WHAT ABOUT INTELLIGENCE?
Humans are no intelligent enough. And most of the scientists
do what they do not because of superiority but because of interest,
curiosity, trial, and error (!). In other words: most of the scientists
are not intelligent enough to control what they do. Moreover: most
of the scientists are not controlled by themselves, as it should
be; they are controlled by the rulers, as it should not be; and
the rulers are also not intelligent enough to control what they
do. Thus: humans are not intelligent enough.
Wisdom is an elaborated knowledge. It is more based on the
own experience than knowledge itself is. So wisdom requires
a higher age. Wise people are old. If younger people
seem to be wise, to have wisdom, then they are altklug
(old-clever), precocious (is that the correct English
word for it?).
B.t.w.: Knowledge is not always power, because it depends
on the magnitude and distribution of power in each and every situation.
There are (for example) poor people who are wise, but they have
no power, in any case no societal power.
Many phenomena correlate with each other, thus also the population
growth (fertility rate and mortality rate), the economic growth,
the cultural development, the development of intelligence. The most
important phenomena are summarized in the HDI (Human Development
Index). The following map shows the HDI ranking list:
For example: dark green means the highest HDI (?0,900
and higher); dark red means the lowest HDI (0,349 and
lower).
Correlation of population and economy.
P=>E) In the short-term the population growth influences the
economic development positively; in the long-term it influences
it negatively because of other phenomena which are long-term phenomena
(culture /education, intelligence).
E=>P) In the short-term the economic growth influences the population
development positively; in the long-term it influences it negatively
(long-lasting wealth leads to decadence).
I need four (exactly four) seasons.
Humans were born in areas of merely two seasons and
developed into areas of four seasons and into areas of other two
seasons (namely in the polar regions). So originally, thus more
(not only) naturally, we are beings of the two seasons in warm or
hot areas, but being on our way, thus more (not only) culturally,
we are also beings of the four seasons, of the two seasons in the
coldest areas (polar regions), and in some sense even of the one
season in the outer space. We became beings that can
live in both the hottest and the coldest climate zones and in some
sense, as I said, even in the outer space. That's great and terrible,
fortune and fate, destiny. Isn't it?
The use of tools that do not belong to the own body are alrerady
a prestage of luxury; the use of language, if it is close to the
value of the human language, as well; games do all mammals have
(maybe it is a pre-prestage of luxury). B.t.w.: Luxury can be measured
by the degree of insulation. The more living beings are able to
live on an own island (meant as a metaphor!), the more
they are luxury beings. Or, in other words, the more living beings
are able to behave against the Darwinistic evolution, the more they
are luxury beings. Insulations give those beings a relative (!)
independence of adaptation to nature. The adaptation to nature has
not vanished but has been added by dissociation of nature. And the
only living being that has achieved this independence in a sufficient
extent is the human being.
The question is how we value this relative (!) independence.
This relative independence is caused by insulation or dissociation
of nature with the main effect: luxury. And this insulation is (a)
natuarlly caused by the relatively huge brain and (b) culturally
caused by the huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language
of human beings.
That's an interesting theme.
In Europe, especially in West and West-Central Europe the average
winter-temperature is often higher than +2° Celsius (35.6°
Fahrenheit) - caused by the Gulf Stream.
The natural cause of the relative (!) independence of human beings
is their brain, and the cultural cause or reason of the relative
(!) independence of human beings is their huge consciousness, awareness,
knowkedge, language. So we owe our relative independence (relative
free will) to our brain.
The development of our brain is almost a miracle, a wonder.
The main aspect is the insulation (dissociation of nature) which
leads to luxury and is naturally caused by the brain. So we have
(1) the brain, (2) the insulation (dissociation of nature), (3)
the luxury and also the self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon
egoism and many other features, but it is more the luxury that leads
to the self-consciousness than it is the self-consciousness that
leads to luxury. Some animals have self-consciousness in almost
the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have,
but these animals do not have luxury in the degree that human children
in the age of 1 to 2 years have. And human children become egoistic
in that typical human way (you said: extreme) after
that age, usually when they are older than 2 years. Luxury is more
a communal than a personal matter.The human development is more
a communal than a personal (individual) development.
The human development is more a cultural than a natural development,
because the natural development of the humans is more (about 98%;
see above) an animal development than a human development.
Naturally you need a relative large and a very
complex brain, if you want to become a human being, but then, when
that brain exists, your further development is more a cultural than
a natural development. The huge consciousness (with its accordingly
huge self-consciousness), the huge knowledge, the huge and complex
language, ... were naturally caused by the brain but would be totally
useless, if their development were merely a natural development.
The humans are humans very much more because of their cultural development
than because of their natural development. Naturally humans are
98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.
Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.
Like I said (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**):
Human beings are luxury beings.
Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, to environment,
but also about distancing from nature, from environment, thus about
the luxury islands.
Human beings are the only living beings that can disassociate themselves
from nature in such a dimension that they do not completely have
to adapt themselves to nature, to their natural environment. They
can destroy the nature just for fun. Other living beings can also
have a little bit luxury, but their luxury is always embedded in
their immediate nature, their natural environment. They are not
able to overcome their dependence of nature. They remain living
creatures in the sense of Darwinism: those that are successful have
the most descendants, and those that are not successful have the
less or no descendants and die out. Luxury beings are the only living
beings that can show also the opposite direction: being successful
and having less or no descendants (children) and beeing unsuccessful
and having the most descendants (children). This two cases would
immediately lead to extinction, if they were completely embedded
in nature, in natural environment. In the case of human beings it
does not lead to extinction, if they are in situations of independence
of nature; they often are in such situations, and then It depends
on human decisions whether a group of human beings or even all human
beings die out or not. Humans have two natures: (1) the real nature
which all other living beings also have, (2) their own nature as
their culture(s) which is (are) much independend of the real nature.
So when I say human nature is human culture/s, then
I mean that - in a pure natural sense - humans are 98%-animals;
so in this sense they have a 98%-animal nature and merely a 2%-human
nature, but this 2% are their culture/s. And in a pure cultural
sense this relation is inversely proportional.
If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their
nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!
Ignorance und arrogance dance the same dance. - Paul
Mommertz.
It is probable that there will be no limits to how large
an effective intellect can grow, but it mainly depends on how the
intellect is used and is allowed to be used.
Intelligence refers to (a) one person and (b) a group. A group
needs very intelligent persons who are able to lead the group and
to promote intelligence in the group, so that the group can become
more and more intelligent. So intelligence itself must be promoted
when it comes to the goal of an intelligent group, and this can
best be done by very intelligent leaders.
Wisdom is more than knowledge, wisdom is the use of knowledge in
a wise direction. It takes knowledge to know how to use knowledge,
yes, and if one uses the knowledge in a wise direction, then this
one is wise, can be called a wise person or a
person with wisdom.
If knowledge is not always power, then one can hardly say
that knowledge is power; so one should rather say that
knowledge can mean power but is not power.
It is very probable that those with the most knowledge do not have
the most power, and it is also very probable that those with the most
power do not have the most knowledge (in order to remain powerful
they need merely an average knowledge and a few people with more than
the average knowledge who depend on them). For example: each boss
of a company does not always have more knowledge than the underlings
of this boss; the situation, especially in the long run, that some
underlings have more knowledge than their boss is more probable.
More information is available now, but I would not subscribe that
the average human is more intelligent and has a better understanding
of the world now. Most humans do not make use of the fact
that more information is available now, and a lot of the nowadays
information is waste. So it is also possible that the IQ of the
humans is now lower than it was e.g. 100 years ago.
Information storage.
There are many information memories.
Concerning (1) nature: in all things
of the universe, thus in everything that exists, thus also in brains.
Concerning (2) human culture: (2,1)
in brains again; (2,2) in libraries;
(2,3) in machines, thus also in computers,
robotors, and so on.
One of the words for the definitions of belief and
knowledge that they must begin with as one original
phenomenon is the word information in a very primitive
sense which means, for example, without lie, fraud, corruption,
cynism .. and so on.
Try to evolutionarily go backwards - far away from now. Otherwise
you will never understand what the word information
in a very primitive sense means.
An amoeba does not need to believe (sic!) and not
need to know (sic) about its information.
Understanding in a very primitive sense does not mean what we understand
when we use the word understanding in a human sense. Again:
An amoeb does not need to understand what information means, it
does not need to believe or to know in order to be informed in the
sense of being in form. Information originally
comes from being in form (there is no need of belief
and knowledge).
Stones do not believe and not know. Primitive living beings do
not believe and not know, but they are in form (they
live) without believing and knowing it.
Being informed can but does not necessarily mean understanding.
Being informed and being in form (it is
like: to live) belong together. A cell does not need
to humanly understand its information.
A cell does not have a belief and a knowledge in the sense that
you mean. The belief and the knowledge of
a cell are the same: information (coming in form, being in formed,
being in form) in a primitive sense which means without understanding
and all other mental processes an anthropocentric human being always
hastily interprets into all living beings.
It is not good when people do not know that
they believe but nevertheless believe that they know.
Just think about it:
The core is what we can call information - in order
to be in form (to survive) . This leads at last, namely
when it comes to higher culture, to the question: How can
I be sure that the information is true? All understanding
has to do with information, but not all information has to do with
understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does
not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge
is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is
also based on information, but not all information leads to belief.
Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.
Belief and knowledge are exactly the same, but they have the same
evolutionary root.
Eliminating belief does not epistemologically help, because knowledge
did not accure without help. If you believe that knowledge is absolutely
independent, then you are more a believer than those who say the
opposite.
All understanding has to do with information, but not all information
has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to
a geologist does not need to understand the information that it
gives.
Eliminating belief does not epistemologically help. Knowledge did
not occur out of the nothingness and also not without help. If you
believe that knowledge is absolutely independent, then you are more
a believer than those who say that knowledge is not absolutely independent.
Information is in the outer circle - as the superset of
belief and knowledge -, and it is also an intersection of belief
and knowledge. Both belief and knowledge have their origin in information
(their intersection) and lead to information (their superset). The
intersection and the outer circle had been one circle (without belief
and knowledge) before belief and knowledge were born.
A stone (for example) does not have belief or knowledge but does
nevertheless give information.
Information is the whole process, whereas understanding is merely
a part of it. You do not need to know or to understand the informations
you give. For example: I have got information about you, but you
do not know this information. Another example: trees do not know
and not understand the information they give and get. Many many
other examples can be given. Most living beings are without understanding
but with information. And these most living beings do what
is true or false, although or, better, because they are not
capable of understanding, knowing, thinking - but capable of giving
and getting information. They do not need to know and to understand
what true or false is - they just do it (and mostly with
more success than those higher living beings with knowing
and understanding).
Plants, for example, seem to understand what the words true
and false mean, but, of course, they do not, because
they have no nervous system. They do not need to understand what
true and false mean. But they act and react
as if they understood the meaning of true and false.
And by the way: their actions and reactions are averagely more successful
than those of the living beings with a nervous system.
First of all, one has to understand what others say and then, secondly,
what they mean. If you read my words I am just writing, then you
have to be capable of knowing the letters, the syllables, the words,
the sentences, the whole text and, of course, the grammatical structure
and the relations of all that, and after it you can begin with your
interpretation of what the people mean, because the people and their
world are part of the context but not the text itself.
One can become more powerful by knowlege but also or even more
by belief.Imagine you inhabit an epistemological house with two
floors. The first floor as the lower floor is your belief and the
second floor as the upper floor your knowledge. If you take away
your first floor, you are not able anymore to inhabit your house;
but if you take away your second floor, you can remain in your house
and just inhabit the first floor.
Belief and knowledge have the same roots, but they are not equal,
because belief is more relevant than knowledge when it comes to
epistomological certainty. Knowledge can be easier destroyed than
belief. If you are uncertain, then remember your epistemological
beliefs, because your beliefs make you more certain again than knowledge.
The conclusion that knowledge can give you more epistemological
certainty than belief is a fallacy. If you want to maintain your
knowledge, then support it with your belief - like the lower floor
supports the upper floor. This does not men that knowledge is not
relevant. No! Knowledge is jeweled, but it is more fragile than
belief. That is the reason why knowledge needs more to be maintained
or nursed than belief. But this maintaining or nursing is not possible
without belief. That is the reason why belief is more relevant than
knowledge. Your knowledge is of no benefit to you without belief.
It is worthless without belief.
If someone wants to make out of knowledge belief or/and out of
belief knowledge, then the most effective way is to change the semantics
of both words, namely by exchanging both meanings. That is what
the rulers and their functionaries have been doing for so long by
their so called political correctness, which is just
not more than rhetoric, propaganda, semantical supremacy. They are
destroying knowledge, because they try to replace it by belief,
which they call knowledge.
Imagine you inhabit an epistemological house with two floors. The
first floor as the lower floor is your belief and the second floor
as the upper floor your knowledge. If you take away your first floor,
you are not able anymore to inhabit your house; but if you take
away your second floor, you can remain in your house and just inhabit
the first floor.
Belief and knowledge have the same roots, but they are not equal,
because belief is more relevant than knowledge when it comes to
epistomological certainty. Knowledge can be easier destroyed than
belief. If you are uncertain, then remember your epistemological
beliefs, because your beliefs make you more certain again than knowledge.
The conclusion that knowledge can give you more epistemological
certainty than belief is a fallacy. If you want to maintain your
knowledge, then support it with your belief - like the lower floor
supports the upper floor. This does not men that knowledge is not
relevant. No! Knowledge is jeweled, but it is more fragile than
belief. That is the reason why knowledge needs more to be maintained
or nursed than belief. But this maintaining or nursing is not possible
without belief. That is the reason why belief is more relevant than
knowledge. Your knowledge is of no benefit to you without belief.
It is worthless without belief.
If someone wants to make out of knowledge belief or/and out of
belief knowledge, then the most effective way is to change the semantics
of both words, namely by exchanging both meanings. That is what
the rulers and their functionaries have been doing for so long by
their so called political correctness, which is just
not more than rhetoric, propaganda, semantical supremacy. They are
destroying knowledge, because they try to replace it by belief,
which they call knowledge.
Intelligent existence needs something like subsistence / sustenance.
Information is serving self-preservation. Without self-preservation
or, more exactly, without any interest in self-preservation information
would be useless.
The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring
(often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the
unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often
even eight children per woman) and are going to survive. This is
based on political/social selection - not on natural selection.
Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a
disadvantage by political/social selection. The political/social
selection contradicts the natural selection.
For someone who knows the Mendels laws
and the resulting statistical distributions, the following hypothesis
forces itself: Suppose the peak IQ occupational group would be homozygous
for a Mendelian allele M1, thus genotype M1M1, the unskilled workers
would be M2M2, the professional workers would be heterozygous, thus
M1M2. People with a genotypic IQ over 123 should be homozygous M1M1,
those with an IQ 105-123 should be heterozygous M1M2, and those
with an IQ under 105 should be homozygous M2M2. In reality, the
thresholds IQ 105 and IQ 123 mark no sharp boundaries but the average
stripline of the overlapping zones of the phenotypes of the tested
IQ. So mor lively worded, there are three types of modern humans:
(1) those very few (with an IQ >= 124) who invent machines, (2)
those (with an IQ 105-123) who repair machines, and (3) those great
many (with an IQ <= 104) who serve machines.
Now, guess whether machines are capable of replacing all
three types of humans.
Since machines have become capable of serving and repairing machines,
less humans are needed. And in future machines will probably even
be capable of inventing machines, then no human will be needed.
But will the humans have to be intelligent then (provided that they
will still be there)?
According to Helmuth Nyborg and many others
before him (and only few others - I am among them - after him) intelligence
is mainly based on genetics and on the landscape, the environment,
more exactly said: on the regional climate and some of its consequences.
One can say that the northern humans (humans of regions with a moderate
and especially a cold climate) are averagely much more intelligent
than the southern humans (humans of regions with a warm and especially
a hot climate). And indeed, this has already been proven, although
some other aspects must be and have been taken in account as well.
Now, if a northern human correctly says I am more intelligent
than the southern humans, then this northern human will immediately
be called a racist or an IQ racist. But
if a southern human correctly says I am more athletic and
have a larger penis than the northern humans, then that southern
human will immediately get agreement and praise from everyone, nobody
will call that southern human a racist or/and a sexist.
One can state with certainty: There are huge differences when it
comes to intelligence. These differences were already proven in
the 19th century. But since about the second half or the third third
or at least the fifth fifth of the 20th century it has been forbidden
to say anything about these differences, because they are mostly
caused by genetics (averagely about 70% or even 80%), biology, climate,
thus only little by sociology. So our rulers are not only against
intelligence differences, they are also against genetics, against
biology, against climatology. Probably they are also against intelligence
itself.
Who are the more real racist: those who correctly say that they
are more intelligent than others, or those who incorrectly say that
those who say that they are more intelligent than others are incorrect
or even racists?
If there are intelligence differences (and there are huge intelligence
differences for sure!), then there are also people who correctly
say that they are more intelligent than others.
Why is it forbidden to be intelligent? And especially: Why is it
forbidden to be more intelligent than others? And specifically:
Why is it forbidden to say this?
There is a huge interest in forbidding all this. When liberalism
and egalitarianism come together fraternally (),
they have to keep a peaceful distance between themselves: liberalism
is for the few rich people, egalitarianism is for the many poor
people; and if this peaceful distance is really kept by both of
them, then it works like the current globalism works. What does
this mean in the context of what I said above? That peaceful distance
can only be kept, if there are artificially made differences (for
example: racism, sexism versus politically
correctness) in order to hide the real differences (such as
intelligence differences or the difference between eugenics and
dysgenics), because this is one of the means which is used in order
to control all humans on this planet - according to the established
method and ruling principle: divide et impera.
Intelligence is mostly determined by genetics (averagely about
70% or even 80%), biology, climate (colder regions demand
more intelligence than warmer refions), thus only little by sociology,
but this little can sometimes have fulminant effects.
The missing link is the human culture, the human brain,
the human intelligence, strictly speaking: the technologically applied
intelligence.
We have our genetic program, our self-preservation, our instincts,
our drives, our reproduction (dis)interest, our desires, our will,
and - of course - our culture and technology, based on our intelligence,
which is mainly (70-80%) determined by our genetic program. So when
problems and conflicts of any kind occur, we have to solve them,
i.e by finding a balance in order to make life stable - would you
agree if someone called this health?
The word belief is originally not meant religiously
or even theologically.
Now, the trick is to not use belief as a dogma but merely as an
epistemological crutch. If there will be more certainty,
then you will not use it anymore and put it in your cellar.
It is at least no advantage or satisfaction to you, if you must
always say I know nothing or I know that I know
nothing. Philosophy and science do not have 100%-answers.
So it is better to live with an epistemological crutch
than with stupidity or/and lies.
The epistemological crutch helps you to find a solution
or not, to come a to yes/no- or true/false-decision. It does not
dogmatize you, or, in other words, it depends on your personality
and character whether it dogmatizes you or not: if it does, then
you are not a good philosopher or scientist; if it does not, then
you are a good philosopher or scientist. Science would never have
been successful without help like what we call empirism
(observation, experiment, extrapolation,
and so on and so forth), deduction, induction,
and other crutches.
If this all turns out as a dogma, then it is not the crutch
that is to be blame but those humans who are corrupt or too dumb.
Science and philosophy have always used such crutches.
Otherwise they would never have developed (historically evolved).
....
Belief is needed.
A society with an economy that is based upon information (including
knowledge and belief) is much more environment-sparing than a society
with a money economy that is based upon energetic resources. Information
(but not energy and resources) can be reproduced arbitrarily. So
information is the better money basis. I would suggest a money system
of two monetary units: I (Information) and
E (Energy), so that, for example, 100 cents
would consist of 98 I-cent and 2 E-cent, and both could not really
be separated from each other.
Life resists entropy. Otherwise it would not be capable of self-preservation
and would decay, thus die. Self-preservation means preservation
of the competences during the actual life, whereas reproduction
means preservation of the competences beypond the own life.
There are three evolution principles: (1) variation, (2) reproduction,
(3) reproduction interest. Living beings get recources out of their
environment in order to reproduce their competences by the resources
of the environment, thus to preserve (conserve) and renew their
competences. So they strive to reproduce their competences.
According to this the meaning of life is the avoidance of the loss
of the competences.
If you have the impression that you are not needed anymore, then
you have the impression of the loss of your competences.
Note: Competences means more thanfitness,
it is more like capital, power, acceptance,
appreceation.
Competences are like abilities, skills,
talents, social prospects ... and so on.
Some are passed on through DNA. Some are taught, trained, or conditioned.
They are based on information.
There are many different information memories (storages), two of
them are biological (genetical and neurological) - genes and memes
(short-term and long-term) -, all others are cultural (artificial)
like all culturally made things, for example books / libraries,
pictures, photographs, audiotapes, videotapes, memories of computer,
robots, androids.
The intelligence of the average people of the world, their average
IQ, has been sinking; so the people of the world have been becoming
more stupid, more dense.
The great amount of information is only capable of
explaining the medium or averarge issues, but not other issues like
the beginning or the end of the small information. The
small information is possibly too small
(simple) for explaining it. The example homo sapiens
makes it clear, I think: Humans often do not have many answers to
the simpliest questions of their own dasein. Why are humans in the
world?
Humans are not really capable of explaining how, for example, the
universe emerged, if it emerged at all.
The humans brains are made for surviving.
Unfortunately, the average intelligence has decreased and the whole
education system with all its schools, high schools, colleges, universities
has become a corruption system (like all other institutional systems).
In the following video (**),
Helmuth Nyborg (**)
points out the clear relationship between distance from the equator
and both brain size and intelligence. At or close to the equator,
the average IQ is 69, whereas at a latitude of 54 degrees the average
IQ is 98. Nyborg observes that races could logically be classified
as eco-types (**),
since their traits reflect the ecological niches in which they evolved.
He also notes that unlike the North/South gradient in IQ there is
no East/West gradient, virtually proving that it is the challenges
of a cold climate that have forced northern peoples to evolve higher
intelligence and a greater capacity for cooperation. He points out
that e.g. Arabs have lower-than-expected IQs relative to the latitudes
in which they evolved, probably due to the dysgenic effects of frequent
cousin marriages.
Two forces could destroy the Western Civilization. One is a social
system that taxes the competent to subsidize the proliferation of
the incompetent. As Nyborg notes, the welfare-state debases
what created high civilization in the first place - this is the
first time in history that the less fit are reproducing more than
the more fit (**).
At the same time, lower-IQ non-Europeans are pouring into the continent,
bringing with them alien practices and religions. Nyborg concludes
with a warning: Unless Europeans are able to reverse these two trends,
the result could be the undoing of the Enlightenment - we
may be on the precipice of a new dark era (**).
My personal fear is that we face civil war. - Helmuth Nyborg
(cp. in the said video **).
I personally find that our children deserve a better future
than that .... - Helmuth Nyborg (cp. in the said video **).
I want to add something to Nyborgs statements in the said
video (**),
where Nyborg notes that e.g. the welfare-state debases what
created high civilization in the first place - this is the first
time in history that the less fit are reproducing more than the
more fit (**).
We know from e.g. the schoolyard that high-IQ pupils and low-IQ
pupils behave very differently. The high-IQ pupils behave in a more
reasonable way and think that intelligence is the best way to get
success, whereas the low-IQ pupils behave in a more violent way
and think that violence is the only way to get success.
The behavior of the high-IQ pupils is very similar to the behavior
of the Faustians which Nyborg, referring to Charles Murrays
book Human accomplishment (2003), calls High Civilization
/ European Core / males born in a small area of
northern Europe (the entire area of the Germanic speaking
people and the north-northwest area of the Romanic speaking people
**),
thus: the area where the Occidental culture (a.k.a.: Faustian culture)
originated with its soul (according to Spengler: die faustische
Seele [the Faustian soul]).
What Nyborg describes is a scientifically secured version of the
Faustian story / history.
Back to the schoolyard: Very often, the low-IQ pupils win against
the high-IQ pupils who are, in addition to that, often called Streber
(German) or nerd/geek (English). It depends
on the number: if low-IQ pupils are many more than the high-IQ pupils,
then the high-IQ pupils have no chance to win against the low-IQ
pupils. (Then proverbs come true: The
wiser head gives in. The cleverer gives in.)
Politically said: By welfare and immigration politics, the welfare
states help the low-IQ people win against the high-IQ people. What
Spengler predicted as die farbige Weltrevolution ([**|**]
the colored world revolution [**|**])
has become reality since the end of the second world war or, at
the latest, since the end of the cold war. Very likely, this will
lead to a civil war, if not to more than a civil war.
The reason why many Faustian people are scared these days is a
real threat (!) - not the foreign race of the
immigrants or the sex or something like that.
Helmuth Nyborg:
The Thermodynamic Solar Irradiance Selection (TSIS) Hypothesis:
- The latitudinal reduction in Sun Irradiation and related carrying
capacity of cold eco-niches exposed the small bands of genetically
quite similar prehistoric northbound migrants to still harsher
selection for traits beneficial for survival.
- Among those traits are Brain Size, Intelligence, and Altruistic
Sociability, as they all favor in photon-poor, nutritionally bare
Northern eco-niches.
- Their heritability will leave modern-day artefacts in the form
of North-South gradients in IQ, Brain Size, and Altruistic Sociability.
**
Helmuth Nyborg:
Summary:
1.) High Civilization reflects the geo-physics of Cold Ecotypes.
2.) It accordingly will receive little support in Warm Ecotype ereas.
3.) Warm Ecotypes cannot be integrated in modern technological European
and Western offshoot countries, except for the few at the high end
of the normal distribution of Warm Ecotypes. **
If Europeans become a minority, then intelligence (high IQs),
technology, science, wealthy, democracy, welfare become a minority
too, will drop below sustainable levels. All this means stupidness,
dark ages, eternal-civil-war-like situations or even the Stone Age
again, in the worst case the disappearance of all humans.
According to Hemuth Nyborg, the Inuit are the Very Cold Ecotype
- see for example: 9:17
ff., 23:37
ff., 28:29
ff. in the said video).
Intelligence is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents
nature successfully (**).
Note that intelligence is one advantage of many advantages. So there
are other advantages too.
It depends on what advantage is the one that is chosen/selected.
In the case of humans it is the intelligence. Bodily said: it is
our brain that made us so successful. We do not have other physical
features that have made us as successful as the brain has done.
If we lose this advantage, we will immediately lose other features
too and will perhaps get extinct.
Intelligence is correlated with genetics (thus: biology), with
climate (thus: geology and geography), with politics and education
(thus: culture), with demography, with economy ....
We should have more than one currency, and the first one should
be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.
And we must take another direction and slow down.
If we do not get that first currency of knowledge, wisdom, information
and do not take another direction and slow down, then
we will get the huge catastrophe. It is possible to avoid
this. But it requires responsible rulers instead of the current
ones who are godwannabes, too greedy, too corrupt and going to bring
the huge catastrophe to the humans.
Schools, universities and mass media are intended to damage the
intelligence of people.
Two points are important here:
(1) Cooptation of schools, universities and mass media as institutions
working for the globalists who want the monopoly and monarchy..
(2) If the economic and - in particular (!) - the demographic situation
is like the one we have in our western countries, then the average
intelligence decreases, and teachers, professors, journalists which
do not go along with the mainstream have to damage the intelligence,
otherwise the colleagues will punish them by mobbing and firing.
Someone asked me recently whether one needs education. The answer
depends on whether one means (A) the education as such or (B) the
school education which is basically a state education.
(A) If the education as such is meant, then: yes, one needs education.
(B) If the school education which is basically a state education
is meant, then: yes (Ba) and no (Bb).
(Ba) Yes because of those who are genetically less intelligent
and can use the school education as a chance to become more
intelligent.
(Bb) No because of a situation like the described one (=>
2).
|