Akitaur In tr What a gem — a true and unbiased investigation into modern society, and it may be, the future of the human race. The numbers for Geneva, Rouen and Neuruppin in the 18th century are similarly tilted towards the former. The choice is really simple — eugenics, or dysgenics. Inon his 80th birthday, Lynn was celebrated with a special issue of Personality and Individual Differences dedicated to his work that was edited by Danish psychologist Helmuth Nyborg with contributions by Nyborg, J.

Author:Nikom Kajijar
Country:Dominican Republic
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):13 April 2011
PDF File Size:1.32 Mb
ePub File Size:6.98 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Professor Lynn presents compelling evidence that much of the world is deteriorating in its genetic potential for intelligence, health, and conscientiousness or good character. The word for this is "dysgenics," the opposite of "eugenics. Professor Lynn surveys studies from all over the world, and everywhere finds the least intelligent people having the most children.

The only exception is sub-Saharan Africa where contraception is rarely used. Our genetic potential for intelligence has been declining in Europe and North America since the mid- s, with a total loss of about IQ points.

Currently, we are losing almost one IQ point each generation. The decline in genotypic intelligence coincided with the dissemination of information about contraception.

For several centuries prior to , married couples had natural fertility, essentially uninfluenced by efforts to limit it. During this period, there was a strong taboo against sex outside of marriage, and many people never had children because they were too poor to marry.

Illegitimacy was rare. Infant mortality was high, especially among the lower classes. Harsh though it may have been, natural selection operated to maintain a healthy population, and to keep intelligence gradually increasing. Then in the early s, several books on contraception were published. These ideas naturally affected the reading classes disproportionately. Goodyear perfected the vulcanization of rubber, making it an ideal material for the mass production of condoms and diaphragms.

By the middle of the century, it was becoming apparent that educated people were having fewer children than the uneducated. Charles Darwin worried about the fact that "the scum" of society were so prolific, and expressed deep concern about the future of civilization because natural selection had ceased to operate. It suggests an alteration in our mental attitude, and imposes a new moral duty.

The new mental attitude is one of a greater sense of moral freedom, responsibility, and opportunity; the new duty. Man is gifted with pity and other kindly feelings; he has also the power of preventing many kinds of suffering.

I conceive it to fall well within his province to replace Natural Selection by other processes that are more merciful and not less effective. This is precisely the aim of eugenics. Blacker, In the early decades of the s, eugenics societies were being formed in Great Britain and the United States, and eugenics was advocated by leading thinkers along all points of the political spectrum.

Wells summed up its common-sense appeal: "It seemed to me that to discourage the multiplication of people below a certain standard, and to encourage the multiplication of exceptionally superior people, was the only real and permanent way of mending the ills of the world.

I think that still. Eugenics made sense because few doubted that heredity was important. Life was more closely tied to the land, and farmers knew from experience that plants and animals vary widely depending on their inborn qualities. Common sense dictated that human beings, like all the rest of nature, are strongly influenced by heredity. In addition, most people had larger families back then. If a couple had many children, all of whom turned out good except one, it was perfectly reasonable to think that what accounted for the difference was inborn, especially if there were signs from early childhood.

Since all the children grew up in the same house, with the same parents, eating the same food, it was just a matter of common sense. Twin studies and adoption studies have established beyond any doubt the important role of heredity in determining IQ. When adopted children grow up, they resemble their biological parents more closely than their adoptive parents in IQ. Just as the eugenicists assumed, social mobility over centuries has produced a social class gradient for intelligence, and social class is determined partly by innate intelligence.

One U. Finally, the evidence shows we are deteriorating genetically because the most intelligent people are having the fewest children. A number of recent studies point to contraceptive practices as the key to understanding dysgenics today. After an unwanted pregnancy has occurred, low IQ couples are less likely to obtain abortions. Thus each factor selects against intelligence.

One minor contribution to dysgenics is the fact that high IQ women often end up not having as many children as they would have liked to have had. By the time a baby is "convenient," it may be too late. However, the major reason for the decline in our genetic potential for intelligence is greater birth control failure on the part of low IQ women.

In the United States, women of all IQ levels report that they would like, on average, about 2. But low IQ women frequently have more children, often far more children, than they would ideally like to have. If all women had exactly the number of children they desired, there would be no dysgenics, and we would at least break even in our genetic potential for intelligence Van Court, The loss of a IQ points may not be a tragedy for an individual, but when applied to a population, it has profound consequences.

For example, a decrease in the average IQ of just under 5 points doubles the number of retardates IQ less than 70 , and cuts in half the number of gifted IQ over When IQ tests are standardized, people consistently find earlier versions of the tests easier, and score higher, than did the original test-takers.

Certainly, enormous gains are difficult to reconcile with casual observation and declining SAT scores. Christopher Brand makes a convincing case that people have merely become more savvy test-takers over the years Brand, Professor Lynn believes the gains are real, and probably due to better nutrition, which is thought to be the cause of comparable increases in stature.

He likens the situation to poorer quality seeds given ever greater quantities of fertilizer. Now, because of modern medicine, people with numerous genetic diseases live long enough to reproduce and transmit defective genes to their children. Examples: cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, diabetes, pyloric stenosis, various heart defects, thalassemia, phenylketonuria, and sickle cell anemia.

The incidence of many of these disorders is doubling or tripling each generation. Life-long care will require ever-increasing expenditures. Conscientiousness, traditionally known as "good character," consists of honesty, a strong work ethic, and concern for others.

Since IQ is positively correlated to a number of desirable traits such as altruism, anti-authoritarian attitudes, and middle-class values of hard work, thrift, and sacrifice , when IQ declines, so do these traits. Moreover, some evidence suggests that despite lengthy sojourns in jail, criminals still manage to procreate at a faster rate than the rest of us. Since twin studies and adoption studies have established that there is a substantial genetic component to criminality, the higher fertility of criminals significantly increases the genetic potential for criminality in the population.

What to do? The solution to genetic deterioration in intelligence, health, and conscientiousness is not a matter of know-how or resources. This association has made eugenics a taboo subject, and prevented most rational discussion of it for at least the past few decades. Previously I have addressed this issue: An almost primitive fatalism and superstition underlie the assumption that as a society, we are utterly powerless to alter our course, however disastrous a legacy we may be leaving to future generations through our negligence, and the irrational fear that if we dare attempt to guide [our evolution].

The public has witnessed numerous grim and frightening stories about the Holocaust, along with Nazi propaganda on the creation of "a master race," so quite understandably, it has come to associate eugenics with Nazis and genocide. Who could ever forget the sight of bulldozers shoving mountains of emaciated bodies into mass graves? But Germany is just one example of a country with a eugenics program — one very, very conspicuous example.

History tells us that in one country, Germany, there was genocide; in the other 28, there was not Saetz, Furthermore, numerous cases of genocide have been committed without so much as a mention of eugenics. So how can there possibly be a causal connection between eugenics and genocide? Put simply, one case out of 29 does not an association make. Consider the following analogy: Imagine that the most salient historical event of all times was the Crusades, instead of the Holocaust, and that for the past 50 years, the Crusades had been the subject of highly sensational movies, documentaries, commemorative ceremonies, newspaper and magazine articles, books, lectures, museum exhibits, and so on.

The emotionally-charged association between "Christianity" and "war" would become indelibly imprinted in our consciousness after being paired thousands of times. Draconian practices would be wholly unacceptable and unnecessary in a modern-day eugenics program. But in light of the problems touched upon in this review, several possible eugenic measures come to mind. Since low-IQ women are much more likely to have unwanted children due to birth control failure, a reasonable first step might be to offer them free long-term and permanent contraception.

Prevention of unwanted births would be a worth-while humanitarian goal in itself, aside from eugenic benefits, because unwanted children are far more likely to be neglected and abused. A second step might be to provide incentives to criminals such as reduced sentences to have vasectomies or tubal ligations.

A third step might be to implement various measures to ease the burden of parenthood for college students. Such a program could go a long way toward halting dysgenics, or possibly even reversing it. These are that there is no genetic determination of intelligence, conscientiousness, crime, educational attainment or socioeconomic status; that there can be an inverse association between intelligence and fertility without genetic deterioration occurring; that there are no genetic differences between the social classes; that there are no such things as bad genes; that the genes for genetic diseases should be preserved, especially in other people, because they make a positive contribution to creative achievement; and that all human types, including the mentally retarded, criminals and psychopaths, are equally valuable.

All these arguments have been examined and found wanting. Only one verdict is possible concerning the critics of eugenics who have advanced these arguments, and that is that they have not taken the trouble to examine the research evidence. The eugenicists believed that modern populations were deteriorating genetically.

The evidence set out in this book shows they were correct. Perhaps Professor Lynn is being charitable to his critics by suggesting that they are merely ignorant. But they cannot make these facts go away. We are deteriorating genetically, and the only alternative to leaving future generations an increasingly chaotic, violent, degraded society is called "eugenics. Where will it end?

From every imaginable perspective — the economy, education, literacy, crime, welfare, government, the "misery quotient," advancing civilization, and science, to name just a few — human genetic deterioration in intelligence, conscientiousness, and health is a disaster. In retrospect, it seems inevitable that at some point, the widespread knowledge and use of contraception would bring about dysgenics. Blacker, C.


Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

Professor Lynn presents compelling evidence that much of the world is deteriorating in its genetic potential for intelligence, health, and conscientiousness or good character. The word for this is "dysgenics," the opposite of "eugenics. Professor Lynn surveys studies from all over the world, and everywhere finds the least intelligent people having the most children. The only exception is sub-Saharan Africa where contraception is rarely used. Our genetic potential for intelligence has been declining in Europe and North America since the mid- s, with a total loss of about IQ points.


Richard Lynn

He was raised in Bristol by his mother and did not meet his father, who lived and worked in Trinidad and Peru, during his childhood and adolescence. The article concluded that " As of , major publishers did not publish or review his work. Hunt writes that he is "highly critical of their empirical work, and even more so of their interpretations," but that they "do deserve credit for raising important questions in a way that has resulted in interesting and important findings. McGreal, writing for Psychology Today , has described it as a just-so story , saying the theory fails to account for challenges specific to warmer environments, and also does not explain why hominids who evolved for millions of years in colder environments such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus did not also evolve similar intelligence.


Dysgenics, Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations by Richard Lynn

Inhalte[ Bearbeiten Quelltext bearbeiten ] In dem in der Zeitschrift Population and Environment im Jahr erschienenen Artikel Skin color and intelligence in African Americans behauptet Lynn, dass die Helligkeit der Hautfarbe von Afroamerikanern positiv mit dem Intelligenzquotienten korreliert ist. Diese Intelligenzunterschiede seien unter anderem genetisch bedingt. Als am intelligentesten sieht Lynn die Juden an. Kamin vorgeworfen. Jahrhundert und ihres darauffolgenden Niedergangs.



Related Articles