posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:15 PM
I think this guy has a point, but the assessment is incomplete as far as I'm concerned. I think he brings bias in the form of regarding emotional
stability as a virtue on all accounts. Emotional instability, or crazes, are what seems to be a pillar of creativity, ie divergent thinking. Without
our supreme creativity, we wouldn't have gotten too separated from our great ape ancestors.
I also think he's not thinking too integrally. It's not any one gene, or any grouping of genes which accounts for intelligence, it's the interlinking
of all genes which may form individuals of superior intellect, or raw talent.
I would say he has a point that technological advancement has the potential for many, if not most to procreate regardless of intellectual
capabilities, but it also means a place exists for creative/gifted minds to utilize all the technological advances, and knowledge gathered, to their
advantage, and keep pushing the species forward.
Another thing not accessed, is the various eugenic forces which have helped to counter the dysgenic forces over the ages. Though many disagree with
some of the practices on principal, it can't be denied that they have value, if we are to be intellectually honest and well informed.
As far as I can see, we periodically collapse in order to purge the species of the least fit. I have a really hard time thinking that an average man
born b.c.+ would be of a higher intellect, and readily adapt to the world of today, if placed in it. I think his mind would be blown, and he'd slip
into a deep psychosis.
edit on 19-2-2013 by nomnom because: (no reason given)