Recommended Posts

Humans may be gradually losing intelligence, according to a new study.

The study, published today (Nov. 12) in the journal Trends in Genetics, argues that humans lost the evolutionary pressure to be smart once we started living in dense agricultural settlements several thousand years ago.

"The development of our intellectual abilities and the optimization of thousands of intelligence genes probably occurred in relatively non-verbal, dispersed groups of peoples [living] before our ancestors emerged from Africa," said study author Gerald Crabtree, a researcher at Stanford University, in a statement.

Since then it's all been downhill, Crabtree contends.

The theory isn't without critics, with one scientist contacted by LiveScience suggesting that rather than losing our smarts, humans have just diversified them with various types of intelligence today.

Early humans lived or died by their spatial abilities, such as quickly making a shelter or spearing a saber-toothed tiger. Nowadays, though almost everyone has the spatial ability to do ostensibly simple tasks like washing dishes or mowing the lawn, such tasks actually require a lot of brainpower, the researchers note.

And we can thank our ancestors and the highly tuned mechanism of natural selection for such abilities. Meanwhile, the ability to play chess or compose poetry likely evolved as collateral effects.

But after the spread of agriculture, when our ancestors began to live in dense farming communities, the intense need to keep those genes in peak condition gradually waned.

And its unlikely that the evolutionary advantage of intelligence is greater than it was during our hunter-gatherer past, the paper argues.

"A hunter-gatherer who did not correctly conceive a solution to providing food or shelter probably died, along with his/her progeny, whereas a modern Wall Street executive that made a similar conceptual mistake would receive a substantial bonus and be a more attractive mate. Clearly, extreme selection is a thing of the past," the researchers write in the journal article.

Anywhere between 2,000 and 5,000 genes determine human intelligence, and these genes are particularly susceptible to harmful changes, or mutations, the researchers write. Based on knowledge of the rate of mutations, the team concludes that the average person harbors two intelligence-stunting genetic changes that evolved over the last 3,000 years.

The hypothesis is counterintuitive at first. After all, across the world the average IQ has increased dramatically over the last 100 years, a phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect. But most of that jump probably resulted from better prenatal care, better nutrition and reduced exposure to brain-stunting chemicals such as lead, Crabtree argues.

But just because humans have more mutations in their intelligence genes doesn't mean we are becoming less brainy as a species, said psychologist Thomas Hills of the University of Warwick, who was not involved in the study. Instead, removing the pressure for everyone to be a superb hunter or gatherer may have allowed us to evolve a more diverse population with different types of smarts, he said.

"You don't get Stephen Hawking 200,000 years ago. He just doesn't exist," Hills told LiveScience. "But now we have people of his intellectual capacity doing things and making insights that we would never have achieved in our environment of evolutionary adaptation."

source

As a whole, we aren't gaining much, but I believe we are not devolving in intelligence. But I do think that due to the internet, more retards are able to get their voice out, in which it just makes it seem like everyone is becoming less smart. In reality, we are just hearing the stupid more than we used to.

But there was a interesting video where the presenter was talking about how not 1 single person in the world knows how to fully put together a computer mouse. From production of the plastics and little metal parts, to everything else, it is all singled out and not 1 person knows the whole process. If society was ruined, we would be pretty much ****ed on rebuilding a lot of what we have now.

That's my opinion.

It probably seems that way because now more monkeys have access to computers and the Internet.

But I doubt it.

If one were to look at the last three thousand years, world-changing geniuses pop up at regular intervals.

As for the modern world, our creativity and intelligence is being channeled into different fields. The survival instinct is probably stronger now than at any other time in history, given the greater competition for dwindling resources.

The average human now has a lot more to contend with just to make it through the day, than his distant ancestors.

This is actually pretty good. Not for the intelligent, but for the rest of the monkeys. Being dumb makes you happier: fact.

The only problem I see is that those low IQ beings are going to be dominated by more psycopaths, because the intelligent people will become more depressed and lazy and the ones that don't will end up working for psycopaths, whose nature is not towards caring about others or life in general.

Anyway, global warming is going to screw up everyone, so hard, that we won't have time to see all of this s*** unfold. Worse things are coming up. And fast.

... Instead, removing the pressure for everyone to be a superb hunter or gatherer may have allowed us to evolve a more diverse population with different types of smarts, he said.

This is what I was looking for. Most people are smart and dumb in their own way. I'm excellent at mathematics, good at English comprehension, and poor at art and literature. I have a friend who is an excellent artist and good in math, but he fails to see the fallacies in many conspiracy theories. I have a friend who's going to college for IT, and he's very good with computers overall, but programming is part of the curriculum and he's needed a lot of help from me in that course.

So when a person makes a dumb comment, that doesn't mean that they're dumb overall, but maybe they shouldn't be commenting on that particular subject. I'm sure I'm guilty of this myself.

This is what I was looking for. Most people are smart and dumb in their own way. I'm excellent at mathematics, good at English comprehension, and poor at art and literature. I have a friend who is an excellent artist and good in math, but he fails to see the fallacies in many conspiracy theories. I have a friend who's going to college for IT, and he's very good with computers overall, but programming is part of the curriculum and he's needed a lot of help from me in that course.

So when a person makes a dumb comment, that doesn't mean that they're dumb overall, but maybe they shouldn't be commenting on that particular subject. I'm sure I'm guilty of this myself.

You can be smart and still not very intelligent... Intelligence is only one quality :)

Intelligence

having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals

I see so many people that are lost without digital clocks or computers. Kids can't tell time with an analog clock even if it does have numbers.

If power goes off in a restaurant, they'll even give away the food because no one can add a check and the tax correctly. It's a little sad. I see this more and more as we progress. Not sure if it's just people use the technology and don't bother remembering life skills or just become dumber.

I'm going with the "dumber" option. I can totally see us going the way of "Idiocracy".

Anywhere between 2,000 and 5,000 genes determine human intelligence, and these genes are particularly susceptible to harmful changes, or mutations, the researchers write. Based on knowledge of the rate of mutations, the team concludes that the average person harbors two intelligence-stunting genetic changes that evolved over the last 3,000 years.

Gross or net?

I guess I'm a bit skeptical of studies that look at changes of many ontologically related genes and try to conclude that some change in Gene P is meaningful. Genes don't work alone. They act in concert with others. Remember when the human genome came out and ever wonder why we haven't cured all those pesky genetically encoded diseases? It's because the sequence was the letters. We still haven't figured out what the words are.

I read a similar piece (cant remember where haha) which argued we maybe losing our memory functions because of technology, who needs to remember facts and figures when you have google and Wikipedia at your finger tips. So surely over generations of this, our memory capacity will be reduced, it made sense to me.

It's an interesting and highly debatable topic. Some say that certain types of intelligence have improved dramatically whereas others haven't. One interesting theory (by Geoffrey Miller) is that human intelligence wasn't propelled by natural selection alone. Instead, it was also driven by sexual selection. It seems a bit weird to think that our ancestors found intelligence to be an attractive quality. It's not something you see often in today's society (or at least what's depicted in the media).

I read a similar piece (cant remember where haha) which argued we maybe losing our memory functions because of technology, who needs to remember facts and figures when you have google and Wikipedia at your finger tips. So surely over generations of this, our memory capacity will be reduced, it made sense to me.

That's not true. What you're talking about is similar to Lamarckism. It's the inheritance of a characteristic that is acquired over an organism's lifetime. For example, a giraffe has to stretch its neck to reach leaves on a tall tree. After a lifetime of doing this, its neck grows longer. And when that giraffe gives birth to a calf, it too has a long neck. However, that isn't the case in the real world. An organism cannot pass down a characteristic it acquired in its lifetime. Whatever it passes down is determined by its genetic makeup.

Similarly, the use of technology to remember things will have no effect on future offspring. Whether it improves or diminishes your memory capacity is irrelevant.

It's an interesting and highly debatable topic. Some say that certain types of intelligence have improved dramatically whereas others haven't. One interesting theory (by Geoffrey Miller) is that human intelligence wasn't propelled by natural selection alone. Instead, it was also driven by sexual selection. It seems a bit weird to think that our ancestors found intelligence to be an attractive quality. It's not something you see often in today's society (or at least what's depicted in the media).

That's not true. What you're talking about is similar to Lamarckism. It's the inheritance of a characteristic that is acquired over an organism's lifetime. For example, a giraffe has to stretch its neck to reach leaves on a tall tree. After a lifetime of doing this, its neck grows longer. And when that giraffe gives birth to a calf, it too has a long neck. However, that isn't the case in the real world. An organism cannot pass down a characteristic it acquired in its lifetime. Whatever it passes down is determined by its genetic makeup.

Similarly, the use of technology to remember things will have no effect on future offspring. Whether it improves or diminishes your memory capacity is irrelevant.

So... intelligence is genetic? Oh my... :D

From the samples I see walking the streets, I'd tend to say yes.

But I don't think that some humans are becoming less intelligent -- it's just that the truly stupid are reproducing out of control. ;)

  • Like 2

From the samples I see walking the streets, I'd tend to say yes.

But I don't think that some humans are becoming less intelligent -- it's just that the truly stupid are reproducing out of control. ;)

Couldn't make more sense.

Somebody please, stop this.

1) Intelligence correlates with DNA (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809)

2) High-intelligent people statistically have fewer children than less intelligent

RESULT: society becomes less intelligent.

Demographics is destiny.

Dark ages are coming not because of UFO invasion but because high intelligent people just don't have enough children.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!