• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

even if I was one of the lucky ones on this earth and had all measure beyond dreams of avarice, i'd still get tired of it after a lifetime and would need a rest. heaven is a pretty nice place, I hear. :cool:
 
even if I was one of the lucky ones on this earth and had all measure beyond dreams of avarice, i'd still get tired of it after a lifetime and would need a rest. heaven is a pretty nice place, I hear. :cool:
And I'd imagine that it'd be perfectly fine to request euthanasia at your own pace. I also hear that it's quite painless.
 
I've read all the posts and stayed up all night doing so.
I find this very fascinating.
Living longer without the biological breakdowns.
I don't find the cellular discomforts from aging anything wonderful.
The use of robotics for work and production has started.
I've always seen this to be a part of the technological evolution.

I agree those in power would be trying to keep this for themselves. The transition phase.
The growth into controlled reproduction through chosen means has been a big controversy for quite sometime now.
But, it is nothing evil in my way of thinking.
If human ways of thinking had never gone beyond the belief we should not interfere with the Universe's natural ways for life on this planet, none of the medical advances we take for granted today would have happened. Medicine, surgery, advances in understanding how the body works and technology of the current robotic assisted procedures and modern medical machines would have been considered the unatural interference.

I can see it coming together if some other means doesn't destroy the planet first. There are many natural ways for an apocalypse not to mention the human race itself on a path to self-destruction.
This planet was not created to live forever.
With or without life, either way it will in time die also as all other things we call physical.
Interesting reads.
 
I've read all the posts and stayed up all night doing so.
I find this very fascinating.
Living longer without the biological breakdowns.
I don't find the cellular discomforts from aging anything wonderful.
The use of robotics for work and production has started.
I've always seen this to be a part of the technological evolution.

I agree those in power would be trying to keep this for themselves. The transition phase.
The growth into controlled reproduction through chosen means has been a big controversy for quite sometime now.
But, it is nothing evil in my way of thinking.
If human ways of thinking had never gone beyond the belief we should not interfere with the Universe's natural ways for life on this planet, none of the medical advances we take for granted today would have happened. Medicine, surgery, advances in understanding how the body works and technology of the current robotic assisted procedures and modern medical machines would have been considered the unatural interference.

I can see it coming together if some other means doesn't destroy the planet first. There are many natural ways for an apocalypse not to mention the human race itself on a path to self-destruction.
This planet was not created to live forever.
With or without life, either way it will in time die also as all other things we call physical.
Interesting reads.
Hello SusanLR. Glad to know you found this discussion fascinating. I can only hope that the world continues on a more positive trajectory, and that perhaps our generation and beyond can live life to the full, on their own terms.
 
Well, I would first like to point out that in the time that it would take to develop and make available the means to this "forever middle-agedness" (because that seems most likely in the near future), technology in other fields will also have developed past their current states (optimistically, and realistically), so maybe by then robots will have completed their takeover of the workforce, leaving humans to do whatever, because they're obsolete (See CGP Grey's "Humans Need Not Apply" video). Now hopefully by then money is meaningless, or at least optional to living a full life, so even the "poorest" can live in higher standards than most people today; we get more for less, and technology will continue on this trend as long as Moore's Law holds true, even if it's just until we develop the medical technology to be biologically immortal.
Now, if you're concerned about overpopulation, that's mainly happening in developing countries where they're still transitioning into the 4th stage of demographic transition, much like how the 1st world countries before them did (See the video below), so in time they will also slow down population growth-wise (also, in all likelihood given that the current plausible method of extending life would be through 3 processes meant to complement each other needs infrastructure such as hospitals, healthcare and etc. that comes with a developed or 1st world country like say... Germany or France or Canada, so by then the people will likely be better educated, and apparently that correlates with lower birth rates according some studies I can't quite remember).
Now if by generational changes you mean how parents feel and interact about their kids and their generation and vice versa, and how grandparents feel and interact with their grandkids and their generation and vice versa, and so on and so forth, I would imagine that that would be far less of an evil than having those parents and grandparents die of their body breaking down due to physics (refer to the 2nd video in my original post). Besides, we're already going through a similar problem today due to older generations not being on level with the kids (often due to problems related to their age and the diseases and problems caused by it), so I think that eventually having everyone look and be able to act the way they always did would do wonders for relations between generations, as both the older generations and the current adult generation would be facing similar problems and experiences, and ergo, a point of commonality.
As for emotional and mental health, I would think that if their long lives a cause for distress, then it'd probably be a common thing to go to counseling for, so by then I'd hope that we'll have prepared for that. I also imagine that if it truly were too much or if they were content to die already, then euthanasia would likely be an option for them.
Now, "pace of living" sounds a little vague, but I would imagine that with more time on our hands, we'd be free to take our time in things, maybe not stress so much over them (like requirements, god, requirements, why~?), pursue our interests and discover new ones, and spend more time with family and friends. I imagine that those things in particular are what many people (including myself), hope to gain from it.

The video:


This video seems on the mark in some ways, but over optimistic in other ways. It assumes that every country will eventually reach developed status and birth rate will be low. It does not consider other outcomes. I'll throw in some very real hurdles

1. Intelligence. The average intelligence of the people breeding the most is much lower on average than the far below replacement rate of intelligent people. The video made mention of a worry in the 1960's that the poor and uneducated will out breed the more intelligent, and the video went on to more of less say it was an unfounded worry. However that is very flawed point as the fact that the poor, unintelligent and less educated absolutely breed more. Just because it did not become the overwhelming majority within a matter of decades doesn't mean it will not happen eventually.

2. Again related to intelligence but on a different point. Now I am going to word this as politically correct as I can while still making my point. The countries that have become developed and reached a point of population balance are all countries with average or higher, nation wide average IQ's. Without pointing at anyone directly, there are several nations in the world where the average IQ of the entire nation hovers at around 70 give or take a bit. Education availability can only account for a small amount of this difference. When these peoples are placed in an advanced society they show little improvement in intelligence, even if their children are born into a developed nation. Some "developing nations" are actually not developing at all. Some only seem like it because the hand outs of other nations inch them forward a bit at a time. Becoming a developed nation is likely not possible below a certain nation wide average of intelligence. There are some peoples in the world that could potentially take thousands of years of evolution just to catch up to the world average, let alone to the average of the leading nations. The hard ugly truth is that not all people are created equal, the video completely ignores that point. Among different regions we acknowledge physical differences between peoples of the world due to adapting to their local environments over thousands of years. These physical differences often show in professional sports where a given sport often becomes dominated by a people of a particular ethnic origin. God help you if you dare suggest that adapting to different environments across the globe isolated for millennia could result in divergent paths of mental evolution as well.

3. Current political turmoil in the world. Without specifically naming names, many governments of the world (especially the western world) are pushing the spread of a particular religion that simply seeks to dominate and will do so with increasing numbers if need be. Social progress be damned.

These above points that the world seems to be very likely headed toward an intellectual dark age. Or at least much more of the world than it's current state. These points could be used to consider their own paths of outcome.
 
This video seems on the mark in some ways, but over optimistic in other ways. It assumes that every country will eventually reach developed status and birth rate will be low. It does not consider other outcomes. I'll throw in some very real hurdles

1. Intelligence. The average intelligence of the people breeding the most is much lower on average than the far below replacement rate of intelligent people. The video made mention of a worry in the 1960's that the poor and uneducated will out breed the more intelligent, and the video went on to more of less say it was an unfounded worry. However that is very flawed point as the fact that the poor, unintelligent and less educated absolutely breed more. Just because it did not become the overwhelming majority within a matter of decades doesn't mean it will not happen eventually.

2. Again related to intelligence but on a different point. Now I am going to word this as politically correct as I can while still making my point. The countries that have become developed and reached a point of population balance are all countries with average or higher, nation wide average IQ's. Without pointing at anyone directly, there are several nations in the world where the average IQ of the entire nation hovers at around 70 give or take a bit. Education availability can only account for a small amount of this difference. When these peoples are placed in an advanced society they show little improvement in intelligence, even if their children are born into a developed nation. Some "developing nations" are actually not developing at all. Some only seem like it because the hand outs of other nations inch them forward a bit at a time. Becoming a developed nation is likely not possible below a certain nation wide average of intelligence. There are some peoples in the world that could potentially take thousands of years of evolution just to catch up to the world average, let alone to the average of the leading nations. The hard ugly truth is that not all people are created equal, the video completely ignores that point. Among different regions we acknowledge physical differences between peoples of the world due to adapting to their local environments over thousands of years. These physical differences often show in professional sports where a given sport often becomes dominated by a people of a particular ethnic origin. God help you if you dare suggest that adapting to different environments across the globe isolated for millennia could result in divergent paths of mental evolution as well.

3. Current political turmoil in the world. Without specifically naming names, many governments of the world (especially the western world) are pushing the spread of a particular religion that simply seeks to dominate and will do so with increasing numbers if need be. Social progress be damned.

These above points that the world seems to be very likely headed toward an intellectual dark age. Or at least much more of the world than it's current state. These points could be used to consider their own paths of outcome.
I will admit that this whole situation is quite complicated, with far too many factors to consider at a time for a single person. Assuming that everyone will work towards the betterment of mankind is practically wishful thinking.
Now, regarding intelligence and education, several factors may come into play, such as the culture of the individuals regarding education, the policies of the state they live in, overall beliefs, and poverty (which affects a lot of things). The best a nation can do is change their policies, then in time, change their culture to be more receptive to education and learning. Exactly how is a matter of debate, but I don't think it impossible. You must also understand, that even with "handouts," there are likely deeper issues to be dealt with before it can advance, that can't be solved just like that. This is true with all human societies, it's just that the 1st world countries today managed to either avoid them or solve them.
Now on to your point about genetics and evolution. I must firstly point out that you kinda sound like a racist, because saying "there are some peoples in the world that could potentially take thousands of years of evolution just to catch up to the world average" makes the assumption that they are something other, that they aren't homo sapiens. This is UNESCO's statement on race in the 1950s: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001229/122962eo.pdf, basically saying that it's not an actual thing that exists (that it's just a social construct), and they haven't retracted that statement since. So no, there is no "thousands of years of evolution" that they need to catch up. So if it's not some huge genetic difference (though there are at least a minor differences that can be attributed to genetic diversity in a species, obviously; if we didn't then we would all look the same), then there must be some other factors at play (or at least, play larger roles). Race isn't a biological thing, so it must be something about their environments. In developing war-torn countries for example, the general population IQ range will likely be lower, because they've got other things to worry about, like not dying, or in countries undergoing an economic depression, where people seriously have other things to worry about than taking tests or sitting down cracking open a book.
Regarding governments, must be understood is that government exists for the people, not the other way around. They will only have as much power as the people let them.
Now, about the religions, I will assume you mean either Christianity or Islam (maybe even both, maybe something else). Now, the best I can think of to counter people giving in, without even considering other options, to these dominating religions would be education; at least if they do convert they'll be able to give valid reasoning as to why and not just "oh well, it must be the truth!"(this may help a bit: The reason why atheists are more intelligent).

Now I will admit that I've got quite the stake in the world not dying before I get to see and do what I plan on doing before I die, so I'd be more inclined to look for evidence that the world is actually going somewhere good eventually, but if the world truly is grimdark, I'd want more substantial evidence before I do anything rash. And hey, if it is, maybe it'll be the kick I need to finally start doing things.
 
1. The breeding more you refer to is more likely a result of subjugation of women within a particular society. They do t get the choice of how many to breed. Birth rates drop as womans access to education,jobs,free choice and role in society increases.
Breeding more down to the power structure and traditions of a particular nation state/tribal nation.
People are placing too singu,ar importance on 'intelligence' as the single factor to dictate outcome. Caring for your fellow man, putting food on the table,living without violence. How is the perpetuation of violence related to intelligence?
IQ itself cluld be said to refer to a limited aspect of intelligence.
 
1. The breeding more you refer to is more likely a result of subjugation of women within a particular society. They do t get the choice of how many to breed. Birth rates drop as womans access to education,jobs,free choice and role in society increases.
Breeding more down to the power structure and traditions of a particular nation state/tribal nation.
People are placing too singu,ar importance on 'intelligence' as the single factor to dictate outcome. Caring for your fellow man, putting food on the table,living without violence. How is the perpetuation of violence related to intelligence?
IQ itself cluld be said to refer to a limited aspect of intelligence.
If I remember correctly Christopher Hitchens said that the most effective way to raise the state of a nation is to empower women, lovely humanist that man. Now it's true that intelligence is too diverse to turn into just one number, but apparently many experts think that current IQ tests are still an effective measure of general intelligence, emphasis on general. I think "Caring for your fellow man, putting food on the table,living without violence" would be quite lovely, wouldn't you all agree?
Now, please don't take this as an attack; I'm just commenting my genuine thoughts.
Also, could you please mention who you're responding to? It's a little vague without any quotations.
 
If I remember correctly Christopher Hitchens said that the most effective way to raise the state of a nation is to empower women, lovely humanist that man. Now it's true that intelligence is too diverse to turn into just one number, but apparently many experts think that current IQ tests are still an effective measure of general intelligence, emphasis on general. I think "Caring for your fellow man, putting food on the table,living without violence" would be quite lovely, wouldn't you all agree?
Now, please don't take this as an attack; I'm just commenting my genuine thoughts.
Also, could you please mention who you're responding to? It's a little vague without any quotations.

Previous post by pariah dog with corresponding number.

The rules create the behaviour.
The structure of the society rewards and creates certain people to rise others not.

Social intelligence within certain parameters can continue those traditional power structures.
Even if the population is considered 'intelligent' or not.

Lots of reasons why the 'intelligent' dont always come out on top.

Starting out with that as a criteria doesnt help clarify the bigger picture imo.
Most countries have been defined more by violence as a result of western greed imo.
Or a continual fight by european powers for power,resources, which brought in the rest of the world at certain times.

Power structures in different societies and how that manifests....
Education is one way to change it.
I think it is changing formthe better but lots of challenges along the way as you've highlighted.
 
.
Now on to your point about genetics and evolution. I must firstly point out that you kinda sound like a racist, because saying "there are some peoples in the world that could potentially take thousands of years of evolution just to catch up to the world average" makes the assumption that they are something other, that they aren't homo sapiens. This is UNESCO's statement on race in the 1950s: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001229/122962eo.pdf, basically saying that it's not an actual thing that exists (that it's just a social construct), and they haven't retracted that statement since. So no, there is no "thousands of years of evolution" that they need to catch up. So if it's not some huge genetic difference (though there are at least a minor differences that can be attributed to genetic diversity in a species, obviously; if we didn't then we would all look the same), then there must be some other factors at play (or at least, play larger roles). Race isn't a biological thing, so it must be something about their environments. In developing war-torn countries for example, the general population IQ range will likely be lower, because they've got other things to worry about, like not dying, or in countries undergoing an economic depression, where people seriously have other things to worry about than taking tests or sitting down cracking open a book..


This highlights the problem as to why some global issues can not even be discussed intelligently as it results in accusation of "isms...". I did not even specify a specific race and it still stirs the pot. UNESCO could call race merely a social construct. That could also be a statement to fit in place with a particular political agenda. Lets go back to the physical differences of ethnicity. If race is not a biological thing, why do people of certain ethnicity become dominate in certain sports? Clearly something about their physiology gave them an advantage to excel in their sport. Their physiology came about due to evolution of their people in their specific region of origin. If you looked across a very wide range of sports (not just the highly popular ones) you would probably find that in each one there is probably some ethnicity that tends to excel the most until all major ethnicities are eventually represented. It is concrete that there are physiological differences. Science, and not even political idealists try to debate that part. For example it is widely and proudly proclaimed that Kenya produces the world's best long distance runners, due to high altitude in their home land among other things. That is a sentiment embraced by main stream media. However is that not then racist to admit that people from Kenya are biologically different somehow? Or is it simply not racist because it is embracing a positive attribute of the people of that region rather than a negative? Physiological differences are one thing, but when suggesting possible mental difference it goes into a world of taboo where many people would rather point fingers and yell "racist" rather than discuss what may (or may not) be real.

Issues like survival and not dying do not account for an IQ spread of 30 points or more from the countries of highest IQ. I think East and South East Asia best reflect this more than any place in the world. They have nations which represent the highest IQ levels in the world. This region is divided up among the very wealthy and very poor, internally within a nation and also when comparing one nation to it's neighbor. This however does not create a great differential in IQ levels, as intelligence is much more biological than circumstantial. The other point being as I mentioned in the previous post. When you remove people from a low IQ nation and put them in a high IQ nation, those people do not join the high IQ. Their offspring will usually also not thrive and will remain well below the intelligence of the host nation, maintaining the approximate intelligence of their area of origin. The United States is a great shining example of this. However I could not see a way to discuss that particular situation on this forum without naming specific races and therefore likely being banned from the forum. I don't even think I can speak about it as a euphemism.

There is a theory that many believe that intelligence came about through environment a people live in. Some people lived in environments where food is plentiful, one just needs to live from one day to the next. Hunt, maybe there is easy local prey, forage some plants and so forth. Day after day without end. Evolution will develop a being as far as it needs to go to thrive in it's environment. Some other peoples found themselves in much harsher environments through migration, or other circumstances of ending up where they are (depending on what one believes in as far as how people ended up in different regions of the world). People in harsher environments would have to think ahead or die. They need to craft warm clothes to survive the cold. They need a strategy to have a food supply when food may be scarce (such as in a cold winter), they can not just live day to day, they need to think to the future and act accordingly. It is not simply survival of the strongest in those environments as it is in other environments, intelligence would play a much more crucial role. This a theory as to the basis of intelligence differential around the world. Its not even a matter of proclaiming what is "superior" or "inferior." Just a matter of fact that there was this much evolutionary pressure to make these specific people survive in this environment. "Superior" and "Inferior" are subjective and a matter of opinion.
 
This highlights the problem as to why some global issues can not even be discussed intelligently as it results in accusation of "isms...". I did not even specify a specific race and it still stirs the pot. UNESCO could call race merely a social construct. That could also be a statement to fit in place with a particular political agenda. Lets go back to the physical differences of ethnicity. If race is not a biological thing, why do people of certain ethnicity become dominate in certain sports? Clearly something about their physiology gave them an advantage to excel in their sport. Their physiology came about due to evolution of their people in their specific region of origin. If you looked across a very wide range of sports (not just the highly popular ones) you would probably find that in each one there is probably some ethnicity that tends to excel the most until all major ethnicities are eventually represented. It is concrete that there are physiological differences. Science, and not even political idealists try to debate that part. For example it is widely and proudly proclaimed that Kenya produces the world's best long distance runners, due to high altitude in their home land among other things. That is a sentiment embraced by main stream media. However is that not then racist to admit that people from Kenya are biologically different somehow? Or is it simply not racist because it is embracing a positive attribute of the people of that region rather than a negative? Physiological differences are one thing, but when suggesting possible mental difference it goes into a world of taboo where many people would rather point fingers and yell "racist" rather than discuss what may (or may not) be real.

Issues like survival and not dying do not account for an IQ spread of 30 points or more from the countries of highest IQ. I think East and South East Asia best reflect this more than any place in the world. They have nations which represent the highest IQ levels in the world. This region is divided up among the very wealthy and very poor, internally within a nation and also when comparing one nation to it's neighbor. This however does not create a great differential in IQ levels, as intelligence is much more biological than circumstantial. The other point being as I mentioned in the previous post. When you remove people from a low IQ nation and put them in a high IQ nation, those people do not join the high IQ. Their offspring will usually also not thrive and will remain well below the intelligence of the host nation, maintaining the approximate intelligence of their area of origin. The United States is a great shining example of this. However I could not see a way to discuss that particular situation on this forum without naming specific races and therefore likely being banned from the forum. I don't even think I can speak about it as a euphemism.

There is a theory that many believe that intelligence came about through environment a people live in. Some people lived in environments where food is plentiful, one just needs to live from one day to the next. Hunt, maybe there is easy local prey, forage some plants and so forth. Day after day without end. Evolution will develop a being as far as it needs to go to thrive in it's environment. Some other peoples found themselves in much harsher environments through migration, or other circumstances of ending up where they are (depending on what one believes in as far as how people ended up in different regions of the world). People in harsher environments would have to think ahead or die. They need to craft warm clothes to survive the cold. They need a strategy to have a food supply when food may be scarce (such as in a cold winter), they can not just live day to day, they need to think to the future and act accordingly. It is not simply survival of the strongest in those environments as it is in other environments, intelligence would play a much more crucial role. This a theory as to the basis of intelligence differential around the world. Its not even a matter of proclaiming what is "superior" or "inferior." Just a matter of fact that there was this much evolutionary pressure to make these specific people survive in this environment. "Superior" and "Inferior" are subjective and a matter of opinion.
I will admit that you did ruffle some feathers of mine, but regardless I will continue to attempt to discuss this rationally.

Now I will clarify that I didn't quite accuse you of racism, just that it does sound like what one might say. Now, I still stand by the idea that the "thousands of years of evolution" you mentioned isn't a thing that plays so large an effect on people's intelligence; we are still working with the same basic brain as our original ancestors. With regards to sports, obviously there are certain traits that give advantages should you have it, but these traits are spread out among and between ethnicities enough that people who excel in them could potentially come from anywhere (See here: Does Race or Ethnicity Matter in Athletics?). Not that that's always the case, but it's a thing.

Okay, can I please have a look at the references you've got for most of this? I really need to see them if you're going to convince me anytime soon. If you think that I'm lacking resources too then please tell me so that I can locate those too.
 
For example it is widely and proudly proclaimed that Kenya produces the world's best long distance runners, due to high altitude in their home land among other things

A lot were on drugs.

From what i recall there have been different reasons put forward for the IQ differential.
Alas, i dont have all the the time I need to go into it in detail.

I dont agree with your conclusions regarding IQ as i think there are manifold other drivers behind what you would define as a consistent deficiency.
I also dont think its intelligence as defined by IQ that really drives things forward.
 
This highlights the problem as to why some global issues can not even be discussed intelligently as it results in accusation of "isms...". I did not even specify a specific race and it still stirs the pot. UNESCO could call race merely a social construct. That could also be a statement to fit in place with a particular political agenda. Lets go back to the physical differences of ethnicity. If race is not a biological thing, why do people of certain ethnicity become dominate in certain sports? Clearly something about their physiology gave them an advantage to excel in their sport. Their physiology came about due to evolution of their people in their specific region of origin. If you looked across a very wide range of sports (not just the highly popular ones) you would probably find that in each one there is probably some ethnicity that tends to excel the most until all major ethnicities are eventually represented. It is concrete that there are physiological differences. Science, and not even political idealists try to debate that part. For example it is widely and proudly proclaimed that Kenya produces the world's best long distance runners, due to high altitude in their home land among other things. That is a sentiment embraced by main stream media. However is that not then racist to admit that people from Kenya are biologically different somehow? Or is it simply not racist because it is embracing a positive attribute of the people of that region rather than a negative? Physiological differences are one thing, but when suggesting possible mental difference it goes into a world of taboo where many people would rather point fingers and yell "racist" rather than discuss what may (or may not) be real.

Issues like survival and not dying do not account for an IQ spread of 30 points or more from the countries of highest IQ. I think East and South East Asia best reflect this more than any place in the world. They have nations which represent the highest IQ levels in the world. This region is divided up among the very wealthy and very poor, internally within a nation and also when comparing one nation to it's neighbor. This however does not create a great differential in IQ levels, as intelligence is much more biological than circumstantial. The other point being as I mentioned in the previous post. When you remove people from a low IQ nation and put them in a high IQ nation, those people do not join the high IQ. Their offspring will usually also not thrive and will remain well below the intelligence of the host nation, maintaining the approximate intelligence of their area of origin. The United States is a great shining example of this. However I could not see a way to discuss that particular situation on this forum without naming specific races and therefore likely being banned from the forum. I don't even think I can speak about it as a euphemism.

There is a theory that many believe that intelligence came about through environment a people live in. Some people lived in environments where food is plentiful, one just needs to live from one day to the next. Hunt, maybe there is easy local prey, forage some plants and so forth. Day after day without end. Evolution will develop a being as far as it needs to go to thrive in it's environment. Some other peoples found themselves in much harsher environments through migration, or other circumstances of ending up where they are (depending on what one believes in as far as how people ended up in different regions of the world). People in harsher environments would have to think ahead or die. They need to craft warm clothes to survive the cold. They need a strategy to have a food supply when food may be scarce (such as in a cold winter), they can not just live day to day, they need to think to the future and act accordingly. It is not simply survival of the strongest in those environments as it is in other environments, intelligence would play a much more crucial role. This a theory as to the basis of intelligence differential around the world. Its not even a matter of proclaiming what is "superior" or "inferior." Just a matter of fact that there was this much evolutionary pressure to make these specific people survive in this environment. "Superior" and "Inferior" are subjective and a matter of opinion.
I will admit that where you live can give you advantages, such as that point about living in higher altitudes lets people adapt to using less oxygen, provided they stay in locations like that for long periods of time.

Edit: fixed the spacing
 
Don't forget, when we say "someone only lived to be 50" we are talking averages, considerably dragged down by high infant mortality. A person in the Middle Ages could live as long as we do; it was simply less likely a given person could keep dodging infection and plagues.

In addition, we are gathering evidence that a functional old age has a lot of lifestyle factors that we can change. Staying active, lowering the body's inflammatory load, maintaining proper nutrition; it can make a big difference to the individual.

My body breakdown from stress is being reversed by my getting plenty of animal protein and fat, and taking a Betaine HCL capsule to make sure I digest it properly. A LOT of poor aging comes from people eating tasty, cheap, easy-to-chew concoctions of starch and sugar with very low food values. This stresses the pancreas, creates inflammation, and keeps blood sugar too high. There's more and more studies showing that Alzheimer's is "diabetes of the brain," or diabetes III, as it is becoming known.

And I already see my age-peers getting one prescription after another, half of them simply to handle side effects from the other half. This is not the way to age; in fact, I think it is a large factor in aging badly. The Lipid Hypothesis has been debunked, arthritis medications are just increasing doses of fancy aspirin that do not address the real issue, and no one tries to fix the problem, they just plaster over it with inadequately tested drugs that mask the symptoms.
 
IQ can vary by zip code among people who have very similar genetic patterns; it's half nurture. An environment with toys and books and things like "cup + saucer" that are on IQ tests... what does this mean to a poor child, whose parents have to work three jobs and/or have substance problems? One who doesn't get the attention or enriched environment?
 
IQ can vary by zip code among people who have very similar genetic patterns; it's half nurture. An environment with toys and books and things like "cup + saucer" that are on IQ tests... what does this mean to a poor child, whose parents have to work three jobs and/or have substance problems? One who doesn't get the attention or enriched environment?

Time with parents,encouragement, engagement to read

3 jobs,stress, no security of tenure, etc etc
 
This highlights the problem as to why some global issues can not even be discussed intelligently as it results in accusation of "isms...". I did not even specify a specific race and it still stirs the pot. UNESCO could call race merely a social construct. That could also be a statement to fit in place with a particular political agenda. Lets go back to the physical differences of ethnicity. If race is not a biological thing, why do people of certain ethnicity become dominate in certain sports? Clearly something about their physiology gave them an advantage to excel in their sport. Their physiology came about due to evolution of their people in their specific region of origin. If you looked across a very wide range of sports (not just the highly popular ones) you would probably find that in each one there is probably some ethnicity that tends to excel the most until all major ethnicities are eventually represented. It is concrete that there are physiological differences. Science, and not even political idealists try to debate that part. For example it is widely and proudly proclaimed that Kenya produces the world's best long distance runners, due to high altitude in their home land among other things. That is a sentiment embraced by main stream media. However is that not then racist to admit that people from Kenya are biologically different somehow? Or is it simply not racist because it is embracing a positive attribute of the people of that region rather than a negative? Physiological differences are one thing, but when suggesting possible mental difference it goes into a world of taboo where many people would rather point fingers and yell "racist" rather than discuss what may (or may not) be real.

Issues like survival and not dying do not account for an IQ spread of 30 points or more from the countries of highest IQ. I think East and South East Asia best reflect this more than any place in the world. They have nations which represent the highest IQ levels in the world. This region is divided up among the very wealthy and very poor, internally within a nation and also when comparing one nation to it's neighbor. This however does not create a great differential in IQ levels, as intelligence is much more biological than circumstantial. The other point being as I mentioned in the previous post. When you remove people from a low IQ nation and put them in a high IQ nation, those people do not join the high IQ. Their offspring will usually also not thrive and will remain well below the intelligence of the host nation, maintaining the approximate intelligence of their area of origin. The United States is a great shining example of this. However I could not see a way to discuss that particular situation on this forum without naming specific races and therefore likely being banned from the forum. I don't even think I can speak about it as a euphemism.

There is a theory that many believe that intelligence came about through environment a people live in. Some people lived in environments where food is plentiful, one just needs to live from one day to the next. Hunt, maybe there is easy local prey, forage some plants and so forth. Day after day without end. Evolution will develop a being as far as it needs to go to thrive in it's environment. Some other peoples found themselves in much harsher environments through migration, or other circumstances of ending up where they are (depending on what one believes in as far as how people ended up in different regions of the world). People in harsher environments would have to think ahead or die. They need to craft warm clothes to survive the cold. They need a strategy to have a food supply when food may be scarce (such as in a cold winter), they can not just live day to day, they need to think to the future and act accordingly. It is not simply survival of the strongest in those environments as it is in other environments, intelligence would play a much more crucial role. This a theory as to the basis of intelligence differential around the world. Its not even a matter of proclaiming what is "superior" or "inferior." Just a matter of fact that there was this much evolutionary pressure to make these specific people survive in this environment. "Superior" and "Inferior" are subjective and a matter of opinion.
A lot were on drugs.

From what i recall there have been different reasons put forward for the IQ differential.
Alas, i dont have all the the time I need to go into it in detail.

I dont agree with your conclusions regarding IQ as i think there are manifold other drivers behind what you would define as a consistent deficiency.
I also dont think its intelligence as defined by IQ that really drives things forward.

Oh yeah, I remember. The studies I found referenced in Wikipedia's section for 2000-present on their page about the "History of the race and intelligence controversy" (See here: History of the race and intelligence controversy - Wikipedia) mentioned that "experts surveyed ranked education as the most important factor of these differences, with genes in second place; they also found the most variation in the rankings of genetics compared to any other factor." Now I tried checking it a bit (the last 2 studies, though you can only check the 2nd to the last for free, the other has a paywall), and this was on their discussion section:

Experts on cognitive ability rated possible causes of international differences in student assessment and psychometric IQ test results. Ratings were obtained for cross-national differences and single countries using a percentage scale ranging from 0 to 100% (higher percentages = more important). The expert survey revealed important results: Methodological factors (sampling error, test bias, test knowledge) were weakly rated (cross-national: 11.78%; single countries' average: 6.26%), as was discrimination (cross-national: 2.10%, single countries: 1.23%). In contrast, educational factors (quality and quantity) and genes were strongly rated. The low ratings for methodological factors suggest that international assessments were perceived to be valid indicators of cognitive ability and cross-country patterns.

Experts rated the two educational factors together (quantity and quality) as the most important cause of international differences in cognitive ability (cross-national: 21.64%, single countries' average: 28.29%). Weaker ratings were given for environmental factors such as health (cross-national: 10.88%, single countries: 7.32%), wealth (cross-national: 8.96%, single countries: 7.28%), modernization (cross-national: 7.19%, single countries: 4.91%), and politics (cross-national: 4.77%, single countries: 5.56%). The sum of all these environmental factors explained more than half of the international ability differences (cross-national: 53.44%; single- countries' average: 53.36%).

The relative importance of environmental factors does not mean that genetic factors were seen as irrelevant. Based on expert opinions, the genetic-evolutionary factor was the single most important cause of international differences in cognitive ability (cross-national: 16.99%, single-country: 19.72%): Experts attributed about one-sixth to one-fifth of international ability differences to genes. While the rated impact of genes was remarkable, it was still well below the rated impact of environmental factors (around 50%). In addition, disagreement among experts (based on SDs in ratings) was much higher for genes than for environmental factors. Other factors such as geographic and climate differences were rated as negligible influences on international ability differences. Immigration was rated as important only for Israel.

Now, this suggests that while genetics play a key role, education and its quality may be even more important.
 
If race is not a biological thing, why do people of certain ethnicity become dominate in certain sports?

Because they are allowed.

Turn of the 20th century show business was filled with talented people from African-American and Jewish ancestry. It's not that they were more talented that the Germans, Dutch, and other Northern Europeans who dominated the ruling elite. It's that show business had less prejudice; if you can put butts in seats, you could work there. So that is where they went. Because they were not allowed into the colleges and professions that the elite reserved for themselves.

At that same time there were large numbers of Irish, Jewish, and Italian gangsters who dominated crime. Now, it's a different set of people. It's not that certain people are prone to criminality. It's that when you close off avenues to ambition, people are going to clog the means of getting ahead they can access. The Irish, Jewish, and Italian ethnicities are now considered "white." Yes, there was a time when the pale pale Irish were not "white." They were regarded as lesser and trapped in servant jobs.

Race is a human construct. It is meaningless.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom