Terry A. Davis
Member
- Aug 28, 2023
- 67
A summary I'll give is that IQ has been decreasing in western countries since 1860 or so. Since that time, we have lost one standard deviation of IQ (around 15 points) which is the difference between a secondary school physics teacher and a university physics lecturer. Since 1960 we have lost another 2 or 3 points. It is getting worse and worse and by 2100 the UK will have an average IQ of 85.
People discredit this by saying the Flynn Effect shows IQ has increased but they fail to understand that the Flynn Effect essentially shows that every decade we are being pushed to our IQ/phenotypic maximum in order to maintain 100 IQ averages. They make IQ tests easier and easier and each time we bump up against this barrier.
One effective way we can tell if IQ is going up or down in a nation is to calculate their rates of inventiveness. As we know, the world rapidly changed between 1860 and 1960 due to an explosion of invention and creativity. Since 1960 or so this has rapidly declined until now, where we have the same rates of invention that we had in 1600. By 2100 we will have the same rates of invention that we had in 1100 or so. The same rate we had when we had JUST left the dark ages. So what does that mean? It means we could be very close to going into a dark age again. Why is this?
Well, before the Industrial Revolution the average child mortality rate was around 50%. 50% of people would die in childhood because they were not fit enough to live within that environment. But that's not all, 20% of people would have children who would die and leave them heirless, thus removing their line from the genepool. Another 20% would die without ever having children or finding a wife or husband.
That leaves 10% of people who survive childhood, die after their parents and manage to find a wife or husband to have their own children with. Until the Industrial Revolution these were the only people who survived and are the fathers and mothers of all of humanity across the world. They were genetically 'perfect' and the healthiest group of human beings out of all of them (with some exceptions of course).
High rates of child mortality were not random though. The lower classes died disproportionately to the higher classes. The reason the higher classes got to their position during this time was because objectively, they were genetically 'superior' (for lack of a better term) than their lower class relatives. They were more intelligent which means they had the ability to run successful ventures and make lots of money which allowed them to be able to afford better doctors which allowed more of their children to survive (not all, but more).
This meant that vast swathes of the low iq underclass were wiped out through famine and war and sexual diseases and starvation whilst the higher iq upper classes had lots and lots of children who survived into adulthood.
Over time, the upperclasses moved DOWN the social hierarchy, filling the job roles that were left behind by the dead lowerclasses. As a result, humanity inevitably grew smarter and smarter and more and more healthy. This is a fact and cannot be disputed. Two random Englishmen are more genetically related to eachother than an Englishman and a Frenchman. Your ethnic group is your extended family and we all descend from this 'top-down' selection pressure. This is why lots of people in France are related to Charlemagne or why lots of people in Britain are related in some way to famous writers or inventers or scientists or royalty maybe 6 or 7 generations ago. Top-down bleed over.
In the 17th and 18th century, 200 or so years before the Industrial Revolution, the world was gradually and slowly getting smarter, healthier, more pro-social, high ingroup altruism and high outgroup prejudice etc because in a natural environment we select for these traits. It helps us survive better. We see this with the creation of the Renaissance and with the societal focus on logic and reason and science beginning to take hold across the West as opposed to superstition and religious belief. People who would have been jailed or executed for blasphemy were no longer. They could bring forth ideas and have discussions and debates about certain ideas that were taboo a little while ago.
This lead to an age of invention and creativity unlike anything the world had ever seen. People still believed in God and such and their scientific work for the most part, was done not to disprove his existence but to shine a light on Gods beautiful creation for everyone to see. That was the attitude at the time and I personally really like that attitude lol.
Anyway, with all sorts of advancements leading right into the Industrial Revolution, the late 1700s - mid 1800s really took off. Rates of invention were astronomical, rates of genius were astronomical. Within a few years your town would be unrecognisable with all the new technologies that had been invented. There is a really good interview with a woman of 108 years in the 1970s. She was a little girl during the Industrial Revolution. You should watch it:
With all these advancements we also had advancements in medicine. Child mortality decreased with the I.R. amongst all groups - upper and lower class. This is a good thing, is it not?
Well, not really. You see, if you fast forward to the 2020's we have a 1% child mortality rate. Anyone and everyone survives and it has been this way for a long time. Over time, genes that should have been taken out of the genepool via natural selection (pre I.R. conditions) stay in the genepool resulting in mutations upon mutations upon mutations. This is not evolution running its course as some people like to say. This is anyone and everyone who is born being allowed to spread their mutant genes around the population.
The brain is about 84% of the genome. If you have mutations of the body, then you will have mutations of the mind. This can lead to Genius becoming more prevalent which in some respects is a good thing but it can also lead to the opposite and more often than not, it does.
The only white population in the UK that has above replacement level birthrates are those whose two parents are on social welfare, and have criminal records mainly for repeated crimes.
We know that traits are heritable. As I said, the brain is 84% of the genome. Criminality is mostly genetic which is why for a long time there was a low crime rate in Europe. We were executing all of the criminals and locking them in prisons during their most fertile years. IQ is mostly genetic, cooperativeness is mostly genetic, depression and happiness propensity is mostly genetic, introspection is mostly genetic. Most things about you are mostly genetic.
Having a low iq is associated with a propensity towards crime (because you are too stupid to work) and is also associated with a range of illnesses - strokes, diabetes, heart attacks, alzheimers, cancer and many others all on the genetic level.
As I said, if we continue on this current trajectory then the only people who are going to reproduce are ethnic minorities from a working class background (high rates of low iq and criminality) and whites from an underclass background (high rates of low iq and criminality).
WE CANNOT MAINTAIN CIVILISATION IF THESE PEOPLE ARE THE FUTURE. YOU CANNOT MAINTAIN HIGH LEVELS OF COMPLEXITY WHEN YOUR POPULATION ARE LESS COMPLEX THAN THOSE WHO MADE THE CIVILISATION IN THE FIRST PLACE!
We have already forgotten how to fly the Concord. We have lost the expertise. We are already less intelligent than the generation that made the concord. The generation that took us to the moon and back. The generation that built the train and the coal power station and the electric wire.
How do we maintain the nuclear power station when the average person is too much of a dumbcunt to be able to work there? Just have a bunch of old fucks maintaining vital infrastructure until they drop dead? What then? You can't train people to do it if they aren't smart enough or too sick to get out of bed.
'A.I. and robots will solve the problem!' he says, screaming into the dark.
Sure they will. I've yet to see a functioning robot that can walk like a human, pick things up like us and make decisions on the go like us. Someone still needs to do all of the manual jobs that REQUIRE human involvement. What happens when people are too sick or stupid to be able to do them?
It's impossible. We are going to go back to a state similar to the Medieval Era where large countries like Britain, America, France, Germany split off into microstates because the rates of intelligence are too spread out across nations to be able to hold it together. It will decentralise.
You will have the Kingdom of Sussex, the Principality of Aberdeenshire, the Republic of London and so on. These microstates will be ruled by mafia gangs and barons who own the land around them and employ people to work as mercenaries or farmers etc. It will be medieval Europe all over again but with decaying modernised buildings.
And that's after 90% of the human race die because they are not fit enough to live in a collapsed civilisation. Think about that.
That's our future unless we do something about it.
People discredit this by saying the Flynn Effect shows IQ has increased but they fail to understand that the Flynn Effect essentially shows that every decade we are being pushed to our IQ/phenotypic maximum in order to maintain 100 IQ averages. They make IQ tests easier and easier and each time we bump up against this barrier.
One effective way we can tell if IQ is going up or down in a nation is to calculate their rates of inventiveness. As we know, the world rapidly changed between 1860 and 1960 due to an explosion of invention and creativity. Since 1960 or so this has rapidly declined until now, where we have the same rates of invention that we had in 1600. By 2100 we will have the same rates of invention that we had in 1100 or so. The same rate we had when we had JUST left the dark ages. So what does that mean? It means we could be very close to going into a dark age again. Why is this?
Well, before the Industrial Revolution the average child mortality rate was around 50%. 50% of people would die in childhood because they were not fit enough to live within that environment. But that's not all, 20% of people would have children who would die and leave them heirless, thus removing their line from the genepool. Another 20% would die without ever having children or finding a wife or husband.
That leaves 10% of people who survive childhood, die after their parents and manage to find a wife or husband to have their own children with. Until the Industrial Revolution these were the only people who survived and are the fathers and mothers of all of humanity across the world. They were genetically 'perfect' and the healthiest group of human beings out of all of them (with some exceptions of course).
High rates of child mortality were not random though. The lower classes died disproportionately to the higher classes. The reason the higher classes got to their position during this time was because objectively, they were genetically 'superior' (for lack of a better term) than their lower class relatives. They were more intelligent which means they had the ability to run successful ventures and make lots of money which allowed them to be able to afford better doctors which allowed more of their children to survive (not all, but more).
This meant that vast swathes of the low iq underclass were wiped out through famine and war and sexual diseases and starvation whilst the higher iq upper classes had lots and lots of children who survived into adulthood.
Over time, the upperclasses moved DOWN the social hierarchy, filling the job roles that were left behind by the dead lowerclasses. As a result, humanity inevitably grew smarter and smarter and more and more healthy. This is a fact and cannot be disputed. Two random Englishmen are more genetically related to eachother than an Englishman and a Frenchman. Your ethnic group is your extended family and we all descend from this 'top-down' selection pressure. This is why lots of people in France are related to Charlemagne or why lots of people in Britain are related in some way to famous writers or inventers or scientists or royalty maybe 6 or 7 generations ago. Top-down bleed over.
In the 17th and 18th century, 200 or so years before the Industrial Revolution, the world was gradually and slowly getting smarter, healthier, more pro-social, high ingroup altruism and high outgroup prejudice etc because in a natural environment we select for these traits. It helps us survive better. We see this with the creation of the Renaissance and with the societal focus on logic and reason and science beginning to take hold across the West as opposed to superstition and religious belief. People who would have been jailed or executed for blasphemy were no longer. They could bring forth ideas and have discussions and debates about certain ideas that were taboo a little while ago.
This lead to an age of invention and creativity unlike anything the world had ever seen. People still believed in God and such and their scientific work for the most part, was done not to disprove his existence but to shine a light on Gods beautiful creation for everyone to see. That was the attitude at the time and I personally really like that attitude lol.
Anyway, with all sorts of advancements leading right into the Industrial Revolution, the late 1700s - mid 1800s really took off. Rates of invention were astronomical, rates of genius were astronomical. Within a few years your town would be unrecognisable with all the new technologies that had been invented. There is a really good interview with a woman of 108 years in the 1970s. She was a little girl during the Industrial Revolution. You should watch it:
With all these advancements we also had advancements in medicine. Child mortality decreased with the I.R. amongst all groups - upper and lower class. This is a good thing, is it not?
Well, not really. You see, if you fast forward to the 2020's we have a 1% child mortality rate. Anyone and everyone survives and it has been this way for a long time. Over time, genes that should have been taken out of the genepool via natural selection (pre I.R. conditions) stay in the genepool resulting in mutations upon mutations upon mutations. This is not evolution running its course as some people like to say. This is anyone and everyone who is born being allowed to spread their mutant genes around the population.
The brain is about 84% of the genome. If you have mutations of the body, then you will have mutations of the mind. This can lead to Genius becoming more prevalent which in some respects is a good thing but it can also lead to the opposite and more often than not, it does.
The only white population in the UK that has above replacement level birthrates are those whose two parents are on social welfare, and have criminal records mainly for repeated crimes.
We know that traits are heritable. As I said, the brain is 84% of the genome. Criminality is mostly genetic which is why for a long time there was a low crime rate in Europe. We were executing all of the criminals and locking them in prisons during their most fertile years. IQ is mostly genetic, cooperativeness is mostly genetic, depression and happiness propensity is mostly genetic, introspection is mostly genetic. Most things about you are mostly genetic.
Having a low iq is associated with a propensity towards crime (because you are too stupid to work) and is also associated with a range of illnesses - strokes, diabetes, heart attacks, alzheimers, cancer and many others all on the genetic level.
As I said, if we continue on this current trajectory then the only people who are going to reproduce are ethnic minorities from a working class background (high rates of low iq and criminality) and whites from an underclass background (high rates of low iq and criminality).
WE CANNOT MAINTAIN CIVILISATION IF THESE PEOPLE ARE THE FUTURE. YOU CANNOT MAINTAIN HIGH LEVELS OF COMPLEXITY WHEN YOUR POPULATION ARE LESS COMPLEX THAN THOSE WHO MADE THE CIVILISATION IN THE FIRST PLACE!
We have already forgotten how to fly the Concord. We have lost the expertise. We are already less intelligent than the generation that made the concord. The generation that took us to the moon and back. The generation that built the train and the coal power station and the electric wire.
How do we maintain the nuclear power station when the average person is too much of a dumbcunt to be able to work there? Just have a bunch of old fucks maintaining vital infrastructure until they drop dead? What then? You can't train people to do it if they aren't smart enough or too sick to get out of bed.
'A.I. and robots will solve the problem!' he says, screaming into the dark.
Sure they will. I've yet to see a functioning robot that can walk like a human, pick things up like us and make decisions on the go like us. Someone still needs to do all of the manual jobs that REQUIRE human involvement. What happens when people are too sick or stupid to be able to do them?
It's impossible. We are going to go back to a state similar to the Medieval Era where large countries like Britain, America, France, Germany split off into microstates because the rates of intelligence are too spread out across nations to be able to hold it together. It will decentralise.
You will have the Kingdom of Sussex, the Principality of Aberdeenshire, the Republic of London and so on. These microstates will be ruled by mafia gangs and barons who own the land around them and employ people to work as mercenaries or farmers etc. It will be medieval Europe all over again but with decaying modernised buildings.
And that's after 90% of the human race die because they are not fit enough to live in a collapsed civilisation. Think about that.
That's our future unless we do something about it.
Last edited:
