Michael Woodley & Davide Piffer (2017) published in bioRxiv a very interesting study, comparing polygenic scores on educational attainment of today and Bronze Age samples. They demonstrated a positive selection on intelligence, but they believe they demonstrated the increase of the genotypic intelligence of Europeans since Bronze Age. Their results rather demonstrate a decrease of the genotypic intelligence during last 4,000 years.
The most powerful GWAS on educational attainment (Okbay, 2016) found 74 common SNP that favor high-IQ (equating the educational attainment with the intelligence). The average effect of each of these SNP is 0.02 SD (0.3 IQ points) and 0.02% of variance (Okbay, 2016, Extended Data Figure 2). In aggregate, these 74 SNPs explain 0.43% of the variation in educational attainment (Okbay, 2016).
Woodley & Piffer used a polygenic score using 130 common SNP resulted from the same GWAS (Okbay, 2016). They found a polygenic score of 3,298.5 : (3,298.5 + 3,997.5) = 45.21% for Bronze Age samples and 61666 : (61,666 + 69,114) = 47.15% for today Europeans. We can assume that for only 74 SNP Woodley & Piffer could find the same difference of polygenic scores between today Europeans (47.15%) and Bronze Age Eurasians (45.21%). It means an average (47.15 – 45.21)% x 74 = 1.44 more increasing-IQ SNP in each today sample, equating with 1.44 x 0.3 = 0.43 IQ points.
Jointly, the variance explained by the 74 SNP is 0.43%, but the variance explained by all the common SNP is 15.6% (Hill, 2017). We can assume that polygenic score increased with (47.15% – 45.21%) = 1.94% for all increase-IQ common SNP of entire genome. In this case, the average total increase of the genotypic IQ due of common SNP since Bronze Age is (15.6% : 0.43%) x 0.43 IQ points = 15.6 IQ points.
It means the selection pressure on intelligence was strong enough to increase the frequency of common SNP that favor high-IQ with the the equivalent of 15.6 IQ points.
But common SNP account for 15.6 : (15.6 + 28.1) = 35.67% and rare variants account for 64.33% of genotypic IQ (Hill, 2017). It means the same selection pressure that increased the IQ with 15.6 points on common polymorphism SNP will increase the IQ on rare variants with (64.33% : 35.67%) x 15.6 IQ points = 28.13 IQ points. The total increase of the genotypic IQ will be 15.6 + 28.13 = 43.73 IQ points. In fact, since Bronze Age, the selection eliminated decrease-IQ common SNP and decrease-IQ rare variants that equate with 43.73 IQ points.
The average age of Bronze Age samples is 3,440 years, equating with 3,440 : 30 = 114.66 generations. Hence, the selection eliminated decrease-IQ (common and rare) variants of 43.73 : 114.66 = 0.3814 IQ points by generation.
If the average decrease of genotypic intelligence by de novo mutations is higher than 0.38 IQ points by generation, the genotypic IQ of Europeans decreased since Bronze Age. Woodley (2015) estimated this genotypic decrease by de novo mutations at 2.94 IQ points by generation.
PS. The polygenic scores for 9 SNP and 11 SNP are 5% higher for today Europeans than for Bronze Age Europeans. In this case, selection eliminated decrease-IQ (common and rare) variants equating with (5% : 1.94%) x 0.3814 = 0.9829 IQ points by generation. If the decrease of genotypic IQ by de novo mutations is only 34% of the estimate of Woodley (2015), today Europeans have lower genotypic intelligence than Bronze Age Eurasians.
When they started colonizing Tasmania, at the beginning of the 19th century, the British came to the conclusion that the inhabitants of that island were the least developed human community on Earth. The Tasmanian aborigines were incapable of mastering fire, they did not manufacture bone tools, they did not possess specialized stone tools, they did not use composite tools (e.g. axes with handles), they did not have boomerangs, spear launchers, shields, nor did they chop trees or engage in mural painting. Although they were living especially in coastal regions, the Tasmanians were incapable of fishing. Although they were living in a region with rather cold winters, they were not capable of sowing their own clothes – they could only cover their bodies with animal skins. Although they were members of the Homo Sapiens species, the material part of their civilization was inferior to the one achieved by the Homo Neanderthalensis and perhaps even by Homo Erectus (a species which most likely had already managed to master fire).
However, the British were not mistaken. The Tasmanian population was not the most evolved but the most degenerated in the entire world. The Tasmanian once had a superior material civilization, which included all of the achievements mentioned above, but which they lost in only a few thousand years.
The aborigines arrived in Tasmania at least 35,000-40,000 years ago, following a migration from Africa, along the Southern coast of Asia. At the time Tasmania was connected to Australia and only after the end of the last Ice Age did it become an island, as a consequence of a large part of the icecap melting and a rise in the water level. At the beginning of British colonization, the Tasmanian had been isolated from the rest of the world for more than 10,000 years. This was a period when they evolved on their own, without outside influence. The Tasmanian never actually suffered any British influence, as they were quickly exterminated.
Nobody provides a satisfying explanation for the degeneration of the Tasmanian civilization and that is because everything within human-related sciences is altered by various ideological filters.
’Scientists’ of political correctness (a new Inquisition of science) normally argue that the Tasmanian were too few to support civilization – even a Paleolithic-type one. It is estimated that the Tasmanian population amounted to 3,000-15,000 members. However, the Neanderthal population was of the same size, whose civilization not only did not degenerate over hundreds of thousands of years, but also continually evolved. In addition, contacts between human Neanderthal groups were not as frequent, as the area they covered was much larger than the one covered by Tasmanians. Hence, the small size of the population cannot be a serious argument for losing a certain level of civilization unless coupled with the distribution of intelligence according to the Gaussian curve. For a certain average IQ, it is necessary for a population to have a certain size in order to possess sufficient members with a sufficiently high level of intelligence in order to preserve the achievements of that civilization. For an average IQ of 60 (this was the measured IQ for Australian aborigines), the Tasmanians were too few to preserve their civilization. With an IQ which was probably much higher, the Neanderthals, although with a population not larger than the Tasmanian, had enough members to continually perfect their civilization. Nonetheless, the ’scientists’ of political correctness prefer to ignore the only plausible explanation for the degeneration of Tasmanian civilization and of any other civilization: the decrease of the IQ as a consequence of a decrease in the pressure of selection.
Racist scientists will not be particularly fond of this thesis either. If they accepted the genetic degradation of intelligence for the Tasmanian, they would then be forced to accept the same for other races which they see as being forever superior – something which would blow away the very foundations of their ideology.
Nature however does not take ideological whims into account. The decline of human intelligence has been ongoing for tens of thousands of years everywhere around the world. The cause is always the same: a lower level of natural selection.
As all other humans, except for the ones in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Tasmanians were not pure Homo Sapiens but hybrids. In their genome, around 4% were Neanderthal genes and equally around 4% were the genes of the Denisova hominin– the same proportions as for Melanesians and Australians This is already proof of the fact that at the peak of the Ice Age Tasmanian ancestors had reached sufficiently Northern latitudes to require a high level of intelligence.
The genetic degeneration of Tasmanian intelligence did not begin only once they were isolated on the island, but long before that. On the one hand, moving towards the South and living in the equatorial and tropical climate decreased the pressure of selection: humans required fewer calories in an environment which could provide more. On the other hand, hunting was (and especially so in Australia) much easier than in Asia while predators, human’s natural competition, were also more rudimentary and less intelligent. Moreover, as the region was not inhabited by other humans until this first migration, there was no human competition either. It is obvious that the humans who migrated to Tasmania were subject to a much lower pressure of selection than the humans who migrated towards Northern Eurasia. The fact is reflected by the current difference in IQ levels: the British Australian population has an IQ of 100 while the aborigines have an IQ of 60.
A similar phenomenon, although not of the same amplitude and duration, explains the IQ decrease for American natives. They originate in a Siberian population, of which probably only a few tens of thousands of members penetrated into America, about 11,000 years ago. They did so over the Behring Strait which at the time was no covered by waters but was a strip of land covered by ice. These humans were so intelligent and efficient that in approximately 1,000 years they managed to colonize the entire continent and exterminate 80% of the North American megafauna and 85% of the South American one. In the same millennium they managed to reach a population of millions of people. The price to be paid for this spectacular expansion was a decrease of the IQ (but not as dramatic as the one in Tasmania and Australia). Having a more numerous population with a higher IQ (today it stands at 87), the American natives not only did not lose the achievements of the civilization which they brought with them on the new continent; along with the end of the Ice Age, they managed to build much more complex civilizations, similar to the Eurasians: they invented agriculture, domesticated animals, processed metals, developed urban agglomerations and even empires, they gained scientific knowledge, etc. This additional development of civilization led to an additional decrease of the IQ. Following contact with European colonists, the IQ dropped even further – first through the decimation of American native elites and then by way of an accelerated reduction in the pressure of selection due to the Industrial Revolution.
Returning to the loss of Tasmanian civilization, the phenomenon which occurred on the little island illustrates the direction that the entire world is heading towards. The fall of civilizations consists of a loss of certain achievements (material or cultural). The Egyptians were no longer capable of building pyramids. The Greeks invented democracy but lost it. The world after the fall of the Roman Empire was no longer capable for a very long time of creating buildings that were similar to those of Roman engineers. In addition, as regards philosophy, science and art, the medieval world did not manage for very long to catch up with the ancient one. At all times and places, the fall of civilizations was due to the loss of IQ. The recovery of lost achievements always occurred only as a result of significant technological progress. Technological progress worked as prosthesis to replace the increasingly weaker minds of the ever larger share of the population. For instance, the general decline of IQ in the world leads to the consequence that fewer and fewer people are capable of solving simple arithmetic operations. But the invention of the calculator and its widespread use has enabled these people to reach correct results.
The genetic degradation of intelligence is, however, an inevitable phenomenon which is irreversible, global, whose beginnings can be found during the Upper Paleolithic and which will once day lead us all to the same situation as that of Tasmanians.
Cînd au început colonizarea Tasmaniei, la începutul secolului al XIX-lea, britanicii au ajuns la concluzia că pe acea insulă trăia comunitatea umană cel mai puţin evoluată. Aborigenii tasmanieni nu erau în stare să stăpînească focul, nu fabricau unelte de os, nu aveau unelte de piatră specializate, nu foloseau unelte compuse (de exemplu, topoare cu mîner), nu aveau bumeranguri, aruncătoare de suliţe, scuturi, nu puteau tăia copaci, nu practicau arta murală etc etc. Deşi trăiau mai ales în zone de coastă, tasmanienii nu erau în stare să prindă peşte. Deşi trăiau într-o zonă cu ierni destul de reci, nu erau în stare să-şi coasă haine, ci doar să se acopere cu piei de animale. Deşi aparţineau speciei Homo Sapiens, civilizaţia lor materială era inferioară celei realizate de Homo Neanderthalensis şi, poate, chiar inferioară celei a lui Homo Erectus, specie care, cel mai probabil, ajunsese deja să stăpînească focul.
Însă britanicii se înşelau. Populaţia tasmaniană nu era cea mai puţin evoluată, ci era cea mai involuată din întreaga lume. Tasmanienii avuseseră cîndva o civilizaţie materială superioară, care includea toate achiziţiile pe care le-am enumerat mai sus, dar pe care le-au pierdut în cîteva mii de ani.
Aborigenii au ajuns în Tasmania în urmă cu cel puţin 35.000-40.000 de ani, în urma unei migraţii din Africa, desfăşurate iniţial de-a lungul coastei de sud a Asiei. În acea vreme, Tasmania era legată de Australia şi abia după sfîrşitul ultimei glaciaţii a devenit insulă, în urma topirii unei mari părţi a calotei glaciare şi, consecutiv, a creşterii nivelului apelor. La începutul colonizării britanice, tasmanienii erau izolaţi de restul lumii de nu mai mult de 10.000 de ani, perioadă în care au evoluat exclusiv pe cont propriu, fără a mai suferi influenţe exterioare. Tasmanienii nu au mai apucat să sufere influenţe nici din partea coloniştilor britanici, întrucît au fost rapid exterminaţi.
Nimeni nu dă o explicaţie satisfăcătoare involuţiei civilizaţiei tasmanienilor, iar acest lucru se întîmplă pentru că în ştiinţele privitoare la om totul este falsificat în urma trecerii prin filtre ideologice.
Savanţii corectitudinii politice (care e noua inchiziţie a ştiinţei) invocă, de regulă, faptul că tasmanienii ar fi fost prea puţini pentru a mai reuşi să menţină civilizaţia, fie şi una paleolitică. Se estimează că populaţia tasmanienilor era una de 3.000-15.000. Dar o populaţie de aceleaşi dimensiuni fusese şi cea a neanderthalienilor, a cărei civilizaţie nu numai că nu a regresat de-a lungul a sute de mii de ani, ci a şi evoluat continuu. În plus, în cazul neanderthalienilor, contactele grupurilor umane erau mai rare, întrucît aria ocupată de ei era cu mult mai întinsă decît a tasmanienilor. Astfel, invocarea dimensiunii prea reduse a populaţiei nu poate fi un argument serios pentru pierderea civilizaţiei decît dacă o corelăm cu distribuţia inteligenţei după curba lui Gauss. La un anumit IQ mediu, e necesar ca o populaţie să aibă cel puţin o anumită dimensiune pentru a avea destul de mulţi oameni cu o inteligenţă suficient de ridicată încît să poată menţine achiziţiile unei civilizaţii. La un IQ mediu în jur de 60 (acesta este IQ-ul măsurat al aborigenilor australieni), tasmanienii nu erau destul de mulţi pentru a mai fi în stare să-şi menţină civilizaţia. La un IQ care era, probabil, cu mult mai mare, neanderthalienii, nu mai numeroşi decît tasmanienii, erau destui pentru a-şi perfecţiona continuu civilizaţia. Dar savanţii corectitudinii politice preferă să ignore singura explicaţie plauzibilă a decăderii civilizaţiei tasmaniene şi a oricărei civilizaţii: pierderea de IQ, prin reducerea presiunii selecţiei naturale.
Nici savanţii rasişti nu se vor împăca vreodată cu această teză. Dacă ar accepta existenţa degradării genetice a inteligenţei în cazul tasmanienilor, atunci ar fi obligaţi s-o accepte şi în cazul raselor pe care ei le consideră etern superioare, ceea ce le-ar pulveriza chiar bazele ideologiei.
Natura însă nu ţine cont de mofturile ideologice ale unora sau ale altora. Iar scăderea inteligenţei umane se produce, de zeci de mii de ani, pretutindeni în lume. Şi totdeauna cauza e aceeaşi: scăderea selecţiei naturale.
Ca toţi oamenii, exceptîndu-i pe cei din Africa Sub-Sahariană, tasmanienii nu erau Homo Sapiens puri, ci hibrizi, în genomul cărora cam 4% erau genele Omului de Neanderthal şi cam tot 4% erau genele Omului de Denisova, aceleaşi proporţii ca în cazul melanezienilor şi australienilor. E deja o dovadă a faptului că strămoşii tasmanienilor ajunseseră, în plină glaciaţie, la nişte latitudini suficient de nordice pentru a necesita o inteligenţă ridicată.
Degradarea genetică a inteligenţei tasmanienilor nu a început abia în momentul izolării pe insulă, ci cu mult înainte. Pe de o parte, trecerea la latitudini tot mai sudice şi viaţa în climatul ecuatorial şi tropical a redus presiunea de selecţie: oamenii aveau nevoie de tot mai puţine calorii, în condiţiile în care mediul oferea tot mai multe. Pe de altă parte, vînatul era, mai ales în Australia, unul mult mai uşor de prins decît acela din Asia; iar prădătorii, competitori ai omului, erau şi ei mai rudimentari, mai puţin inteligenţi. De asemenea, zonele fiind nelocuite de alţi oameni pînă la invazia acestor primi migratori, nu exista nici concurenţa umană. Este evident că omul care a migrat în Tasmania a fost supus unei presiuni de selecţie mult mai reduse faţă de omul care migrat spre nordul Eurasiei. Faptul se reflectă în diferenţa actuală de IQ: britanicii din Australia au 100, iar aborigenii au 60.
Un fenomen similar, dar de o amploare mai mică şi cu o durată mai scurtă, explică şi scăderea de IQ a nativilor americani. Aceştia provin dintr-o populaţie siberiană, din care probabil că nu mai mult de cîteva zeci de oameni au pătruns în America, în urmă cu circa 11.000 de ani, prin Strîmtoarea Behring, care în acea vreme nu era ocupată de ape, ci era o fîşie de uscat acoperită de gheaţă. Aceşti oameni erau atît inteligenţi şi de performanţi, încît în aproximativ 1.000 de ani au reuşit să colonizeze întregul continent, să extermine 80% din megafauna Americii de Nord şi 85% din cea a Americii de Sud. Tot în acest mileniu, au reuşit şi să ajungă la o populaţie de ordinul milioanelor, plecînd de la una de cîteva zeci. Preţul plătit pentru această spectaculoasă expansiune a fost însă o scădere de IQ, dar nu atît de dramatică precum cea a australienilor şi tasmanienilor. Avînd şi o populaţie mult mai numeroasă, şi un IQ mai ridicat (azi e de 87), nativii americani nu doar că nu şi-au pierdut achiziţiile de civilizaţie cu care au venit pe noul continent, dar, odată cu sfîrşitul glaciaţiei, au reuşit să edifice civilizaţii mai complexe, similar cu eurasiaticii: au inventat agricultura, au domesticit animale, au inventat metalurgia, au dezvoltat aglomerări urbane şi chiar imperii, au obţinut cunoştinţe ştiinţifice etc etc. Toată această dezvoltare a civilizaţiei a dus la o scădere suplimentară de IQ. Iar după contactul cu coloniştii europeni IQ-ul a scăzut şi mai mult, iniţial prin decimarea elitelor nativilor americani, apoi prin scăderea accelerată a presiunii de selecţie naturală, datorată revoluţiei industriale.
Revenind la pierderea civilizaţiei tasmanienilor, fenomenul care s-a întîmplat pe mica insulă e unul care ilustrează direcţia în care se îndreaptă întreaga lume. Decăderea civilizaţiilor constă tocmai în pierderea unor achiziţii, materiale sau culturale. Egiptenii n-au mai fost capabili să ridice piramide. Grecii au inventat democraţia, dar au pierdut-o. Lumea care a urmat Imperiului Roman n-a mai fost în stare, multă vreme, să realizeze construcţii similare cu cele ale inginerilor romani. De asemenea, în filosofie, ştiinţă şi artă, lumea medievală n-a reuşit, mult timp, s-o egaleze pe cea antică. Pretutindeni şi oricînd, decăderea civilizaţiilor s-a datorat unor pierderi de IQ. Iar recuperarea unor achiziţii pierdute s-a făcut mereu doar în urma unor progrese tehnologice mari, care au funcţionat ca nişte proteze ce au putut suplini minţile tot mai slabe ale celor mai mulţi dintre oameni.
De exemplu, scăderea generală de IQ în lume face ca tot mai puţini oameni să fie capabili să efectueze operaţii aritmetice simple. Dar inventarea calculatorului şi larga sa răspîndire au permis ca şi aceşti oameni să poată ajunge la rezultatele corecte. La fel, abia progresul tehnologic major al lumii occidentale şi răspîndirea acestui progres au făcut posibil faptul ca aproape 90% dintre bucureşteni să beneficieze azi de canalizare.
Totuşi, nici generalizarea învăţămîntului şi nici explozia mijloacelor de informare în masă nu au reuşit să-i facă decît pe jumătate dintre români să ştie azi că Pămîntul e cel care se învîrte în jurul Soarelui, nu invers. În urmă cu cîteva decenii, proporţia era semnificativ mai mare, deşi informaţia circula mai greu. La fel, expansiunea şcolii, a tipăriturilor şi a internetului nu a dus la scăderea numărului de analfabeţi funcţionali din România, ci acest număr e în creştere continuă. Tot în România de azi trenurile circulă, pe aceleaşi rute, cu viteză mai mică decît în urmă cu un secol. Toate aceste date sînt concordante cu scăderea, dovedită prin măsurători, a IQ-ului. Şi toate aceste date reflectă pierderea unor elemente de civilizaţie, la fel ca în cazul tasmanienilor. Populaţia fiind însă mult mai mare şi fiind şi conectată la procesul globalizării, pentru pierderea completă a achiziţiilor culturale, de către toţi oamenii, va trebui să mai treacă ceva timp. Deocamdată, cîteva minţi foarte bune încă mai reuşesc să creeze progres tehnologic suficient pentru a proteza precaritatea inteligenţei unei părţi tot mai mari a omenirii.
Degradarea genetică a inteligenţei e însă un fenomen inevitabil, ireversibil, global, care îşi are începutul în paleoliticul superior şi care ne va aduce cîndva pe toţi în situaţia tasmanienilor.
I already proved the above statement, in two independent ways in two of my previous texts with the same name. I will make a third attempt here, completely different from the first two, at proving that the genetic degradation of intelligence has begun during the Neolithic at the latest and not as late as the Industrial Revolution. Agriculture has led to an increase in the number of humans, but the price paid for this quantitative increase was a qualitative loss – the decrease in intelligence.
If we look at an IQ distribution map of Europe along with the neighbouring areas and then look at a map showing the expansion of the Neolithic lifestyle, we cannot help but notice that there is an obvious link between the level of intelligence in today’s world and the history of the transition to agriculture and sedentariness: in those areas that adopted the Neolithic way of life earlier (the Middle East), the IQ level is around 80; in the areas that adopted agriculture only later (Northern Europe), the IQ level is around 100; and in the regions which became sedentary at an intermediary stage (Southern Europe) the IQ has an intermediary value of around 90.
If we also look at a map of y-DNA haplogroups in Europe, we see the highest IQ in the areas with the highest proportions of R1a and R1b (Indo-Europeans who arrived during the Bronze Age) and of N1c1 (Uralic populations). The Indo-Europeans were nomad shepherds and the Uralic populations were hunters. Both ways of life were subject to a more significant pressure of selection than the sedentary Neolithic one, based on agriculture; as such, these populations were more intelligent. This is in accordance with today’s IQ maps, although it is specifically Northern Europe that has recently known the fastest pace of intelligence degeneration, caused by the Industrial Revolution (which has begun and has known its largest scale in the North of the European continent).
The Uralic population (N1c1) was very small, so it could not play a significant role in the local history, whereas the Indo-Europeans (R1a and especially R1b) are the ones who built the history of the world, starting from the Metal Age until today. I will therefore focus on them. It is not relevant for my argument wherefrom these Indo-Europeans came when they arrived in the steppes around the Black and Caspian Seas. Equally irrelevant is whether they are the ones to have domesticated the horse, which they rode or used for traction. It does not matter whether they had invented or simply adopted the wheel and cart or metallurgy. For the purposes of this argument, what is important is that they had never known an agricultural way of life which was sedentary. Grazing was far more similar to the Palaeolithic hunter’s way of life than was Neolithic agriculture. And it is this way of life in particular that has enabled them to preserve the Palaeolithic intelligence and that has allowed them to conquer the world. The fact that those carrying the R1a and R1b haplogroups were not farmers is proven archaeologically as well as linguistically. In all the areas to be occupied by the Indo-Europeans, words designating cultivated plants trace their origins in the local languages, whereas words for domestic animals are Indo-European. This linguistic argument is probably the most important in proving that the Indo-European did not live off agriculture.
In the South Russian and South Ukrainian steppes, the Indo-European have transformed the horse, the wheel and bronze into a war machine, which they used to conquer the world. From a life built around growing animals and hunting, they adopted a life of pillaging and exploitation of farmers.
In South Europe, where the demographic Neolithic explosion had already taken place, the Indo-European did not exterminate the old Palaeolithic (I) and Neolithic (G, E1b1b, J, T) haplogroups; they formed an aristocracy based on the exploitation of farmers. The Indo-Europeans’ occupation was still war, not agriculture.
In the North and West of Europe, the Indo-European (especially the R1b) encountered less populated lands, because the Neolithic had pervaded there only later if at all. In some of these areas, the R1b haplogroup almost completely replaced the previous male lineages, so much so that in Ireland, Wales, Catalonia and Basque Country, around 80-85% of the population are the descendants of R1b1 Indo-European males. In other regions, Palaeolithic males also managed to perpetuate their genetic heritage, an example being Sweden, where the Palaeolithic haplogroup I represents 40% of the population, as much as the Indo-European one (R1a and R1b have around 20% each). And in other areas, like Finland, R1a and R1b Indo-Europeans only have 10%, while the Uralic background is predominating with 60% – the rest of 30% being European Palaeolithic I. Nonetheless, everywhere the maternal (mt-DNA) haplogroups are predominantly the Palaeolithic ones (H and U); in some regions, such as Basque Country, they are as high as 80% of the population. (Relying on this data, I would like to emphasise that it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that Indo-Europeans have an immutable genetic supremacy, the likes of which Nazi propaganda argued for. Their superiority in terms of intelligence, as is the case for Northern non-Indo-Europeans I and N1c1, is due to the sole fact that they were subject to a more significant pressure of selection than the populations that adopted agriculture earlier on and that lived in milder climates. In addition, as proven, Indo-European intelligence is decreasing ever since the Industrial Revolution.)
But Indo-Europeans did not only conquer Europe. They also made the Industrial Revolution and built modern society. The descendants of Indo-European males and of females of European Palaeolithic origin have conquered the oceans of the world and, then, America and Australia (especially R1b) and they are also the ones who have conquered the cosmos (R1b Americans and R1a Russians). They did all this because they had a higher intelligence than any population they came into contact with. They still dominate, economically and militarily, the entire world, in after an age when the entire world had been part of their Colonial Empires.
Now the supremacy of these half-breeds, descendants of Indo-European nomads and European Palaeolithic hunters, is threatened by the populations in East Asia, whose IQ has now become significantly superior (at least 5 points) to the Northern Europeans’ IQ. The explanation of this high Asian IQ lies largely in a late adoption of the Neolithic lifestyle. As such, the Koreans have not adopted agriculture until at least 5,500 years ago and the Japanese have started cultivating rice merely 2,500 years ago. China is a particular case, on which I have written on several occasions. Although the Neolithic has pervaded in certain regions of China quite early on, this country maintains a high IQ. Perhaps a large section of the Chinese have adopted agriculture rather late, arguably so since 40% of China’s surface is covered with mountains. And certainly, China has preserved its intelligence when encountering the Industrial Revolution, through its demographic policy in the last few decades, as shown in a different text.
Returning to the Indo-European civilisation that still dominates the world, it will fall for the same reasons why all civilisations have fallen until now: the decrease in genetically inherited intelligence under a certain threshold, which can no longer be compensated through the extra-genetic technological heritage. The Indo-Europeans have had the chance to escape the degeneration of intelligence which comes with the transition to agriculture. But it is precisely this that has thrown them into the first wave of accelerated degeneration, inextricably linked to the way of life generated by the Industrial Revolution.
Am demonstrat deja, pe două căi independente, afirmaţia de mai sus, în două din textele precedente, care poartă acelaşi titlu. Aici voi da o a treia demonstraţie, complet diferită de primele două, a faptului că degradarea genetică a inteligenţei umane începe cel mai tîrziu în neolitic, nu abia în epoca revoluţiei industriale. Agricultura a dus la înmulţirea oamenilor, dar preţul plătit pentru acest cîştig cantitativ a fost o pierdere calitativă, scăderea inteligenţei.
Dacă privim o hartă a distribuţiei IQ-ului în Europa şi în zonele învecinate şi o hartă a expansiunii neoliticului, nu poate să nu ne sară în ochi faptul că există o legătură evidentă între nivelul inteligenţei actuale şi istoria trecerii la agricultură şi sedentarism: în zonele care au intrat mai repede în neolitic (Orientul Mijlociu) IQ-ul este undeva la 80, în regiunile care au adoptat ultimele agricultura (Europa de Nord) IQ-ul este cam 100, iar în regiunile care au trecut la sedentarism într-o fază intermediară (Europa de Sud) IQ-ul are o valoare intermediară, în jur de 90.
Dacă privim şi o hartă a haplogrupurilor y-DNA din Europa, constatăm că IQ-ul e cel mai mare acolo unde există şi cele mai mare proporţii de R1a şi R1b (indoeuropeni veniţi în epoca bronzului) şi de N1c1 (populaţii uralice). Indoeuropenii erau păstori nomazi, iar uralicii erau vînători. Ambele moduri de viaţă asigurau o mai mare presiune de selecţie decît cea realizată de sedentarismul agricol al neoliticilor şi, deci, o inteligenţă mai mare a acestor populaţii. Ceea ce concordă şi cu hărţile de IQ de astăzi, deşi tocmai Europa de Nord a cunoscut recent cel mai alert ritm al degradării genetice a inteligenţei, degenerare provocată de revoluţia industrială, revoluţie care a şi început şi a şi avut cea mai mare amploare tocmai în nordul continentului.
Populaţia uralică (N1c1) e relativ redusă numeric, aşa că nu a putut juca un rol însemnat decît în istoria locală, însă indoeuropenii (R1a şi, mai ales R1b) sînt cei care au făcut practic istoria lumii, începînd din epoca metalelor şi pînă acum, aşa că despre aceştia voi vorbi aici mai pe larg. În demonstraţia mea nu contează de unde au venit aceşti indoeuropeni în stepele din zona Mării Negre şi a Mării Caspice. Nu contează nici dacă ei sînt aceia care au domesticit primii calul, pe care l-au folosit ca animal de călărie, de povară sau de tracţiune. Nu contează nici dacă au inventat sau au preluat de la alţii roata şi carul. Şi nici dacă au inventat sau dacă doar au împrumutat de la alţii metalurgia. Pentru demonstraţia mea, important este că nu au cunoscut un stadiu de viaţă agricolă, sedentară. Păstoritul pe care îl practicau era mult mai aproape de modul de viaţă al vînătorilor paleolitici decît era cel al agricultorilor neolitici. Şi tocmai acest mod de viaţă le-a asigurat o conservare mai bună a inteligenţei paleolitice, fapt care le-a şi permis cucerirea lumii. Faptul că purtătorii haplogrupurilor R1a şi R1b nu au fost agricultori e dovedit atît arheologic cît şi lingvistic. În toate zonele pe care aveau să le ocupe ulterior indoeuropenii, cuvintele care desemnează plantele cultivate sînt împrumutate din vechile limbi locale, în timp ce cuvintele care numesc animalele domestice sint indoeuropene. Iar această dovadă lingvistică este, probabil, cea mai importantă, cu privire la faptul că indoeuropenii nu trăiau din agricultură.
În stepele din sudul Rusiei şi Ucrainei, indoeuropenii au transformat calul, roata şi bronzul într-o adevărată maşină de război, cu care au pornit să cucerească lumea. De la o viaţă bazată pe exploatarea animalelor de turmă şi pe vînătoare, ei au trecut la o viaţă bazată pe prădarea şi pe exploatarea agricultorilor.
În sudul Europei, unde se produsese deja explozia demografică neolitică, indoeuropenii nu au înlocuit prin exterminare vechile haplogrupuri paleolitice (I) şi neolitice (G, E1b1b, J, T), ci s-au constituit într-o aristocraţie care a exploatat munca acestor agricultori. Ocupaţia lor a fost în continuare războiul, nu agricultura.
În nordul şi în vestul Europei, indoeuropenii, mai ales cei R1b, au întîlnit ţinuturi mai puţin populate, întrucît erau intrate mai tîrziu sau deloc în neolitic. În unele dintre aceste zone, haplogrupul R1b a înlocuit aproape complet liniile masculine precedente, astfel că în Irlanda, Ţara Galilor, Catalonia sau Ţara Bascilor urmaşii bărbaţilor indoeuropeni R1b1 reprezintă 80-85% din populaţie. În alte regiuni, bărbaţii paleolitici au reuşit să-şi perpetueze şi ei genele, un exemplu fiind Suedia, unde haplogrupul paleolitic I reprezintă cam 40% din populaţie, tot atît cît indoeuropenii (R1a şi R1b au în jur de 20% fiecare). Iar în unele arii, ca Finlanda, indoeuropenii R1a şi R1b ating abia 10%, în timp ce uralicii predomină cu 60%, restul de 30% fiind originarii paleolitici europeni I. Peste tot însă, haplogrupurile materne (mt-DNA) sînt predominant cele originare paleolitice (H şi U), în unele regiuni, cum ar fi Ţara Bascilor, acestea însumînd cam 80% din populaţie. (Bazîndu-mă pe toate aceste date, subliniez că ar fi greşit să tragem concluzia că indoeuropenii ar avea o superioritate genetică imuabilă, de felul celei proclamate de nazişti. Superioritatea inteligenţei lor, ca şi a inteligenţei ne-indoeuropenilor nordici I şi N1c1, se datorează doar faptului că ei au fost supuşi unor presiuni de selecţie mai mari decît a oamenilor care au adoptat mai de timpuriu agricultura sau care au trăit în climate mai blînde. De asemenea, inteligenţa indoeuropenilor scade odată cu scăderea presiunii de selecţie, aşa cum e deja dovedit că se întîmplă de la revoluţia industrială încoace.)
Dar indoeuropenii nu au cucerit doar Europa.Tot ei au înfăptuit şi revoluţia industrială şi au construit societatea modernă. Iar urmaşii bărbaţilor indoeuropeni şi ai femeilor de origine paleolitică europeană au cucerit oceanele lumii şi, apoi, America şi Australia (în special cei R1b) şi tot ei sînt cei care au pornit la cucerirea cosmosului (americanii R1b şi ruşii R1a). Ei au reuşit toate acestea datorită faptului că au avut o inteligenţă mai mare decît a tuturor populaţiilor cu care au intrat în competiţie. Ei domină încă, economic şi militar, întreaga lume, după ce aproape întreaga lume a făcut parte din imperiile lor coloniale.
Acum însă supremaţia acestor metişi, rezultaţi din nomazii indoeuropeni şi vînătorii paleolitici europeni, este ameninţată de populaţiile din Asia de Est, al căror IQ a devenit astăzi semnificativ superior (cu cel puţin 5 puncte) IQ-ului europenilor nordici. Explicaţia acestui IQ ridicat al asiaticilor se explică, în cea mai mare parte, tot prin întîrzierea intrării în neolitic. Astfel, coreenii nu au adoptat agricultura cel puţin pînă acum 5.500 de ani, iar japonezii au introdus cultivarea orezului abia acum 2.500 de ani. China e însă un caz particular, despre care am mai scris. Deşi neoliticul a pătruns în unele zone din China devreme, această ţară îşi conservă un IQ ridicat. Probabil că o mare parte dintre chinezi au adoptat totuşi tîrziu agricultura, fapt care se poate explica parţial prin aceea că 40% din suprafaţa Chinei e acoperită de munţi. Şi, în mod sigur, China şi-a conservat mai bine decît alte ţări inteligenţa cu care a intrat în epoca industrială prin politica demografică din ultimele decenii, aşa cum am arătat deja într-un alt text.
Revenind la civilizaţia indoeuropenilor, care încă domină lumea, aceasta va decădea din aceleaşi motiv din care au decăzut toate civilizaţiile de pînă acum: scăderea inteligenţei sub un anumit prag al zestrei genetice, scădere care nu mai poate fi compensată de zestrea extragenetică a tehnologiei. Indoeuropenii au avut norocul de a se sustrage mai mult timp degradării inteligenţei inerente trecerii la agricultură, dar tocmai acest lucru i-a aruncat în primul val al degenerării accelerate, indisolubil legată de modul de viaţă generat de revoluţia industrială.
As I was saying in my previous article, Broca had set himself to compare the intelligence of the Cro-Magnon man with that of modern man, but he abandoned the project. I have resumed this project and have proven that the Cro-Magnon’s level of intelligence was superior to today’s human levels; that ever since the Palaeolithic, human intelligence was on a downward slope – a phenomenon that I have named anthropolysis. I will attempt a different demonstration here, distinct from the previous one.
In this article, I shall compare the Cro-Magnon’s level of intelligence with that of today’s Egyptians and also Egyptians before the Industrial Revolution. I have chosen the Egyptians because they have once built a civilization that was the most advanced in the world at a certain age. A similar comparison may also be drawn between the Cro-Magnon and modern Greeks. The result would be the same: the Palaeolithic hunter was more intelligent.
I will begin by comparing the Cro-Magnon with the Inuit populations from the past few centuries.
In respect to technological innovation, we can say that the Cro-Magnon was superior to the Inuit. The Inuit living a few centuries ago did not have any weapons or tools unknown to the Cro-Magnon. The difference is that the Inuit has inherited them, whereas the Cro-Magnon has invented them. Another difference is that we have access to the entire technology used by the Inuit, whereas we only know a part of the Cro-Magnon’s. As such, any new discovery may very well tip the scales in favour of the Palaeolithic hunter. As technical innovation requires firstly and foremost high spatial intelligence and as the Inuit possess this type of intelligence to a very high degree among current populations, we can draw the conclusion that Cro-Magnons too possessed it to a very high degree.
Concerning artistic intelligence, it seems that in this area too the Cro-Magnon is superior. Cro-Magnons too have performed sculptures similar to those of Arctic hunters but they have also excelled in cave paintings.
Regarding verbal intelligence, it is very likely that it was higher in the case of the Cro-Magnon, as a Palaeolithic group had more members than an Inuit family; in addition, the surrounding environment was more varied. Thus, both elements required greater verbal performances. It is likely that verbal intelligence was subject to a higher pressure of selection in the case of the Palaeolithic hunter, and hence superior to the Inuit’s.
As the Cro-Magnon group had more members, an alpha male had access to more females than an Inuit, which increased natural selection, thus giving rise to better conditions for increasing or maintaining the average level of intelligence of a population.
Everything seems to point towards the fact that the Cro-Magnon was more intelligent than the Inuit – on all levels.
Now I shall attempt to compare the levels of intelligence of today’s Inuit and Egyptian, as well as the levels of these two populations before the Industrial Revolution.
The first noteworthy point is that, from a genetic point of view, today’s Egyptians are in an overwhelming proportion the descendants of those who have built the astonishing ancient civilization.
According to research by Richard Lynn, the Inuit have an IQ of 91 and Egyptians have an IQ of 81. Regardless of the number of errors that may have occurred, one thing is certain: today’s Inuit is more intelligent that the Egyptian. But let us attempt to see what the situation was before the Industrial Revolution, which decreases genotypic intelligence and can sometimes increase the phenotypic one (the Flynn effect).
Egypt is a country which has only recently entered the Industrial Revolution, with a third of the population still engaged in agriculture; thus, the genotypic level of intelligence could not have been significantly affected, when compared to pre-industrial Egypt. In addition, as it is a country with a relatively small GDP and an unequal distribution of wealth, the Flynn effect is probably insignificant. We can therefore assume that the level of intelligence in pre-industrial Egypt was insignificantly higher than today.
As for Canadian Inuit, my opinion is that they form one of the populations whose genotypic intelligence has decreased the most as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. Here are my arguments. If in 1867 the Inuit population in Canada was estimated at around 2000 members, the same population is today 25 times as numerous. The multiplication process has been even more significant, as we are not taking into consideration here the members who have crossbred. If we took them into account, then the 25-fold increase in the population would have occurred between 1867 and 1991. This is a growth rate which points towards an extraordinary weakening of natural selection, which could only lead to an important decrease in genotypic intelligence throughout the last 150 years or so. Aside from the population growth rate, contact with the infectious pathology of the White population, as well as their diet and alcohol may have played a significant part in the Inuit population’s decrease in intelligence. We may assume that, by living in a developed country – Canada – the Inuit have benefited from a significant increase in phenotypic intelligence, through the Flynn effect. But all statistics indicate that the Inuit do not enjoy the average Canadian standard of living; as such, the Flynn effect is perhaps lower for the Inuit than the Canadian average. Moreover, the Inuit have not ‚invested’ into modern comfort as much as the others; instead they have ‚chosen’ to invest into a higher growth rate for their population. In contrast, the Flynn effect is more apparent in populations with a low or even negative population growth rate. All these arguments point to the fact that Inuit before the Industrial Revolution must have had a significantly higher level of intelligence than today’s Inuit population; therefore higher than the modern and even pre-Industrial Egyptian population.
We should not exclude the possibility of the Inuit having been the most intelligent population in the world immediately after the Industrial Revolution, but also having been the great losers of this Revolution in terms of intelligence. Precisely because they have been the great winners in terms of population growth.
Let us summarise. The Cro-Magnon had a level of intelligence superior to that of the pre-Industrial Arctic hunter. And the latter had a higher level than the pre-Industrial Egyptian. Therefore, the Cro-Magnon was more intelligent than the current as well as the pre-Industrial Egyptian.
Let us now turn our attention towards the ancient Egyptian. If we accepted the fact that, until the Industrial Revolution, there was a sufficient pressure of selection to increase the average level of intelligence, we would have to accept two further facts. The first would be that the extraordinary ancient Egyptian civilization has been built by a population with an IQ averaging 70, meaning that half of it was what we would nowadays label ‚mentally retarded’ and only 2% of the population having the same intelligence as a modern-day English person. Under these conditions, could so many innovations have been possible? The second fact that we would have to accept is that the Cro-Magnon was more intelligent than the ancient Egyptian, meaning that there has been a decrease in intelligence even prior to the Industrial age.
It would be more plausible to imagine that the Cro-Magnon has been at the peak of all human intelligence ever recorded. Afterwards, once a threshold of innovation had been reached, this amounted to a ‚migration towards the South’, which decreased the pressure of selection and, consequently, the average human genotypic intelligence – a process I have called anthropolysis (taking into account that the entire anthropogenesis consists of an increase in intelligence).
From such a perspective, ancient Egyptians must have been more intelligent than today’s. This seems more likely, as ancient Egyptians were capable of innovating and inventing, whereas today’s Egyptians encounter difficulties in applying a model that already functions in other parts of the world.
We should accept, once and for all, the fact that, ever since the Palaeolithic, our evolution is less and less based on genetic endowment and rests increasingly on the extra-genetic heritage and on an ever growing population. From this numerous population, an ever smaller fraction contributes towards technological progress (i.e. towards the extra-genetic heritage) and an ever growing fraction relies on the support created by the Flynn effect – an effect which has probably occurred in other ages besides the Industrial one, whenever improvements in the maternal-foetal conditions have occurred.
The illusion that we are becoming more intelligent is simply an illusion. The delusion that anthropogenesis is still ongoing, alongside technological progress, is simply a delusion. We have been living the anthropolysis for tens of thousands of years.
P.S. I have stated above that, for the purposes of my reasoning, the Egyptians could have been replaced with the Greeks. The conclusions would have been the same. The Greeks currently have an IQ of around 92, almost equal to the Inuit’s’ (91) and significantly higher than the Egyptians’ (81). However, the Greeks have benefited from a stronger Flynn effect, as compared to the Egyptians, because Greece is a developed country (with a GDP per capita almost 6 times higher than Egypt’s) where repartition is of a socialist type. As such, the genotypic intelligence of the Greek population is perhaps not very different from the Egyptian genotypic intelligence.
After Altamira, everything is decadence.
As a matter of fact, the words of the motto are attributed to Picasso, but there is no proof that he has ever said them or even that he has ever visited Altamira. However, since these words have reached us, someone has thought this to be true of painting.
What I intend to prove here is that ‘after Altamira’ all is decadence in terms of human intelligence. In other words, I will prove that the Cro-Magnon man has been the most intelligent sapiens that has ever lived and that the genetic degradation of intelligence does not start as late as the Industrial Age, but much earlier, with the emergence of Palaeolithic technological innovations.
I agree with all those who assert that it has been the migration towards the North that has played a major part in the growth of human intelligence: by facing greater problems in terms of adaptation, only the most intelligent have managed to survive and breed.
Indeed, the south means more sun, meaning more vegetation. More vegetation means more herbivores and, consequently, more carnivores. For an omnivorous being, as the sapiens was, this means an abundance of food, which translates into a weaker pressure of selection. More sun also means a lesser need for food in order to maintain one’s bodily temperature. This is a climate where other apes can survive today.
The North means less sun, i.e. a poorer flora and fauna, meaning less food. But less sun also means coldness, i.e. a greater need for food in order to maintain one’s bodily temperature. The North requires more intelligence than the South, given that there is less food available. This is a climate where no other ape besides man can survive.
Let us recall, in passing, that the North has given birth to great performers in other species of hunters. The strongest tigers are the Siberian (Amur) tigers, which live the furthest up North. The strongest bears are the polar bears. Finally, the strongest wolves are those in Europe and America, which have evolved 150,000 years ago following a migration towards the North (similar to that of humans). As a matter of fact, wolf fossils from Europe are similar to wolves in the South, from the Arabian Peninsula and South Asia, that are estimated to have evolved 800,000 years ago. Central and East Asian wolves represent intermediary links between the Northern and the Southern wolves. Let us also mention that, as in the case of humans, the Northern wolf has a brain 5-10% larger than the Southern one. This difference is probably also reflected in the level of intelligence.
If migration towards the North has increased the pressure of selection exerted on human intelligence, then any migration towards the South should have the opposite effect, i.e. decreasing intelligence as a consequence of a weaker pressure of selection exerted on it.
I believe that technological progress during the Palaeolithic age has been the equivalent of a migration towards the South, just as the Industrial Revolution has been the equivalent of a tropical equatorial paradise.
Indeed, better mastery of fire coupled with improvements of clothing and footwear manufacturing have led to the Northern Palaeolithic human living further south than his actual geographical latitude. Technological progress in terms of weapon manufacturing has also had the effect of ‘moving him further south’. For instance, the bow and arrow have made accessible certain types of prey that had so far been unreachable – as if food had become more abundant. Fire, clothes and weapons compensated for the lack of sun. Human intelligence compensated for the lack of sun. Since all technological progress was passed on as part of human culture (becoming a form of ‘extra-genetic heritage’), this amounted to every new generation of humans being born into a sunnier world, further South. As a consequence, the pressure of selection exerted on intelligence became ever smaller. Intelligence kept decreasing, and it is happening ever since.
Before engaging with those who assert that the decrease in intelligence has only started after the Industrial Revolution, I would like to set down a pre-requisite. When a certain pressure of selection is reached, the intelligence of a population stays constant. For any inferior pressure, intelligence will decrease; and for any superior pressure, intelligence will increase. Unfortunately, the situation is too complicated to be translated into mathematical equations, so we shall have to have to take a different route.
I shall take as reference one of the works that I admire very much: ‘Dysgenics’ by Richard Lynn. It is a very well documented book, written with a great deal of intelligence, honesty and courage. It is a book that I agree with entirely regarding what has happened to humans after the Industrial Revolution. With respect to what has happened before, I hold different views.
I shall start by comparing two fragments from Professor Lynn’s book. The first fragment is chapter 3, ‘Hunter-gatherers’, which shows how natural selection functions (including sexual selection) for contemporary ‘pre-historic’ tribes: a leader has 2-3 wives and 9 children during his lifetime, 5% of all males have more than one wife, 62% of males have no children at all, 45% of children die before reaching adulthood. The second fragment from ‘Dysgenics’ that I want to refer to is Table 2.1, page 28. Based on works by Skipp, Weiss and Pound, this is an illustration of the difference in fertility, of 50-100%, in favour of the middle class compared to the lower class in 16-17th century pre-industrial Europe.
Firstly, let us take notice of the fact that in the two cases there is a significant difference in terms of natural and sexual selection. There is a far greater pressure in ‘pre-historic’ tribes than in pre-industrial Europe. Let us assume now that in pre-industrial Europe, natural selection was sufficient to maintain a constant average intelligence because the more intelligent individuals had more offspring. In this case, the pressure in ‘pre-historic’ tribes, being higher, should lead to an explosive growth in intelligence from one generation to the next, something which has not been recorded. My opinion is that the existing selection in contemporary ‘pre-historic’ tribes can barely maintain a constant level of intelligence for these populations. It is noteworthy that all these tribes live in mild, ‘southern’ climates. In order to see an increase in the pressure of selection to such an extent so as to determine a growth of intelligence, these tribes would have to migrate towards the North. And if these ‘pre-historic’ tribes can barely maintain a constant level of intelligence, then surely the pressure of selection in pre-industrial Europe was no longer sufficient to slow down the decrease in intelligence, even if the more intelligent had more offspring.
Let us take a look at nature and notice that not all offspring of an alpha wolf are alphas. And even if, in the case of the wolf, it is only the alpha male and female that breed, this does not lead to a growth of the species’ qualities, but only to a preservation of the existing qualities.
The theory according to which offspring should inherit, on average, the qualities of their parents is erroneous, as it does not take into account the occurrence of genetic mutations and the fact that most of these are not favourable. Human intelligence is a relatively recent human addition, so it is more fragile. Also, the number of genes involved in determining intelligence is probably very high, as high as 40% according to some estimates. Therefore, the likelihood of unfavourable mutations is also very high, which leads me to conclude that not all the offspring inherit their parents’ intelligence; that the average intelligence of the offspring is below that of the parents. I am referring, of course, to the genotypic intelligence – the one that is inherited.
Because I have made a brief reference to the wolf in an earlier paragraph, I would like to come back to it. Although human has evolved from ape, he has something which distinguishes him from all other apes. The Palaeolithic human is a great predator, a predator that hunts animals far larger than him, something no other ape does. In this sense, man is an ape ‘grafted’ with a wolf. This affinity, this relationship with the wolf has also allowed the taming of the wolf by the Palaeolithic hunter and the achievement of a true symbiosis between the two species – species that are so phylogenetically distant.
In my opinion, modern man represents a deterioration, including in terms of intelligence, of the Northern Palaeolithic hunter through domestication; just as the dog represents a deterioration (including in terms of intelligence) of the wolf through domestication. It is obvious that wolves as well as hybrids between wolf and dog are smarter than dogs. Besides, wolves, especially the Northern ones, have a larger skull and brain compared to dogs. A wolf’s brain is 20-30% larger than that of a dog the same size. Even a dog twice the size of a wolf has a brain 10% smaller than the latter’s. But even the brain of today’s human (1350 cm3) has decreased compared to the Cro-Magnon (1600cm3). The decrease is not entirely the result of the Industrial Revolution. Recent studies show that throughout the past 5,000 years, the human brain has decreased in size by 10%. The other 5-10% has therefore been lost before.
I have followed with great interest the works of Professor Philippe Rushton regarding the correlations between brain volume and IQ, as well as the hereditary component of these characteristics. If, for today’s populations, there is a relationship between the level of intelligence and the size of the brain and there is an important hereditary transmission of both, I assume that this was also true of older populations. The difference between in brain size between a Cro-Magnon and a modern-day Asian is greater than the difference between the brain volumes of an Asian and an African. There should be a corresponding difference in IQ. The Cro-Magnon human should be more intelligent than any population today. This is the same conclusion that I have reached through my reasoning (i.e. the weakening pressure of selection as a consequence of the ‘migration towards the South’ triggered by technology). As a matter of fact, if the entire anthropogenesis is characterized by an increase in brain size, a decrease should suggest anthropolysis.
I would also like to talk a little about the Flynn effect. I begin by saying that I believe Richard Lynn explains it the best: through a better nutrition during the foetal and perifoetal stages. If the Flynn effect is more visible in our times, it does not mean that this effect has not occurred at any other time in the history of mankind. In my opinion, all technological innovations from the Palaeolithic age have generated phenomena similar to the Flynn effect. I believe that the Neolithic revolution has been accompanied by a Flynn effect perhaps as clear as the one we are witnessing today. A similar effect has always functioned in the case of privileged classes. But this effect – part of the ‘extra-genetic heritage’ of mankind, has significantly contributed to the degeneration of the genetic heritage because it has sheltered the latter from natural selection. Thus, it has ruined genetic heritage exactly where it was of a higher quality: in the dominant classes and in populations with advanced technology/civilization.
Those that support the idea that genetic degeneration has begun only after the Industrial Age are sometimes criticized, and rightly so I believe, for not being able to explain why today’s populations from Mesopotamia and Egypt have a low IQ, although they have once built great civilizations. My thesis – i.e. decrease in intelligence also occurring in pre-industrial ages – explains the downfall of these civilizations precisely through a faster genetic degradation of technologically advanced populations. Technology and agglomeration made survival easier and facilitated access to reproduction. This situation is obvious in today’s world and it was true of the Ancient Middle East, even if to a lesser extent.
As a matter of fact, I believe that my thesis gives a satisfactory explanation for the changes in terms of the ‘centre of the world’. A more intelligent population develops superior forms of technology and civilization. Precisely these developments accelerate the decrease in selection and, implicitly, in terms of intelligence. Meanwhile, a more ‘barbaric’ civilization, characterized by a higher pressure of selection, is subject to a slower decrease in intelligence in comparison to the more developed population. After a while, it surpasses the latter and, by assuming its civilization, manages to dominate it. We can observe how the centre of the world has moved from a civilized Europe to a ‘barbaric’ America, where the pressure of selection was obviously greater compared to the Old Continent. And let us also notice how today’s America, benefitting from a high degree of technology and civilization, is ready to hand over to East Asia (which has encountered advanced technology only more recently, meaning that it has been subject to slower genetic degradation).
Even if we look at the problem from another angle, a decrease in intelligence is more plausible than an increase.
Let us assume that the pressure of selection has been high enough to ensure a continuous increase in intelligence up until the Industrial Age. Only in the last 10,000 years, from the Neolithic Revolution, there have been 500 generations of humans. If we took into account an average rise of only 0.1 IQ points per generation, meaning 1 IQ point for every 10 generations, then, for an English citizen today to have an IQ of 100, a Neolithic ancestor must have had an IQ of 50 and a Cro-Magnon an IQ well under 50. But the Cro-Magnon used to hunt mammoths, perform cranial trepanations, paint in dark caves, sculpt, play the flute, build various tools from sewing needles to bows and arrows, create calendars based on the movements of the stars. In addition, he did all of this before the age of 30. How many people today, with an IQ of 100, could do all of this? Could a human with an IQ of 50 do all of this during the Ice Ages?
Just as implausible seems to be the idea that average intelligence has remained constant. We would have to accept that, in so many different ages and societies, the pressure of selection exerted on intelligence has always been constant. I find this impossible to imagine.
More likely, under the formidable pressure of the North, the Cro-Magnon had reached an IQ of 150. This IQ has very slowly decreased with the decrease in the pressure of selection, resulting from the technological ‘migration towards South’. It has decreased almost insensibly until the Neolithic revolution, and it has accelerated from then onwards: on average, a decrease of about 1 IQ point for every 10 generations (0.1 points per generation). The result is the IQ of 100 for today’s average English citizen.
If I am not mistaken, one of Broca’s projects was to compare the intelligence of today’s human with that of the Cro-Magnon. A project abandoned by Broca, abandoned for a long time… I have dared resume it…