Quantifying the Fall of Civilization
Another thing to consider--though technically not dysngenics in the traditional sense, is the effect of an ageging population on intelligence.
'Fluid intelligence', that is to say, the intelligence behind problem solving, creativity & innovation peaks rather than crystallized intelligence(i.e. knowledge) at ~20 years of age, and reduces up to a standard deviation by middle age(~50).
We have a large ageing crisis that will peak also during dysgenic evolution. From an average of 35 in 1950 to 45 in 2050. In countries like South Korea it's up to 57.
Say the 'high estimate' of 0.8 IQ drop per decade occurs in Korea, that's a 2.4 point drop by 2050. At the same time, we can expect half a standard deviation to drop due to ageing--that's about a 8 point drop by 2050--even more drastic (this is counterbalanced by 'crystallized' intelligence somewhat but still).
Expect countries like South Korea: one of the most intelligent: 102 IQ to drop to ~92.
Seems like it should be self-limiting. Global IQ crashing to sub-saharan levels renders the maintenance of high tech civilization, including high-productivity agriculture, impossible. It follows that a die-back should cull the herd. Famine and war reestablishing malthusian conditions will reduce the population to whatever level is compatible with the intelligence of that population, while re-introducing selective pressure for intelligence. Then the cycle will continue.
May I translate it to my native language (with giving you credentials) and publish it on my substack
The dysgenic story is a really an immigration story. It matters little how many low IQ Africans there are, if they can't move to the first world and mess things up. Native rates of dysgenic aren't big enough to cause a seismic shift on any timeline short enough to bother make predictions.
So the question boils down to whether we will invent and implement artificial genetic improvement at scale before a third world immigration tidal wave destroys the first world, causing a collapse in the societies that would invent such technology.
In contrast to the g-hollow flynn effect gains, this nationally representative, n = 79,734 sample found a Jensen effect on dysgenic fertility:
List of fertility interventions that I think would actually work:
-baby simulators for preteen girls in school
-education abolished for women from puberty onwards (controlling for age at first birth singlehandedly makes the breeding patterns eugenic again)
-infuse melanocortin in the water supply to make people hornier
-Take socialist-tier control of hollywood and pump out films that increase nationalist (especially ethnonat) sentiment among the population; I think having kids is the female equivalent of a guy who wants to test himself in battle or do his civic duty or whatever.
-Eugenics: If having no kids suddenly became a marker of low status and academic failure, women would suddenly be tripping over themselves to have as many as possible.
Not necessarily true. The plan for wealthy families who possess hoards of enterprises, land, politicians and whatnot has always been to enslave the population and hybridize them to mindless mongrels that can be controlled telepathically, while diluting their genetic potential. As long as there is an elite team of genetic engineers out there and some cybernetic transhumanists, these interests will coincide with the ruling elite to disparage the genetic lineage away from the masses, and realistically it only takes a fllp of square root of additive variance of genes to get a one or so standard deviation increase in cognition. When you think of a fixed set of millions of permutations and you only need to switch a subset of those as Stephen Hsu has noted, you can get rather huge gains -- something anyone can already witness with Artificial Selection where normally one chicken produces one egg a month and now they produce one every day, milking of cows, size, etc (one can already compare the phenotypic differences of animals in rural Asian countries vs artificially bred and selected Western animals in weight size, protein mass, etc and immediately come to the conclusion that standard deviation increases are trivial). Mass-producing geniuses with long-life spans or near-immortality bodies (continual self-induction of pluripotency, regeneration of cells and pruning/deprecation of oxidized/damaged/degraded/methylated DNA/cells) will come to fruition and the elites will exploit it, of course whether they share it with the rest of the population and instigate some cybernetic interfaces like the military (DARPA) to make Brain-Controlled interfaces will be unknown but the world does not need more bajillions of people to do the same things everyday at the same amount of labour at the same amount of rate per increase in population, it's best to leave most of the cognition and manual work to something to be automated in the end. I have no doubt they will instigate food shortages, energy crises in the name of global 'catastrophism' for suitable re-buying re-rationing and capitalizing of land to design their future of humanity utopia where everyone is surveilled and anyone that steps our of line including err-berrger joe with IQ 76 will be shot down with a drone from the sky and dragged away to a facility. Either way they are already very contemptuous that the majority of the population weren't satisficed with the early eugenics programs that their forefounders/fathers/early families continue to practice and were promoting in the past and live in a realm of lies and fiction, so naturally they would decide to get rid of the population and only keep useful obedient individuals. One can check Bill Gates channel on Youtube and see he is using 'predictive analytics' to find the most useful individuals (cognition) to build this next-gen of Robots/AI engineers/Remote World Makers or whatever. Not to mention there is already IQ stratification by neighborhoods, you had to be more clever to get that higher income and if you willed it (through social games).
>Climate change is currently predicted to cost us a whopping 4% of world GDP by 2050. My numbers imply dysgenics will cost us 30% of GDP by 2050. We should be willing to spend huge amounts of money to solve this problem. Dysgenics is truly an ‘unknown unknown’ that we are too afraid to even talk about.
This right here really exposes how fake the "discourse" is. I like to steal from the French pomos and call it spectacle -- it's all spectacle, the real problems are ignored and soy-scowled at. White genocide and dysgenics are among the worse real problems -- what Biden did this week can only be distraction for rubes if stopping white genocide and the explosion of the savage population isn't even thought of.
There are other problems they like to soy-scowl at too -- second to the decline of the gene pool is the massively wasteful education system, literally trillions per decade are spent on nothing, or even negative impact, so teachers, "education" corporations, and colleges can keep getting paid and keep expanding. I wrote a whole book proving this and I have come to intimately learn how fake what people care about is -- this education thing is of more importance than anything "effective altruists", for example, do. Stopping white genocide is of even more importance. These supposed "rationalists" don't care, to them expanding the African population and stopping "climate change" is simply more important, despite claiming to be about the numbers. You and I can show them the numbers; they claim to care -- their response? Soy scowling and ignoring. They are exactly like children who have been told to do something they don't want to do by and adult they do not respect because he has not disciplined them.
All of this is to hint at a secret truth which has been most hidden for the last 200 years, a truth which even the "dissident right" hardly gets at. The "DR" understands that nonwhites and women are unequal, but they have not yet understood that >95% of white men are actually natural slaves. This population has already massively expanded under industrialization, and its existence and its legal equality is in large part what we can blame for our current predicament. People under an IQ under 120 or 125 are basically machines, they can't be original, they lack the brain power basically, they can't think up their own order of things, they can't create a new enterprise, so they must be wage-slaves --
and as you showed in your post under 93 they are useless at that. Improvements in humanness are apparent at least up to 145. A solid 95% of people are not capable of actually understanding your post and probably 98% are incapable of producing something like it. The intelligence distribution alone proves the mistake that was abolishing serfdom -- perhaps they should have been "freed" from the land, but they never should have been seen as anything other than in the custody of a natural nobility, for based on intelligence alone these people are mental children compared to me. If we suppose my IQ increased from 0 at birth to 145 at my 15th birthday, then it increased 9.67 points per year during my childhood. My IQ would have been 125 at 13, which seems about right, 115 at 12, which seems about right (I was about as smart as the public school teachers), 106 at 11 which seems about right (I was doing IT stuff by this age like running minecraft servers from scratch off of my Windows Vista laptop), 96 at 10, 87 at 9, 77 at 8, etc. I was treated as a slave at this age, allegedly because I was a stupid child. But if I was a stupid child at IQs <= 125, what does that make most of the adult population? If we suppose that society is ruled by a ruling class with an average IQ of about 125, that would make them, in terms of my own development, 13 year old babysitters caring for 10 year old proles. Perhaps the solution to our ills to to recognize the childish immaturity of these two classes, and to give them the rights they afforded us when we were their age. I think they need to be sent to their rooms and grounded for a long, long time and be reminded that children obey the adults in the room and are to be seen and not heard, or else they will be disciplined. This is perfect justice, because the ones receiving it have ordained it.
And I haven't even started on moral temperament.
damn seems like there is little to be optimistic about this century
>Currently, the global average IQ is around 85 and by the end of the century, it will be 74.
What would these figures look like if everybody was to achieve their genetic maximum? For example, if sub-saharans had a mean IQ of 80?
Yes, let's start solving the problem. So why do I only find descriptions and analysis of the problem, and never proposed solutions? I have a proposed solution: http://www.arkian.net/ Note that this is written for religious people because they are the only ones who ever respond to me. Secular people only ignore me or ban me. But I would welcome criticism or alternatives.
So basically smart people are retards for not having more kids. Reminds me of the idiocracy opening scene.
You write "This is tricky, so let’s be cautious, split the difference and round up. IQ is falling by 0.6 points a decade. ", but then display a graph which at a glance is way too steep for 0.6 decline per decade:
YEAR AVG IQ LVL
1950 97.5 (or baseline)
How should the calculation work? If IQ declines by 1 point per decade that is 1% so
IQ at end of decade = .99 * IQ at start
OR if it's 0.6% , IQ at end of decade = .994 * IQ at start (IQ at start=97.5), so after 7 decades (from 1950 - 2020) it is 97.5 * .994 * .994 * .994 * .994 * .994 * .994 * .994 = 93.48 NOT 85, as shown on the graph, and after 5 more decades, multiply by .994 5 more times to get 90.71., NOT 75 as the graph indicates.
Would it be fair to guess that you might have made other mistakes in your reasoning?
It would be more interesting if you also proposed a solution, preferably one that could be applied by someone who isn't God or a dictator.
It would be easier to talk about such things honestly if any "solution" other than sterilization or genocide seemed plausible.
Just this sort of thing was predicted in the West by Malthus, but as I think most people see it, the change was mostly brought about by greater education, esp. for women, and not having to have a lot of children because so many will die, and you need one or two to take care of you in old age.
I think Africa could follow that path, but the only people trying to accelerate the growth of civilization there are the Chinese, which is only going to spread Chinese influence (or their holding a huge debt over Africa).
4% isn't "whopping". It is small.
Its the difference between GDP of 180% and 176% of todays levels in 2050.
But your figures are wrong. According to the IPCC, it is 2.6% by 2100, which means GDP will be reduced by 2.6% from a projected 487% of todays levels. Meaning 484% of today.