|February 20, 2013
Dr. Gerald Crabtree published a study entitled, “Our Fragile Intellect” wherein the Stanford eugenicist concluded that human intelligence is on a downward spiral. Genetic alterations, according to Crabtree, have led to an obvious decline in our species intellectual capabilities.
Crabtree states: “New developments in genetics, anthropology and neurobiology predict that a very large number of genes underlie our intellectual and emotional abilities, making these abilities genetically surprisingly fragile. Analysis of human mutation rates and the number of genes required for human intellectual and emotional fitness indicates that we are almost certainly losing these abilities.”
It is asserted that modern man cannot mentally cope with stress conditions that our genetic ancestors would have been able to handle.
The study goes on to say: “I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues. I would also make this wager for the ancient inhabitants of Africa, Asia, India or the Americas, of perhaps 2000–6000 years ago. The basis for my wager comes from new developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology that make a clear prediction that our intellectual and emotional abilities are genetically surprisingly fragile.”
Crabtree estimates that in 120 generations the entire human race will have sustained two or more mutations that will have had negatively affected human intelligence and emotional stability. He explains: “The development of our intellectual abilities and the optimization of thousands of intelligence genes probably occurred in relatively non-verbal, dispersed groups of peoples before our ancestors emerged from Africa.”
The theory is that between 2,000 and 2,500 years ago our ancestors determined our intellectual abilities by their genetic mutations. Rare mutations could have elevoved more than 3,000.
The global IQ average has steadily declined for the last 100 years, known as the Flynn Effect. Lead has contributed to this phenomenon, according to Crabtree. It is also a measure of the type of intelligence we have developed as we are not in constant fight of flight mode; although our psycho-sematic reactions differ from this suggestion.
Thomas Hills and Ralph Hertwig published a paper in 2012 entitled, “Why Aren’t We Smarter Already: Evolutionary Trade-Offs and Cognitive Enhancement” suggests that humanity has evolved to trade our cognitive intellect for another ability.
Hills and Hertwig state that memory and focus are not “necessarily better” in this modern age because we are no longer nomadic communities running from predators as our ancestors did. Our modern lifestyle lends to knowing when to stop pursing a goal and “give up”. To become modern humans adapted to modern life, we have sacrificed certain abilities for others.
In another study published in 2005, it was postulated that increased intelligence was tantamount to having a neurological disorder that would lead to cognative diseases to be treated with pharmaceuticals.
Eugenicists have been suggesting that humanity be altered for many reasons, justifying the purveying necessity of improving on our genetic make-up for the benefit of their agendas.
Last October, Herman Daly, ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy (SPP) of the University of Maryland, assisted in developing guidelines for defining sustainable development. Daly is a former senior environmental economist for the World Bank. His work as an eco-visionary for economics established the discipline of eco-economies, policies and programs that placed the ideals of eco-fascism and the global acquisition of all biodiversity over the necessities of the world’s population.
Daly has recently warned in a publication that part of the population problem is that populations require resources to sustain a specified metabolic rate which is somehow correlated to environmental depletion and excess of pollution. Because sustaining life is a symbiotic relationship between humanity and the planet, it is humanity that is dependent on the biodiversity of earth.
In this way, Daly asserts that the adage, “more for everyone” has become “the defacto purpose” of consumerism which is the weakening glue that holds society together. Daly offers that a “cure for overpopulation” may be the development of technologies that maintain lower birth rates while controlling the necessities of sustenance for those already born.
As an economist, he views this dilemma as such: “Our economy has a growth-oriented focus on maximizing production flows (birth rates of artifacts) that keeps us in the pre-transition mode, giving rise to growing artifact populations, low product lifetimes, high GDP, and high throughput, with consequent environmental destruction. The transition from a high-maintenance throughput to a low one applies to both human and artifact populations independently. From an environmental perspective, lower throughput is desirable in both cases, at least up to some distant limit.”
Back in April, S. Matthew Liao, Anders Sandberg, and Rebecca Roache published a paper that called for human beings to become more energy efficient for the sake of lowering our ecological carbon footprint.
Engineering human babies to be smaller is used in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis in fertility clinics today. Embryos are selected for implantation on the basis of certain characteristics. Why not choose to create smaller babies?
To control the world’s human population, many different schemes have been deployed simultaneously in order to cover their intended purpose. When all fronts are joined together in the assault, it is difficult pin-point the origin of the problem.