Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Why is IQ dropping in developed countries?

  1. #1
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,402
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,402, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.

    Why is IQ dropping in developed countries?



    See:
    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...de-ncna1008576

    "So if IQ scores are really dropping, that could not only mean 15 more seasons of the Kardashians, but also the potential end of progress on all these other fronts, ultimately leading to fewer scientific breakthroughs, stagnant economies and a general dimming of our collective future."

    "Details vary from study to study and from place to place given the available data. IQ shortfalls in Norway and Denmark appear in longstanding tests of military conscripts, whereas information about France is based on a smaller sample and a different test. But the broad pattern has become clearer: Beginning around the turn of the 21st century, many of the most economically advanced nations began experiencing some kind of decline in IQ."

    "One potential explanation was quasi-eugenic. As in the movie “Idiocracy,” it was suggested that average intelligence is being pulled down because lower-IQ families are having more children ("dysgenic fertility" is the technical term). Alternatively, widening immigration might be bringing less-intelligent newcomers to societies with otherwise higher IQs."

    The argument has been extended to migration of the lowest achieving people from other nations.

    "However, a 2018 study of Norway has punctured these theories by showing that IQs are dropping not just across societies but within families. In other words, the issue is not that educated Norwegians are increasingly outnumbered by lower-IQ immigrants or the children of less-educated citizens. Even children born to high-IQ parents are slipping down the IQ ladder.


    Some environmental factor — or collection of factors — is causing a drop in the IQ scores of parents and their own children, and older kids and their younger siblings. One leading explanation is that the rise of lower-skill service jobs has made work less intellectually demanding, leaving IQs to atrophy as people flex their brains less."




    "
    As yet, the United States hasn’t hit this IQ wall — despite what you may be tempted to surmise from the current state of the political debate. But don’t rush to celebrate American exceptionalism: If IQs are dropping in other advanced countries but not here, maybe that means we’re not really an advanced country (too much poverty, too little social support)."


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  2. #2
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    'IQs are dropping not just across societies but within families'

    well it must be education then I guess?

  3. #3
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,402
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,402, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    'IQs are dropping not just across societies but within families'
    well it must be education then I guess?
    If they're doing really good IQ tests, i.e. testing things like short term memory, long term memory, visual skills, as well as math and vocabulary, then I think something else might be going on.

    Could it be bad nutrition? Too much time on computer games so that they have a hard time focusing?

    I saw someone claim that for native English speakers a 90 second vocabulary pronunciation test correlates pretty well with IQ. It's called the National Adult Reading Test or NART. That seems bizarre to me. He claims it's because English has so few real "rules".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...t_Reading_Test

    It contains a lot of "irregular" words like "aisle" and "labile".

    This is the kind of thing which would be affected by education, but not memory things or visual pattern recognition.

  4. #4
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    391
    Points
    11,141
    Level
    31
    Points: 11,141, Level: 31
    Level completed: 85%, Points required for next Level: 109
    Overall activity: 20.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Clever people are having less children. Women with higher IQ are less likely to have children.

    Here are the finding of one research:

    "One-standard-deviation increase in childhood general intelligence (15 IQ points) decreases women's odds of parenthood by 21-25%. Because women have a greater impact on the average intelligence of future generations, the dysgenic fertility among women is predicted to lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population in advanced industrial nations" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25131282

    With intelligence dropping in families - I think it should be about smart gadgets. I really noticed that those who always use driving directions end up with inferior spacial orientation compared to how they were before.

  5. #5
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,402
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,402, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dagne View Post
    Clever people are having less children. Women with higher IQ are less likely to have children.

    Here are the finding of one research:

    "One-standard-deviation increase in childhood general intelligence (15 IQ points) decreases women's odds of parenthood by 21-25%. Because women have a greater impact on the average intelligence of future generations, the dysgenic fertility among women is predicted to lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population in advanced industrial nations" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25131282
    I think that's very true. It's just that the article claims it's even happening within similar types of families.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,190
    Points
    39,350
    Level
    61
    Points: 39,350, Level: 61
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 1,000
    Overall activity: 48.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    a moto we use to say in Greece is

    Πενια τεχνας εργαζετε

    meaning poverty makes people smarter.
    and I think is correct,
    hungry hunter search and thinks more on how to catch food,
    than a 'full stomach' hunter,

    and the more we go on these standards,
    with easy joy on a pc game, an easy learning from essay, a job and a life of buttons, eating food that do not even know the materials,
    the more stupid will be.
    ΟΘΕΝ ΑΙΔΩΣ OY EINAI
    ΑΤΗ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
    ΥΒΡΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΑΤΑΙ
    ΝΕΜΕΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣΗ ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΣΙ ΔΕ

    When there is no shame
    Divine blindness conquers them
    Hybris (abuse, opprombium) is born
    Nemesis and punishment follows.

    Εχε υπομονη Ηρωα
    Η τιμωρια δεν αργει.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    400
    Points
    8,589
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,589, Level: 27
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 10.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-DF103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bm

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    a moto we use to say in Greece is

    Πενια τεχνας εργαζετε

    meaning poverty makes people smarter.
    and I think is correct,
    hungry hunter search and thinks more on how to catch food,
    than a 'full stomach' hunter,

    and the more we go on these standards,
    with easy joy on a pc game, an easy learning from essay, a job and a life of buttons, eating food that do not even know the materials,
    the more stupid will be.
    I would tend to agree. It may have to do with both "nature" (the dysgenic fertility thing) and "culture" (or lack thereof) : comfort breeds laziness, and laziness regression.
    It is therefore worth while to search out the bounds between opinion and knowledge; and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no certain knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent and moderate our persuasion. (John Locke)

  8. #8
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    391
    Points
    11,141
    Level
    31
    Points: 11,141, Level: 31
    Level completed: 85%, Points required for next Level: 109
    Overall activity: 20.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Besides, our brains are shrinking...
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nk/?redirect=1
    https://medium.com/@yuribarzov/dehum...m-d1a8c407e635

    Humans get "domesticated", which correlates to smaller brains. The principe "use it or loose it" is still applicable, if humans don't get into unpredictable dangerous situations their brains will shrink within the individual lifespan, too.

    "Some scientists continue to believe that the shrinkage of hippocampus and cortical areas connected to it is induced by age, but
    comparative studies of humans and chimpanzees suggest that the cause of shrinkage is in the environment and lifestyle. They clearly demonstrate that only human hippocampus shrinks dramatically over time while chimpanzees’ hippocampus retains its volume across the entire lifespan.

    Apparently, hunter gatherers 20,000-10,000 years ago used their brains a lot more or/and much differently than us now.
    Last edited by Dagne; 30-05-19 at 13:12.

  9. #9
    Moderator Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,616
    Points
    70,581
    Level
    82
    Points: 70,581, Level: 82
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 869
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Dagne View Post
    Besides, our brains are shrinking...
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nk/?redirect=1
    https://medium.com/@yuribarzov/dehum...m-d1a8c407e635

    Humans get "domesticated", which correlates to smaller brains. The principe "use it or loose it" is still applicable, if humans don't get into unpredictable dangerous situations their brains will shrink within the individual lifespan, too.

    "Some scientists continue to believe that the shrinkage of hippocampus and cortical areas connected to it is induced by age, but
    comparative studies of humans and chimpanzees suggest that the cause of shrinkage is in the environment and lifestyle. They clearly demonstrate that only human hippocampus shrinks dramatically over time while chimpanzees’ hippocampus retains its volume across the entire lifespan.

    Apparently, hunter gatherers 20,000-10,000 years ago used their brains a lot more or/and much differently than us now.
    I don't think that we would be enjoying the amenities of civilization, if this were true.

    My people have been enjoying the amenities of civilization a lot longer than most, and I have many genetic advantages when it comes to the brain:

    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...rdnaportal-com

    As well as physical genetic advantages, in regards to height and muscle performance.

    Thus, I am inclined to believe that this theory of hunter-gatherers being somehow "superior" is patently false. Many were found to suffer from debilitating disease, like vitamin C deficiency. I think this probably snowballed into generations of dysgenics, that perhaps led to their decline.

  10. #10
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,706
    Points
    25,751
    Level
    49
    Points: 25,751, Level: 49
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 799
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I think any long-term evolutionary explaantion may even end up being correct, but they are not at the root of what's happening now. The drop happened within less than 2 generations, roughly between 1970-1980 and 2005-2015, so not enough for any major impact of evolutionary trends. That would require an unbelievably dramatic selective sweep that did not happen. Besides, before the 1980s the IQ in developed nations (and probably in developing ones, too, though I'm not sure there are objective data to show that) was increasing with increasing comfort and complexity, which is not what you'd expect if those "superior hunter-gatherers" hypothesis were correct.

  11. #11
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,402
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,402, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    I just read about super-visualizers whose visual cortex is smaller, and scientists believe it's because their brains are so super-efficient at these visual skills that they don't need as many cells.

    I think there's something to be said for that. It's the efficiency, the wiring, the synapses, and how quickly "messages" pass through which is important.

    In terms of long term evolution, yes, I think there are a lot of people with relatively low IQs who wouldn't have survived two hundred years ago, who do survive today, and reproduce, and that will have an effect. So will the fact that the brightest and most educated women have the fewest children.

    Some have explained declines by mass migration of people with lower IQs into the more developed countries.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    shissem@san.rr.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-05-17
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    119
    Points
    3,306
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,306, Level: 16
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 144
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a-Z726
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4a1h

    Ethnic group
    English/German
    Country: USA - California



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    While I don't dispute anything said above, I have to think that IQ tests don't really test innate intelligence, but some combination of education and environment. I don't accept that because someone comes from a poor country they are necessarily of a lower IQ. Many people have come to America from a myriad of countries, many third-world, and once they got here, free from the political systems that held them back in their home countries, they went on to become technological geniuses, financials marvels, and titans of industry.

  13. #13
    Moderator Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,616
    Points
    70,581
    Level
    82
    Points: 70,581, Level: 82
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 869
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I just read about super-visualizers whose visual cortex is smaller, and scientists believe it's because their brains are so super-efficient at these visual skills that they don't need as many cells.
    I think there's something to be said for that. It's the efficiency, the wiring, the synapses, and how quickly "messages" pass through which is important.
    In terms of long term evolution, yes, I think there are a lot of people with relatively low IQs who wouldn't have survived two hundred years ago, who do survive today, and reproduce, and that will have an effect. So will the fact that the brightest and most educated women have the fewest children.
    Some have explained declines by mass migration of people with lower IQs into the more developed countries.
    I think it is true that many people today wouldn't have survived 200 years ago. Nevertheless, civilization itself is bigger than any one individual, or segment of the population. It is a continuation of culture, and knowledge, and is more of a super-organism, that we have a symbiotic relationship with. I think that naturally, society is hierarchical, and will always be divided by class. Despite the fact that many people who are unfit for survival in the state of nature, survive. It is still the optimal environment for people that do have the attributes for survival as well. There is no way that the best in our society could live up to their true potential in a hunter-gatherer environment.
    Last edited by Jovialis; 11-06-19 at 19:15.

  14. #14
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,402
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,402, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I think it is true that many people today wouldn't have survived 200 years ago. Nevertheless, civilization itself is bigger than any one individual, or segment of the population. It is a continuation of culture, and knowledge, and is more of super-organism, that we have a symbiotic relationship with. I think that naturally society is hierarchical, and will always be divided by class. Despite the fact that many people who are unfit for survival in the state of nature, survive. It is still the optimal environment for people that do have the attributes for survival as well. There is no way that the best in our society could live up to their true potential in a hunter-gatherer environment.
    Very true.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    236
    Points
    1,158
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,158, Level: 9
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 192
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I think that naturally, society is hierarchical, and will always be divided by class. Despite the fact that many people who are unfit for survival in the state of nature, survive. It is still the optimal environment for people that do have the attributes for survival as well.There is no way that the best in our society could live up to their true potential in a hunter-gatherer environment.
    define who are the "best" and who are the "unfit" in our modern society and are those 2 groups similar to the "best" and "unfit" in a hunter gatherer society? i really don't think so. a construction worker on a construciton site could be way more fit for survival in nature than an ivory tower CEO. we need different skills today and the selection is way more specific.
    of course it also matters where those hunter gatherers would live. they all lived in different environments. so what kind of food was available and for example the climate had a way bigger effect than today.

  16. #16
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,402
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,402, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Within our lifetimes, most manual labor will be done by robots. One of the last good paying jobs for non-college graduates is truck driving. They've been testing robot and self-driving trucks for years already. UPS? Same thing, or Amazon is planning on having little drones drop your packages to you on your front door.

    The only thing that would make you safe is a high IQ and people skills, and even that will have to be very high level and very specialized. I have a friend who's a radiologist, which requires extremely high intellect as well as visual discrimination skills. They're testing robots to see if they can do a better job. I'm sure they can.

    Those with high intelligence, curiosity, may "survive", and would have the psychological wherewithal which could put the leisure to good use.

    Those without it will probably be given enough to barely live, and fill their lives with intoxicants of one kind or another, and endless garbage media.

    So, yes, to an extent, what makes you "fit" for survival depends on the era. One thing is certain: big stature and muscles are going to be irrelevant. Fancy going up against a robot soldier? I would think a wily, deceptive, high IQ type would be more likely to survive: an Odysseus, not an Achilles. :)

    As for the other point, of course the hunter-gatherers should be applauded for their survival skills. The fact remains that they barely survived in any numbers, were always on the verge of extinction, had to kill their young to keep their numbers down, wound up interbred, and on and on.

    More importantly, because they didn't produce enough for a surplus, there was no one to learn how to write, or create metals, or cities, or large scale trade, or eventually the laptop or phone you use for communicating, or the planes you take to go on vacation etc. The civilization whose benefits you reap could not have developed from people living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It was a dead end.

    You are also still perhaps under the misapprehension that farmers were always farmers? Farmers were just hunter-gatherers in the Fertile Crescent who were lucky enough to do their hunter-gathering in a veritable paradise by survival standards in those days, which could support a larger population than usual, and they had the intellect and the ability to socially interact and cooperate enough to start on the road to agriculture, metallurgy, cities, writing, i.e. "Civilization".

  17. #17
    Moderator Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,616
    Points
    70,581
    Level
    82
    Points: 70,581, Level: 82
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 869
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Within our lifetimes, most manual labor will be done by robots. One of the last good paying jobs for non-college graduates is truck driving. They've been testing robot and self-driving trucks for years already. UPS? Same thing, or Amazon is planning on having little drones drop your packages to you on your front door.

    The only thing that would make you safe is a high IQ and people skills, and even that will have to be very high level and very specialized. I have a friend who's a radiologist, which requires extremely high intellect as well as visual discrimination skills. They're testing robots to see if they can do a better job. I'm sure they can.

    Those with high intelligence, curiosity, may "survive", and would have the psychological wherewithal which could put the leisure to good use.

    Those without it will probably be given enough to barely live, and fill their lives with intoxicants of one kind or another, and endless garbage media.

    So, yes, to an extent, what makes you "fit" for survival depends on the era. One thing is certain: big stature and muscles are going to be irrelevant. Fancy going up against a robot soldier? I would think a wily, deceptive, high IQ type would be more likely to survive: an Odysseus, not an Achilles. :)

    As for the other point, of course the hunter-gatherers should be applauded for their survival skills. The fact remains that they barely survived in any numbers, were always on the verge of extinction, had to kill their young to keep their numbers down, wound up interbred, and on and on.

    More importantly, because they didn't produce enough for a surplus, there was no one to learn how to write, or create metals, or cities, or large scale trade, or eventually the laptop or phone you use for communicating, or the planes you take to go on vacation etc. The civilization whose benefits you reap could not have developed from people living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It was a dead end.

    You are also still perhaps under the misapprehension that farmers were always farmers? Farmers were just hunter-gatherers in the Fertile Crescent who were lucky enough to do their hunter-gathering in a veritable paradise by survival standards in those days, which could support a larger population than usual, and they had the intellect and the ability to socially interact and cooperate enough to start on the road to agriculture, metallurgy, cities, writing, i.e. "Civilization".
    Indeed, those that are able to utilize their high intellect will be the fittest. Manual laborers will be the new "Art Historians" of the future; meaning their skills will be unmarketable. I recall seeing a lecture at a conference where the guest speaker stated that middle men will be eliminated in the future. Much of the work that people do is facilitating specialized processes as a means to an end. Also, once production can be localized, it will probably be the end of exporting labor to countries like China. There will be little between the visionary, and the means to produce their vision. I'm not sure how other people will be able to sell their labor, but I don't see a solution that can suffice. Ultimately, I think there will be massive upheaval to come. One thing I think is certain, is that wealthy people will be secure. They will be equipped for the transition. The lower classes of people are going to have even bigger problems than they do already. More, and more, I think the wealthier people will insulate themselves from the poor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ailchu View Post
    define who are the "best" and who are the "unfit" in our modern society and are those 2 groups similar to the "best" and "unfit" in a hunter gatherer society? i really don't think so. a construction worker on a construciton site could be way more fit for survival in nature than an ivory tower CEO. we need different skills today and the selection is way more specific.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailchu View Post
    of course it also matters where those hunter gatherers would live. they all lived in different environments. so what kind of food was available and for example the climate had a way bigger effect than today.
    What are these caricatures? Most of the people I know that are wealthy and intelligent, are quite fit, and take care of themselves. They have the luxury of going to the gym, having personal trainer, and optimal diet. I don't think a construction worker necessarily has any better odds.

  18. #18
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,402
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,402, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    The emphasis these days is on the risk to the health of women, and yes, childbirth is one of them. Ignored is the fact that a lot of men do jobs that aren't at all safe, and it impacts their longevity, and that includes things like truck drivers (trust me, they're not at all fit), farmers, construction workers, firemen, policemen.

    Plus, the lower people are on the economic scale, the less well they eat, as Jovialis said. There are dozens of studies on the subject. Part of it is lack of information, and part of it is that it's cheap and easy and requires no self-control.

Posting Permissions

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