I dont think so.
The hypothesis that modern Western societies are dysgenic was formulated by Galton. Anyone can reproduce his "experiment": take a Who Is Who and count the children of the individuals inside. It averages about one per person. If you feel that the Who Is Who contains too many vulgar parvenus, take the English or European Blue-Blood Aristocracy's Almanac. They too are failing to maintain their numbers and many illustrious family names are going extint. Galton reasoned that the English ruling class was being replenished from below, and in the long term, the average quality of the English nation would deteriorate.
I never believed in his theory, and later, accurate mass IQ measurements failed to register any lowering of average IQ. I think that Galton was a statistical genius but being a Victorian gentleman, he was utterly inhibited to think about human sexuality. Victorian gentlemen were not informed that humans do this dirty something called (how they called it...?) ... and that they do it mostly under the cover of the night and in secret, without informing the Gotha Almanac. Up to 30% of English babies have that thing called non-paternity, that is, their bioogical father is not the publicly registered. I remember in Upstairs, Downstairs soap that a boy of the family made pregnant one of the many servant girls in the house, and they fast married her to the house driver. In Argentina in my times this was a very common happening. What I am saying is that most of the sex going on in a society is not public and that the high class males are doing most of it. It is well known that Bill Clinton is a case of non-paternity.
All societies are structured in a way that the ruling class boys have more access to reproductive age girls, in many cases, to the point of freely raping any peasant girl they desire (read the "Secret Life" of Acton, a rich Londoner of the 19th Century). You know WHO is structuring society and it is not the moronic proletariat. Thus I believe there was no dysgenic trend till now and there is none today. What about the trend and what about the future? God knows. And I dont care.
45 comments:
Re: Clinton - do you mean that Clinton's father was not Blythe, to whom his mother was married at the time?
There are theories in sociobiology for the reasons why women would want to marry one man but reproduce with another. Usually though I think the cheating is of the Lady Chatterly's lover type - you marry the Lord but sleep with the gardener. At the very least this would be a wash vs. the reverse type.
K
I think that it is also a mistake to assume that rich and prominent = heritable intelligence or poor and obscure = heritable stupidity (at least within a given race). Most of the grandparents of the fabulously rich Jews of America today were penniless immigrants. Great fortunes are usually good for maybe 3 generations and then the family returns to the great sea of the masses. Many of the US Presidents rose (Clinton, Reagan, etc.) rose from extremely humble backgrounds, nor do their siblings (and often their offspring) show any special talents in most cases. Think of any famous talented or rich person that you know of, any senator or millionaire, etc. - how often does that person have a prominent sibling whose name you also know?
K
IQ is largely heritable, and higher classes have more of it. Regarding Jewish pennyless immigrants, they/we are well known/much hated exceptions. Galton answered your question about siblings, and he discovered that talent comes in families. He himself was a first cousin of Chas. Darwin.
Yes, when I lived next to the projects in NYC, you'd often see furtive Wall Street brokers and Columbia professors sneaking in to meet the projects girls, who, of course, adored them. They would visit on alternate weekends, when not driving to West Virginia to inseminate the daughters of the People of Walmart.
I think the part that J is missing, which is pointed out by Tom Wolfe , is that once upon a time (before birth control) pre-marital sex was reserved for lower class girls and upper class girls guarded their virginity. Now upper class girls have as active a sex life as anyone. Upper class men no longer have to go slumming. Most call girl customers today are older men like Elliot Spitzer. My college age son would not dream of paying for sex when it is available for free (you don't even have to buy the girl dinner anymore).
K
As J pointed out earlier, upper class promiscuity does not result in babies. Lower class promiscuity does. The days when young Chadford Buffington the Third would knock up the scullery maid or whatever are behind us, if this was ever a statistically significant phenomenon; the scullery maid's greatgranddaughter is living in the hood where Chadford fears to step, and wouldn't give up the pussy to him if he did; she's having kids by three different thugs who are doing a life sentence on the installment plan. My theory is supported by the wide disparity in STD rates between races in America.
J your point about "non-paternity" (as they call it) is clever, and new to me. But I think your figure of 30% is only true for men "with low paternity confidence" - which I think(?) means, in practice, men who purchase paternity testing.
The rate for those with high confidence is far lower. But in order to calculate the total rate, we need to know what proportion of men have high confidence what proportion don't.
Here is a post from R. Khan. I'll be darned if I can see where he gives the bottom line - the rate for the whole population. But it seems obvious that he considers it to be well under 10%:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/
I think that most or maybe all of Lynn's evidence is indeed vulnerable to the problem pointed out by J. I don't know whether Lynn addresses this. His "Dysgenics" costs $540 for some reason and is not even found in the excellent library I have access to. I read about 1/3 of the book on the net.
J doesn't mention the Flynn effect which is what one usually appeals to in order to explain why IQ has not declined so far (rather the opposite).
B, I agree no aristocrat would seek to master the ladies of Wal-mart. But what if a man of the Nth male percentile (in IQ, in Conscientiousness, or in IQ * Conscientiousness) frequently has an illicit love of the (N-5)th female percentile.
Lynn's evidence (if I recall) is generally of the form 1. measure people 2. tote up their (alleged) offspring.
The theory I have heard is that high-IQ people face greater opportunity costs from children than those facing low-IQ people. Therefore high-IQ people tend to have fewer children. Historically this was balanced by the higher death rates of low-IQ children. With the drinking water safe and all children vaccinated death rates no longer compensate for differences in birth rates.
I like the kerosene lamp analogy, where the lower classes rise to the higher until they are consumed and the cycle repeats itself with fresh fuel from below. I think there is very little evidence that class status is maintained for centuries in a dynamic society like the US. There are all sorts of bus drivers, etc. who have Founding Fathers as their ancestors.
K
I think it depends what period is meant. In the pre-1800 Malthusian times, Greg Clark proposes, wealthy people had higher fitness, and slowly and steadily replaced the lower orders at all times. At least, Clark proposes this for England in the several centuries prior to the industrial revolution, in an attempt to explain said revolution. But such things are not unlikely to be true elsewhere pre-1800. For example, king and aristocrats kept large to enormous harems in agricultural societies all over the world - China, Americas, allegedly even in Christian Europe where these things had to be done cryptically. It wasn't just Solomon and the great Khans.
Of course, whether animals in any species show significant genetic variance for fitness is a big political thing - just a few millimeters below the surface. Like many things in bio. Clark's theory of basically a eugenic process in England obviously raises some PC hackles. In a way, it is not much less politically incorrect to try to measure whether one stud antelope has more surviving offspring (birthed by multiple different females who never met him again after mating) than another stud. There you're asking whether some antelopes have genetically higher fitness.
In general, we know deleterious mutations (of various levels of severity) occur at a fixed rate, and must be purged from the population to maintain a dynamic equilibrium. A population is on a 'moving sidewalk' constantly moving backwards due to accumulation of new deleterious mutations. But those at the front of the conveyor belt have more survivng offspring (at least in man pre-1800, or in other animals) who inherit their position. Also, every generation a few individuals are translated forward some distance from their parents' position: they happen to have fewer (and/or less severe) deleterious mutations than their parents. This happens randomly in a portion of offspring because of the random segregation of chromosomes in meiosis. If the large bulk of the worst mutations go into the innumerable death-bound spermocytes rather than into the "you" spermocyte, or into the wasted polar bodies rather than into the "you" egg, then you win. Everything in this paragraph is somewhat theoretical, but very likely to be true.
However, we don't really know what traits in humans are determined largely by rare deleterious mutations (to the extent that they are genetic). IQ - maybe. Disease - maybe. And it is somewhat mystifying to me why humans are so into girls (and to some extent dudes) with pretty faces (which is to say median faces). Obviously pretty girls must have been higher in fitness for some reason, but why? Or could it instead just be a "sexy son" positive feedback loop?
Beauty is genetic shorthand for "suitable for mating" - the traits we call beauty involve cues for symmetry, sexual maturity (but not beyond), etc. "Ugly" is a sign that something is wrong - cleft palate, stroke damage, limbs not of the correct (long) proportions, etc.
If somehow the industrial revolution unleashed an unintended dysgenic element it must be moving very slowly - most of the regression we are seeing is a result of the outright replacement of the local population by more fertile (and less intelligent)races coming from the south and not because the local population is drifting backward on its own.
K
Rob S. said...
In the pre-1800 Malthusian times, Greg Clark proposes, wealthy people had higher fitness, and slowly and steadily replaced the lower orders at all times. At least, Clark proposes this for England in the several centuries prior to the industrial revolution, in an attempt to explain said revolution.
Reading that theory I've wondered if something else happened in England. England border a country with an IQ of 92 (Ireland) and it is entirely possible that England developed a Celtic underclass doing manual labor, the way America has developed a Mexican underclass. The English government may have decided to let its Celtic underclass starve, and in the process raised the overall IQ of the country.
Or I could be intruding on a discussion to which I have nothing to contribute.
Well, I guess it could just be about rejecting potential mates (or potential allies) who have some serious illness. But I strongly doubt it. No doubt, it is fitness-enhancing to avoid mates with congenital syphilis. But I think you are paying a huge price if you can't tell a normal not-real-beautiful person from a sick person. You might get in a fight over a beautiful girl, or have to expend effort to get her - expend it in some way that is otherwise non-optimal for you. But you don't have to struggle for the non-beautiful one. So if she has the same fitness as the beautiful one, it is very wasteful to pay those costs. More precisely, if it is not fitness-enhancing for you to choose one over the other, at no cost, then it is a big waste for you to pay a cost for the beautiful one. Or, consider this, a certain woman can marry a penniless and rather low-status Richard Gere-looking dude, or an ugly rich man with many allies who can help look out for his or her interests. We can imagine two such men with very different traits but equal attractiveness to a panel of women, where good looks compensate for other traits. But if the Gere guy's looks do not correlate with anything valuable, those women that pick him, or his like, pay a *huge* fitness cost.
Further, if it is fitness-enhancing to be beautiful, why are any healthy people *not* beautiful? Since it makes people want to mate with you, or to a lesser extent be your ally, it is hard to believe that it isn't fitness-enhancing. Deleterious mutations are one of the few ways to explain why within-population variance in a fitness-enhancing trait might stably exist. Another reason might be that having the trait (or having to the maximal extent) costs energy (or involves some comparable trade-off). This might well apply to IQ to some extent, I think (since your brain uses around 20% of your energy), but it probably doesn't cost a significant amount of extra energy to grow a fair visage.
The fact that American Black population has about 30% (more or less) White genes means that a massive genetic "trickle down" effect exists and it has "impacted" (I almost wrote "improved") the lower classes. The commenter above who does not see Columbia professors and Wall Street bankers sneaking into the neighborhood to impregnate the hood girls, well, he is saying exactly what I am saying. Human reproduction is done in secret. You dont see it. But now you have fifty something million American mulattoes walking the streets.
I think that you dont see Wall Street bankers sneaking in the hoods, but their genes find their way to the next generation.
Mark,
I think it's baffling to seek the causes of racial IQ variation. One possibility, I thought, was disease. Large amounts of infectious disease could keep population densities down, meaning you don't have to slave away as much to make enough food to live - and maybe you also don't need to be very clever, either. This fits Bantu Africa, where in at least some areas women traditionally accomplish the bulk of the agriculture, rather easily. Whereas in NE Asians - probably the most agriculture-adapted race, because their large historical population sizes provided so many new beneficial mutations - we find a world-beating capacity for long working hours which is probably partly biological.
This theory doesn't work well at all in the Americas, though, which were nearly disease-free, and had agriculture (possibly another sine qua non of high IQ) 5-6,000 years ago.
Let me add that my situation I have in front of my eyes is Brasil. In the days of my life its population has visibly changed. In the fifties it was a largely African country, with a small class of Euorpeans living in the Coastal cities of the south. Today its population looks almost South European. Brasilians talk about the whitening of their country. It happened in the last 60 years. There are no studies on the subject that I know of, it is my personal experience. I believe in what my eyes see.
Old man Galton although not a great looker himself to put it mildly, may have scattered wild oats all over the UK. Among the lesser known studies he undertook, strictly for science one understands, was a survey on the relative beauty of the women of the British Isles, with Galway in Ireland having the most vivacious women and Aberdeen(?) the least.
The children of the powerful may not great breeders themselves, Svetlana Stalin had only one daughter although her father was the mightiest (and evil) colossus the world has ever seen. Of course Mao made up somewhat for his mentor's slackening in the breeding department by arranging for the reeducation of pretty girls wherever he went. Some of his progeny must be ensconsced in the minor nobility of the CCP.
The least-kept secret in the racial world is that the darker races themselves discriminate in favour of lighter shades. Although India is generally a swarthy nation one would not be able to figure this out from Bollywood productions where all actors and actresses them seem to be avatars of Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni.
J,
American blacks used to mix with whites at a much higher rate when they were owned by them and when there was a mulatto class to speak of. Also, assortative mating driven by black preference for white traits probably caused sweeps (" good hair," "high yellow vs redbone vs purple" and "the brown paper bag test") where an original small injection of white genes spread through the population. Those stock brokers and professors are NOT creeping on black chicks-in the hood, where they would stick put like a sore thumb, or on the street/campus, where I just don't see them. Asians, different story.
Rob S., your theory is plausible. Men do like to date down, just as women like to date up. I think that this is responsible for the tighter IQ distribution bell curve for women-nobody likes to be tied to a girl who is TOO stupid, and even a super-smart girl who's feminine is gonna have a hard time, let alone your prototypical hard-jawed lawyer. I've always dated girls who were either just a bit dumber, or a whole lot dumber, and am just now, in my new city, dating a smart one (economics grad student) and a not quite as smart one (business undergrad major) in parallel. While even the smart one isn't as smart as I am, it's still a little challenging, in an enjoyable way, and i can see how for a less masculine smart guy, it might be too intimidating. But that still doesn't address the fact that a big chunk of our underclass is racially self-segregated from the upper class for the most part. A smarter white guy just isn't likely to date any kind of black girl.
What? Those stock brokers and professors are NOT creeping on black chicks-in the hood, where they would stick put like a sore thumb... Oh boy, you must be making fun of me. There are no healthy people thus innocent. You appear to never had stayed late in the office or the lab or the supermarket or wherever you spend your day and met the cleaning lady.
Being relatively young and single, I do my stuff on the up and up. I'm not attracted to cleaning ladies, particularly, since most of them are matronly mammy types, and even if I was married and creeping, there are plenty of upscale women looking to accomodate. They even have a dating website targeted at them, with signups jumping the day after Mother's Day and Valentine's Day. What the hell is the point of spending decades becoming a professional if you have to resort to banging 45 year old mustached 200 lb Mexican cleaning ladies?
B, while I agree w. you that stockbrokers are not hooking up with cleaning ladies any more, there are probably more interracial unions than ever, now that it is not stigmatized or even illegal, as it was until the '60s. What happens is that the mixing goes on across racial lines but not across huge class gaps, so white college students hook up with black, white blue collar workers hook up with black (a certain type of white girl loves to date black men), within the permitted range of up/down social distance. Most modern white men do seem to have more of an aversion to black women than in colonial days. Maybe the alternatives available then were fewer and the black women were less overweight than they are now. "Women" was something of a misnomer - if you look at, for example Strom Thurmond who had a black daughter (not quite colonial days but Jim Crow) the mother was a teenager - at this age the differences in attractiveness (and weight) are not as great as they are later, I suppose.
Recently I was in Atlanta and I was very surprised to see many black/white friendships among teenage girls especially. The blacks looked very upscale (Atlanta has a large black professional class). I'm sure that these same blacks will date across racial lines as well - they seemed almost oblivious to their race. Here in Philadelphia there is less cross-racial friendship evident and fewer upscale blacks.
K
The punishments awaiting white males today must be an inhibitory factor. In the past the concept of sexual harassment did not exist and men were freer to be themselves. Once, dining in a fancy restaurant and making the girl drink expensive wine or champagne was a traditional seduction method. Today you risk being accused of rape. Once secretaries were chased around the table (like in Marx Brothers films) and cornered in the sofa, today that is unthinkable. Cleaning ladies were selected for their good looks and their services came with the job.
You live in a new environment, and I daresay that the smart Wall Street bankers have thought out the way of making their position to work for them, and not only to take the cream off economic resources but also to cream off national female resources. In Israel there is a phenomenon of female entrapment, that is, girls entrap high position men to get pregnant and receive alimony. I dont know what goes on in the place you are, but I am sure high class sperm still find itself meeting much low class ovules.
Dysgenics is definitely happening, as far as I'm concerned. Read 'The Gene bomb' by David Comings Just walk into any maternity clinic and see for yourself-it's absolutely depressing. Of course governments will never collect statistics due to the forces of political correctness.
The reason for the Flynn Effect is given in The Bell curve by Murray and Herrnstein. People on the left end of the curve are being given remedial aids to increase their scores. I would also say that the test has gotten easier, as has education in general in the west. I think the benefits of nutrition are subject to the law of diminshing returns. Just look at women-middle class, high IQ, more ciivlised females are not reproducing themselves at the same rates as those in the lower class. Where I'm from, lower class females hardly ever mix with higher class males. Considering that women are the rate limiting factor when it comes to reproduction, behavioral standards will drift towards those of the 2nd and 3rd worlds in time. As K said, there they might uper class females might have an active sex life, However, contraception means that this is now divorced from reproductive output.
Lower class females find more testosterone appealing-these levels are higher in lower class males. I find it hard to imagine them being bedded by professor types, nerds or even succesful businessmen. If anything, I would say it is more likely that Higher class females are having sex with lower class males. It is more often I see black male-white female couplings than vice-versa. Ditto for white male-asian female couples. The net effect? A reduction in IQ and middle class behaviours.
The world as by Roissy might favour social intelligence-this does not get bridges built, design software, etc. Why hasn't civilization crashed since the natural selction as described by Clark in 'Farewell to Alms' stopped a few hundred years ago? Elmer Pendell dealt with this in 'Sex versus Civilisation'. IQ starts declining long before the pinnacle of civilization is reached. He described tell-tle signs of this in the 60's and he would be absolutley horrified if he were alive today. But it will happen eventually if things continue on their current path. I'm in my late twenties-so I just hope I'm not around to before true anarchy and lawlessness prevails.
" In the past the concept of sexual harassment did not exist and men were freer to be themselves."
Apparently Al Gore did not get the memo.
K
Al Gore and many other Congressmen are good examples of how quality sperm meets lower class ova. Bill Clinton as Governor of Arizona just called a girl into his hotel room (the thing was known decades after when the woman decided to make money of the quickie). Clinton as President had armies of available girls around, secretaries, assistants, trainees, and son. Al Gore just called a girl (masseuse) into his hotel room, as Spitzer did. They could have any girl around. The highest I climbed in the social pole was Chief Life Guard of Punta del Este beaches, and I felt as if I could have any girl under my jurisdiction any time I desired.
...and so on.
For some reason this seems to be a Democrat thing. If Republican Congressmen turn to vice, they seem to prefer boys (as do Catholic priests). I'm not sure of the theoretical explanation for this - maybe that there is no possibility of out of wedlock offspring makes this a lesser sin in the minds of the "family" oriented, just as Clinton insisted that he did not have "sex" because oral sex was not sex at all.
K
Of course the idea of the rich and powerful having a harem of women (and the more powerful the man the larger the harem) is something that is thousands of years old and found in many cultures in history (and is present in many other species as well). Christianity introduced (or made universal) the concept of monogamy but (just like celibacy) it runs counter to human's natural genetic programming and so it is not surprising that animal instinct sometimes wins over religious teaching.
K
K, according to a column by Chuck Baldwin the GOP has been pretty well infiltrated by the homosexuals. Second, Dems probably engage in this type of behavior, although possibly at lower levels, but I suspect that it is less likely to be reported in the press if the matter comes up at all.
As with all things, I could be wrong.
Republican pederasts get outed more often in all probability because the lavender lobby knows that the Democrats are their pals. Why would they embarass their patron? It is a tried and true technique applied with great finesse by Nazis and Communists. When the issue of homosexual 'rights' was being bruited about in 80s UK, the gay lobby would threathen any 'family-value' MP with exposure on the going-ons in their clubs. By now they should have realised that the proper response, was to shake their dick right back at them.
I can apprecitate that high status people like Kennedy, Clinton and Gore have enjoyed prolific reproductive outputs. You should consider that their intelligence is social and not technical. The former is only useful in a complex society that was bult by the latter. Monogamy favours the transmission of nerd genes by such males as it gives them a chance to reproduce. The decline of christianity in the west should therefore mean a reduction in overall heritable technical competence. I know many african nations have a low IQ, yet their people seem cunning in a social sense (This is the same type of manipulative ability that Clinton and gore probably have). Where has it gotten these countries?
The people of those days even as recently as the 19th century, thought and acted rather differently from us. Good Dr Edward Jenner, liberator of mankind from the scourge of smallpox, conducted his experiments on the waif James Phipps. Today we would be properly horrified if a researcher were to inject (possibly nonexistent) AIDS viruses into healthy humans, but in that era similar conduct was not even worthy of comment; the kid was an orphan anyway.
wrong thread...
The outpourings of celebrity TV in the West increasingly resemble the reproductive goings-on in primitive societies (except for the actual reproduction).
Needless to say, gullible adolescents accept this type of amorality as normal, even mandated by their culture, which in turn drives a certain type of right wing observer to conclude the MSM are in fact part of a conspiracy to destroy the continuity of our carefully evolved society.
I am now of the opinion there is an element of truth in this, and that it is not just the reckless quest for money.
Anon.
A few paragraphs by Matt Ridley on crypto-harems in medieval Christendom:
http://books.google.com/books?id=fHnBMyxYXX4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=red+queen+matt+ridley&hl=en&ei=oEBcTKK1KcH88Ab-p-iDAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=endowments&f=false
I have to say that the evidence Ridley gives for "crypto-harems" is pretty thin. Now there is not a lot of documentation of anything in the Middle Ages (in some ways we now more about ancient Rome than we do about Europe in say the 10th century) but still he does not exactly make a convincing case. Now as J points out, sex is something that almost always goes on literally "behind closed doors" but you can't just use that vacuum to make stuff up that suits your theories.
K
Matt Ridley mined the nether regions for gold with the help of the Red Queen. SJ Gould was too hoity-toity for that kind of thing being an old-line intellectual Marxist. Reading about baseball, Jimmy Stewart and spandrels is heavy going though, when compared to the Naked Ape stuff. Although as any good Social Darwinian a scourge of welfare parasites and socialists, Ridley had the grace to tolerate socialism for the rich when the BOE bailed out his bank.
Galton's time and place was less meritocratic than ours and probably less meritocratic than he thought. You were pretty much stuck in the class you were born into (there were numerous exceptions, but that was generally true). The relative fertility of different social classes was less important, from a eugenic point of view, than it is now.
Now it's pretty easy to climb in society if you have what it takes, and most people who do have it have done so.
I genuinely find it hard to believe that lower class women are attracted to columbia professor types and financial wizards. They have primitive instincts and are not attracted by brainpower, but more likely by displays of violence and prowess in the bed. If there is sexual interaction between the lower and upper classes today, it is between lower class men and upper class women. Consider the wealthy white family daughter (indoctrinated with liberalism)falling for the higher testosterone of the ghetto black male-far more likely than vice-versa. Given that women (their eggs, more specifically are the rate limiting factor in determining overall reproductive ouput this does not bode well at all for the future.
White-asian couples are another good example. Asian men have higher IQs than whites yet are less frequently seen with white women than white men with asian women. The net effect of this type of interracial coupling will be a reduction overall in IQ.
If you have offspring then you should care more about dysgenics than I do. The degree of civilization is determined largely by the people. Assuming dysgenics is occurring and will continue to do so, the generations ahead will have to get used to 3rd world conditions. Is this the legacy we should provide for them?
The only way to turn this around is to bribe/"incentivize" high IQ people to breed.
How's that doing in Singapore, eg?
Anon.
Singapore wisely implemented a plan to provide incentives to university graduate mothers to have babies. Sadly, I think they have abolished this. For all its merits university education is a highly dysgenic force. The time spent by females in university reduce their reproductive output and also increases the length of their breeding cycle.
Another point raised in the post and comments was that the ruling class of males has most access to reproductive resources. I would say alot of cases of non-paternity are due to alpha males. Their staus may be high in the eyes of females but the sprading of their genes for caddish behaviour is detrimental to future society. They may be great at socialising, but I fail to see how that is much of a compensation when you're living in the third world.
In 'farewell to alms' by Gregory Clark the realtively high reproductive output of technically adept, non-violent and future-orinted males is described. Look in any maternity ward today-do you honestly think such traits are being increased in any western population?
Just do your part, men.
Get into the sperm banks and wank it weekly.
My IQ is high enough that I can easily perceive the dysgenics which has been going on much longer than I've been on this here rock.
It will only progress as the decades wear on. IMO, we reached the pinnacle of civilization some time ago. It won't just collapse in one go, though. Hopefully we can still have a few more somewhat decent decades.
Remember: Sperm Banks! If you've got an IQ over 120, and are of at least average conscientiousness, you owe it to the species to spread your seed around, and offset the scummy promiscuity that is practically everywhere within western civilization.
Post a Comment