unit formed from a particular district. None of the units was organized in regular companies, battalions or squadrons. The Boer commandos were individualists who were difficult to control, resented formal discipline or orders, and earned a British jibe that"every Boer was his own general".

  3. #3
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    7 Hours Ago @ 06:57 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,150
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,267
    Thanked in
    537 Posts
    Characteristic for the dysgenic phase are high verbal ability (which facilitates deceit and relativistic philosophizing), decreasing spatial and numerical ability and therewith decreasing general intelligence, and a highly cultured, sophisticated, permissive, decadent-degenerative nature on the whole. Western civilization, the product of the Germanic peoples, has probably entered this phase in the second half of the twentieth century.

    I'm not really sure whether I want to overall agree with the development outlined here.

    The problem of dying high cultures or civilisations have always been multiculturalism, and here lies the real problem. It is not decreasing intelligence, but the relativistic philosophies that arise from a homogeneous civilisation.

    In this regard it seems to be that a high level of civilisation unroots a people from 'basic knowledge', something perfectly normal for lesser civilised people not to mix with others or even allow them around, but becomes a relativistic concept.

    In Rome this was a result of the inclusion of countless conquered people around, which were included. For several centuries though Rome remained stable, it was lead by Romans only. The decline started around 100B.C.E when none-Romans could gain leading positions.

    The Greek had the disadvantage of being conquered, when they had just become a humanistic, but still homogenous society, where warfare was replaced with games. This would most likely have worked for themselves, being left alone. They werent though and the original white Greek were replaced with a mixed people, who today doesnt get much done anymore.

    Today this process comes from cultural marxists and so-called humanists, the effects are the same though.

    So the question is rather why higher intelligence leads to the unrooting from natural law and order. The high intelligence should tell people that the destruction of the homogenous society inevitably leads to their degeneration, history has proven that countless times. Why does high intelligence not learn from history?



    To the IQ article. I dont think that it would be possible to degenerate so far down the ladder. For whites the limit for being able to live is somewhere around 65 I think, though this are heavily retarded individuals (down's syndrome etc). For blacks 70 is their common IQ though, nature never gave them more. This cant be compared in any way, because although pure black africans arent able to get through OUR school and education system very well, they are still not retarded in a medical sense.
    So I think when our IQ falls down to let's say a modal 75 and below, our society would consists largely of retarded people, not only 'lesser intelligent' ones. From then we dont need 200 generations to be extinct, we would die out within some very few, being at large unable to survive on our own, and no reproduction level would prevent that, because the retardism would result in a very high infant mortality.

    Intelligence isnt only a result of civilisation, but most of all from biological givens. Strife surely adds to the development of more intelligence, but if this were true regardless of biological preconditions, there wouldnt be such a vast difference between us and blacks. And the climate alone cant explain that difference either, because Africa is full of wild animals which generate, even if an other form of, strife as well. And it's not that a desert would be less hostile to survival than a cold climate.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  4. #4
    Senior Member Ward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 06:48 AM
    Ethnicity
    Vinlandic
    Ancestry
    1/2 German, 1/4 Norwegian, 1/4 Irish
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    The Wild Frontier
    Gender
    Posts
    695
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    36
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    33
    Thanked in
    15 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    So the question is rather why higher intelligence leads to the unrooting from natural law and order.
    I think it can chalked up to moral relativism and a colossal dose of what the Greeks called "hubris."

    The high intelligence should tell people that the destruction of the homogenous society inevitably leads to their degeneration, history has proven that countless times. Why does high intelligence not learn from history?
    The mess that we're in is the result of over 200 years of secular intellectuals casting aside traditional wisdom and values and instructing mankind on how best to conduct its affairs through their own unaided intellects. Some men became so full of themselves that they started believing they could transcend nature with their intellects and play the role of God. So they ignored the lessons of history with the firm conviction that there weren't any problems that couldn't be solved through the correct application of social engineering. Our entire civilization has been their guinea pig, but instead of seeing our lives improved, we've been left butchered and dying on an operating table.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Ragnar Lodbrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 1st, 2011 @ 01:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Irish
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Occupation
    freelance writer/college student
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Religion
    Odinism
    Posts
    382
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer View Post
    I think it can chalked up to moral relativism and a colossal dose of what the Greeks called "hubris."



    The mess that we're in is the result of over 200 years of secular intellectuals casting aside traditional wisdom and values and instructing mankind on how best to conduct its affairs through their own unaided intellects. Some men became so full of themselves that they started believing they could transcend nature with their intellects and play the role of God. So they ignored the lessons of history with the firm conviction that there weren't any problems that couldn't be solved through the correct application of social engineering. Our entire civilization has been their guinea pig, but instead of seeing our lives improved, we've been left butchered and dying on an operating table.
    Sounds to like you just described the effects of high intelligence combined with malignant narcassism. I think Nietzche talked of this in one of his books.
    "What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil." Friedrich Nietzche

    "Virtue - all virtue - is knowledge."
    Socrates

  6. #6
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, August 16th, 2019 @ 06:42 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,080
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    186
    Thanked in
    107 Posts
    Whilst a reasonably high average IQ could be said to enable the creation of civilisation, a reasonably low average IQ doesn't automatically lead to the decline of civilisation. It simply wouldn't evolve any further.

    We see this in Africa today, they're not creating much new infrastructure but are still keen to use the colonial infrastructure, which is somehow kept in (ill, but inexplicably functioning) repair. When colonies were in place, their infrastructure profitted from the innovations of a more advanced and more intelligent society. Yet when it returned to pre-colonial levels, they were still left with a standard of civilisation beyond that which they would have been likely to create of their own accord.

    What has been created once doesn't go so easily, it is only Father Time which takes it away, and he is old and thus moves rather slowly.
    -In kalte Schatten versunken... /Germaniens Volk erstarrt / Gefroren von Lügen / In denen die Welt verharrt-
    -Die alte Seele trauernd und verlassen / Verblassend in einer erklärbaren Welt / Schwebend in einem Dunst der Wehmut / Ein Schrei der nur unmerklich gellt-
    -Auch ich verspüre Demut / Vor dem alten Geiste der Ahnen / Wird es mir vergönnt sein / Gen Walhalla aufzufahren?-

    (Heimdalls Wacht, In kalte Schatten versunken, stanzas 4-6)

  7. #7
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    GroeneWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    State
    Utrecht Utrecht
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Single adult
    Religion
    Germanic Heathendom
    Posts
    3,051
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    294
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    400
    Thanked in
    215 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    Yet when it returned to pre-colonial levels, they were still left with a standard of civilisation beyond that which they would have been likely to create of their own accord.

    What has been created once doesn't go so easily, it is only Father Time which takes it away, and he is old and thus moves rather slowly.
    Which was basically shown in the movie Idiocracy. However one can wonder how long they would capable of maintaining that infrastructure if European and Asian companies/governments no longer show any interest in the continent.

  8. #8
    Senior Member rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 28th, 2010 @ 05:34 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Scotch-Irish, Welsh, English, Dutch, German, French
    Subrace
    Alpine-Nordic mix
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Location
    ohio
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Politics
    Libertarian/Tribalist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    I have extensive essays on this subject in my book. No I don't think Africans "maintain" civilization. Their infrastructure mainly comes from Asian and European investors who keep it up in order to extract natural resources. Actually there are a lot of Jews involved in diamond mines and such out there. These usually involve a white or Asian at top directing everything and blacks doing the basic labor to maintain roads and such. Stupid people are destructive- make no doubt about that. It's not that they just lack the ability to improve things- no they make them worse. I've seen it living in the ghetto.

    I.Q. is not everything. Social instinct also plays a role Some people are naturally honest, or naturally polite, or naturally work hard or keep their house clean it doesn't always mean they have a high I.Q. Just like some people are geniuses but they lie, cheat, steal and make all kinds of problems. Take Einstein who had a lot of problems in his personal life because of his personality. All of these are "instincts" or what I call "social instinct". I.Q. and social instinct interact with environment and that pretty much acounts for 99% of a person's failure or success. Blond haired blue eyed Nordics are a perfect example: even Nazis themselves admitted they aren't the smartest race in the world, but they work together, they sacrifice for each other, they are polite, they make good neighbors. Too often I.Q. is over emphasized. Very important yes but only maybe half or slightly more than half of the equation.

    Torchbearer is rehashing Hitler's philosophy rather than Nietzsche. I've read both of their works.

    I also don't buy the high intelligence Narccisist thing. Frankly from my experience most low I.Q. people are failures in life and they are also thieves, liars, vandals etc. They show no regard for other people around them. They will cry crocadile tears to get people to feel sorry for them and get what they want. Most drug addicts would steal from their grandma and take the last crumb of food out of a starving person's mouth to feed their own selfish habits. I've seen the greatest disregard for other people among the dumbest, weakest, and most failed forms of life. Though on the other end of the spectrum people who are well above average also start to devalue most other people. It's probably the average middle class person who is most caring and altruistic of them all.
    “success and survival are above all the rule of life. As such it is the highest command of moral law” –Lord Livwell (me)

  9. #9
    Senior Member Ragnar Lodbrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 1st, 2011 @ 01:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Irish
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Occupation
    freelance writer/college student
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Religion
    Odinism
    Posts
    382
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Its always seemed like IQ and evolutionary degeneration has tendencies on both rich and poor sides of the economic spectrum.


    "In a very remote hostile place, like in a rain forest or a mountain range, it could happen, and in the past it could have happened on an oceanic island (Nowadays with all of the satellites one can not remain hidden on an island any more)."

    Actually the hostile places are the places that have a tendency to kill off those who don't have the spatial and reasoning skills to keep themselves alive in places like rainforests and mountain ranges. Wouldn't these enviroments have the tendency to slow and stop, rather then speed up degeneration?
    "What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil." Friedrich Nietzche

    "Virtue - all virtue - is knowledge."
    Socrates

Similar Threads

  1. Human Evolution: Evolution and the Structure of Health and Disease
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 07:39 PM
  2. Evolution of Human Languages
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, May 6th, 2004, 09:31 AM
  3. Human Evolution and Morphometry
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 11:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •