(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Go away, batin

13 Nov 2012 06:19 AM   |   9356 clicks   |   Daily Mail
Add Comment
Showing 1-50 of 64 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
runujhkj    [TotalFark]  
And people still pay attention to the Daily Mail because...


/xkcdimage.jpg

12 Nov 2012 11:57 PM
Reply
FishyFred    [TotalFark]  
This sounds a lot like the stories about how we're all going to evolve to be four-foot-tall greys who are missing pinky toes.

13 Nov 2012 12:33 AM
Reply
BronyMedic     

FishyFred: This sounds a lot like the stories about how we're all going to evolve to be four-foot-tall greys who are missing pinky toes.


That's only after the Lizard Aliens from the Zeta Reticuli Galaxy make their move on December 12, 2012, and finally reveal themselves to the world at large, like David Icke was warning us all along.

download.lardlad.com

Once they reverse-terriform the planet for their kind, and all of humanity is forced to live in the lower gravity of the Lagrange Colonies and Luna, that will be the form humanity eventually evolves into.

rarerborealis.com

13 Nov 2012 02:26 AM
Reply
timujin    [TotalFark]  
tl;dr

13 Nov 2012 02:59 AM
Reply
Slaxl    [TotalFark]  
Sort the comments by worst rated, read and weep.

13 Nov 2012 04:16 AM
Reply
jekxrb     
Tangentially related:

www.smbc-comics.com

13 Nov 2012 06:16 AM
Reply
PonceAlyosha     
I'd argue humans haven't been sexually selecting on the basis of intelligence in a major way in the past ten thousand years, and that hasn't stopped us from building a giant world dominating super culture.

13 Nov 2012 06:23 AM
Reply
aniyn     
img18.imageshack.us

/hot

13 Nov 2012 06:26 AM
Reply
LordOfThePings     
Applies Pythagorean theorem to isosceles triangles

daniwao.files.wordpress.com

Becomes beloved icon

13 Nov 2012 06:28 AM
Reply
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  
We are evolving in a lopsided dumbbell shape with the humans of lower intelligence mating with each other and creating a large lower-intelligence group on the one hand and humans of higher intelligence mating with each other and creating a distressingly smaller high-intelligence group on the other. While there is some cross intelligence mating, for the most part like mates with like and the better educated, higher income, higher intelligence people produce high intelligence kids while the uneducated, poor, low intelligence people produce large broods of low intelligence kids.

We're all still homosapiens, so there's no problem with mating yet, but give it 10,000 years and we'll be completely different species.

13 Nov 2012 06:29 AM
Reply
Shadowtag     
Are-getting-stupid-Researchers-claim- longer-need-intelligence-survive

Me not brain gud.

13 Nov 2012 06:29 AM
Reply
stuhayes2010     
I'd argue this has been greatly accelerated by technology.

13 Nov 2012 06:30 AM
Reply
Gordon Bennett     
www2.b3ta.com

13 Nov 2012 06:32 AM
Reply
jtown     
Has anyone alerted Ric Romero?

13 Nov 2012 06:32 AM
Reply
LonMead     
"...a team from Stanford University claim we are losing our intellectual and emotional capabilities..."

Still can't figure out that Soduku, eh?

www.abc.net.au

13 Nov 2012 06:33 AM
Reply
Mr. Ekshun     

Shadowtag: Are-getting-stupid-Researchers-claim- longer-need-intelligence-survive

Me not brain gud.


Whoa, man, dumb it down. We're not all rocket surgeons here.

13 Nov 2012 06:34 AM
Reply
way south     

PonceAlyosha: I'd argue humans haven't been sexually selecting on the basis of intelligence in a major way in the past ten thousand years, and that hasn't stopped us from building a giant world dominating super culture.


They do quite a bit of selection based on finances, and the children from wealthier families are more likely to prosper. So I would argue that intelligence (reflected in your ability to gain and maintain wealth) is a driving factor in human cultures even if its not enforced by nature.

/being poor a century ago was far more lethal than being poor today.
/being rich in a polygamist culture is also a great way to spread your genes.

13 Nov 2012 06:35 AM
Reply
Buffet     
Nowhere is this more evident than in these punk kids one sees every day. They're little more than blithering idiots, barely capable of interacting with others or their environment.

13 Nov 2012 06:38 AM
Reply
Vangor     
I would argue the greater concern for human intelligence is proper prenatal and adolescent nutrition as well as a developmentally engaging environment. However, the comments made in this appear to be just a short opinion piece compared to any novel research.

13 Nov 2012 06:38 AM
Reply
BronyMedic     

Gordon Bennett: [www2.b3ta.com image 483x693]




ladywithabirthmark.files.wordpress.com

This man just summed up the entirety of the "news" produced by the Daily Fail.

13 Nov 2012 06:38 AM
Reply
PonceAlyosha     

way south: So I would argue that intelligence (reflected in your ability to gain and maintain wealth) is a driving factor in human cultures even if its not enforced by nature.


The only measure of intelligence that correlates with income and personal wealth is degree of higher education, which itself has been shown to be mostly a side effect of having wealth to begin with. There's no scientific support for your view. If there was, every population would have equal upward and downward mobility based on their place on a theoretical "absolutely" intelligence bell curve.

13 Nov 2012 06:42 AM
Reply
barkingatthemoon     
Is that the back of Obama's head?

13 Nov 2012 06:46 AM
Reply
Life_is_a_carnivore     
"... no longer need it to survive."

Wow. Just wow.

13 Nov 2012 06:46 AM
Reply
KrispyKritter    [TotalFark]  

PonceAlyosha: I'd argue humans haven't been sexually selecting on the basis of intelligence in a major way in the past ten thousand years, and that hasn't stopped us from building a giant world dominating super culture.


but you say world dominating super culture like it's a good thing. sad truth is there may have been a time when folks lived in peace, their extended families working together as they tended a farm like environment and thrived. in time someone somewhere was born with a badly wired brain who chose to use violence to take what he wanted instead of earning his daily bread.

as more time went on this mentally ill violent doosh found others to join him on his daily riff-raffing. and they took to terrorizing local extended families, burning their homes, raping the women and making the men their slaves. by being horrible violent dooshbags their wealth and power grew. this shiat kept happening and voila look at the world today.

the sooner we get back to eugenics - no, not mass killing, just selective breeding - the better off mankind will be. we have far too many horrible pieces of shiat making babies they don't want, can't raise, and often neglect or simply beat to death. pretending this isn't so won't make it stop. having babies should be a privilege for those most well suited to do same. it doesn't take a board of geniuses to figure out who should be sterilized and who may be considered to be parents.

13 Nov 2012 06:47 AM
Reply
Onkel Buck     
If you work with the public you should know this already.

13 Nov 2012 06:47 AM
Reply
phrawgh     

AverageAmericanGuy: We are evolving in a lopsided dumbbell shape with the humans of lower intelligence mating with each other and creating a large lower-intelligence group on the one hand and humans of higher intelligence mating with each other and creating a distressingly smaller high-intelligence group on the other. While there is some cross intelligence mating, for the most part like mates with like and the better educated, higher income, higher intelligence people produce high intelligence kids while the uneducated, poor, low intelligence people produce large broods of low intelligence kids.

We're all still homosapiens, so there's no problem with mating yet, but give it 10,000 years and we'll be completely different species.


This was already predicted.
1.bp.blogspot.com

13 Nov 2012 06:50 AM
Reply
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  

phrawgh: AverageAmericanGuy: We're all still homosapiens, so there's no problem with mating yet, but give it 10,000 years and we'll be completely different species.

This was already predicted.


HG Wells was onto something there.

13 Nov 2012 06:52 AM
Reply
dai the flu     
It's not relevant to the article, but I'm convinced that people are losing their critical reasoning skills.

Rambling anecdote: last night I watched a video on the Beyond Blue facebook page (beyond blue is an Australian charity dedicated to depression and mental health), it was titled "Is it okay to be left handed?" It was essentially a parable about how members of the LGBT can be bullied in home and school life, and (particularly as a left hander myself) was absurd to watch, but that rang true how absurd it is bully anyone over something they can't control.

I pulled a muscle cringing when I read the comments; it was full of offended left handers who totally missed the point, insulted that they were painted as different.

/end CSB
//it was a great vid, I recommend it
///and read the comments, you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll facepalm, and you'll feel really, really smart

13 Nov 2012 06:52 AM
Reply
Ishkur    [TotalFark]  
To be perfectly fair, from a historical standpoint, despite the rampant stupidity all around us and the crap that's on TV, there has never actually been a point in history where people have been more informed, more educated, more literate and more aware of any given topic.

Up until the 20th century and the institution of mass education in all western democracies, a sizable percentage of humanity in even the wealthiest of kingdoms, empires and nations were always ignorant and illiterate. There is no point in history to compare to today. People in the past were mostly stupid, vulgar, simple and myopic, and they were scarcely aware of anything beyond the crushing drudgery that was their daily lives.

That we have these intellectual discussions at all, on a national scale, is a relatively new phenomenon in human civilization.

13 Nov 2012 06:58 AM
Reply
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  
By the way, this whole discussion is code for 'immigrants are coming in and having too many babies'.

13 Nov 2012 07:01 AM
Reply
PonceAlyosha     

KrispyKritter: but you say world dominating super culture like it's a good thing...


the sooner we get back to eugenics - no, not mass killing, just selective breeding - the better off mankind will be. we have far too many horrible pieces of shiat making babies they don't want, can't raise, and often neglect or simply beat to death. pretending this isn't so won't make it stop. having babies should be a privilege for those most well suited to do same. it doesn't take a board of geniuses to figure out who should be sterilized and who may be considered to be parents.


No, I say it like it is a complex thing that requires constant upkeep. But on your second point, that's exactly what we shouldn't do. Artificially decreasing the variability in our global population would decrease our chances of resurgence after our specie's next inevitable die-back.

13 Nov 2012 07:03 AM
Reply
untaken_name     

Ishkur: To be perfectly fair, from a historical standpoint, despite the rampant stupidity all around us and the crap that's on TV, there has never actually been a point in history where people have been more informed, more educated, more literate and more aware of any given topic.

Up until the 20th century and the institution of mass education in all western democracies, a sizable percentage of humanity in even the wealthiest of kingdoms, empires and nations were always ignorant and illiterate. There is no point in history to compare to today. People in the past were mostly stupid, vulgar, simple and myopic, and they were scarcely aware of anything beyond the crushing drudgery that was their daily lives.

That we have these intellectual discussions at all, on a national scale, is a relatively new phenomenon in human civilization.


Your knowledge of history seems as deep as your knowledge of every other area you comment about.

13 Nov 2012 07:15 AM
Reply
dragonchild     

PonceAlyosha: I'd argue humans haven't been sexually selecting on the basis of intelligence in a major way in the past ten thousand years


Yeah, not so much. Back in the day pressure came in the form of foreign invasion. Rome conquered Greece; Gaul conquered Rome; Islam conquered the Byzantine Empire, China conquered itself, ditto with Africa, Mongols conquered Eurasia, Western Europe conquered the world. Granted there were plenty of survivors in each case and some developments took centuries, but social complacency and/or technological lag (typically the two went hand-in-hand) invariably resulted in getting your ass kicked. War is a particularly stupid way to bring about cultural exchange, but back then that's how they did it.

PonceAlyosha: The only measure of intelligence that correlates with income and personal wealth is degree of higher education, which itself has been shown to be mostly a side effect of having wealth to begin with.


Within already-established nations, and studied by people more motivated by vindication than curiosity. Not that there isn't a correlation between wealth and education, but I don't know if anyone's objectively looked into it. There's no question that economic mobility has stagnated in America, but that's somewhat of a digression if this thread's about "are we getting stupider". If we're talking about evolution of a species we need to talk about much larger timescales and broader scope. In that context, we're still very much in a pattern of empires ascending and declining. The pattern has accelerated somewhat (Japan maybe setting the world record by going from isolationist to world power into decline in 100 years), but I think it's way too early to extrapolate current demographic trends onto the species as a whole.

13 Nov 2012 07:16 AM
Reply
jaybeezey     

PonceAlyosha: way south: So I would argue that intelligence (reflected in your ability to gain and maintain wealth) is a driving factor in human cultures even if its not enforced by nature.

The only measure of intelligence that correlates with income and personal wealth is degree of higher education, which itself has been shown to be mostly a side effect of having wealth to begin with. There's no scientific support for your view. If there was, every population would have equal upward and downward mobility based on their place on a theoretical "absolutely" intelligence bell curve.


So then that $1,000,000,000,000 in school debt that people have been complaining about is all accrued by rich kids?

They can afford to pay it back. Next problem.

13 Nov 2012 07:17 AM
Reply
Ishkur    [TotalFark]  

untaken_name: Your knowledge of history seems as deep as your knowledge of every other area you comment about.


Actually, all I know is history.

Everything else is just an offshoot of that.

/I have you farkied as "libertarian dumbass" for some reason
//so I probably schooled you in the history of economics of something or other at some point, which I guess explains the kneejerk butthurt
///oh wait, here it is

13 Nov 2012 07:49 AM
Reply
Indypendy     
And here I expected an article about the evils of warning labels.

/hold my beer and watch this

13 Nov 2012 07:52 AM
Reply
untaken_name     

Ishkur: untaken_name: Your knowledge of history seems as deep as your knowledge of every other area you comment about.

Actually, all I know is history.

Everything else is just an offshoot of that.

/I have you farkied as "libertarian dumbass" for some reason
//so I probably schooled you in the history of economics of something or other at some point, which I guess explains the kneejerk butthurt
///oh wait, here it is


Wow. Some people just can't take a compliment. Defensive much? I totally forgot how wrong you were in that thread. Consider my previous compliment withdrawn. You're a moron. I guess even a broken clock's right on occasion.

13 Nov 2012 07:53 AM
Reply
Harry Freakstorm    [TotalFark]  
phrawgh

I'm starting to see the change. I'm moving in to a new cube. The walls are higher and the 'pit' is deeper. I'm actually looking forward to moving there. I'd like to steal a wall and put a roof on the new cube. Then I can manage my lighting needs and keep it darker. Toil in silence and darkness to build web pages no one reads and revamp gawd awful databases ported from Lotus Domino or DB2.

But on the bright side, the cafeteria is serving Eloi. Yums!

13 Nov 2012 07:57 AM
Reply
xanadian    [TotalFark]  

Gordon Bennett: [www2.b3ta.com image 483x693]


It's.....beautiful!

13 Nov 2012 07:59 AM
Reply
Debeo Summa Credo     

AverageAmericanGuy: We are evolving in a lopsided dumbbell shape with the humans of lower intelligence mating with each other and creating a large lower-intelligence group on the one hand and humans of higher intelligence mating with each other and creating a distressingly smaller high-intelligence group on the other. While there is some cross intelligence mating, for the most part like mates with like and the better educated, higher income, higher intelligence people produce high intelligence kids while the uneducated, poor, low intelligence people produce large broods of low intelligence kids.

We're all still homosapiens, so there's no problem with mating yet, but give it 10,000 years and we'll be completely different species.


You think? Yeah, smarter people tend to make more money and tend to have smarter kids, but I think the bell curve around the mean in intelligence is wide enough, and there is enough "cross-intelligence" mating that a dumbbell shaped distribution that you suggest is impossible.

13 Nov 2012 08:05 AM
Reply
way south     

PonceAlyosha: way south: So I would argue that intelligence (reflected in your ability to gain and maintain wealth) is a driving factor in human cultures even if its not enforced by nature.

The only measure of intelligence that correlates with income and personal wealth is degree of higher education, which itself has been shown to be mostly a side effect of having wealth to begin with. There's no scientific support for your view. If there was, every population would have equal upward and downward mobility based on their place on a theoretical "absolutely" intelligence bell curve.


Its difficult to know because, throughout most of history, no one kept statistics on such affairs.
We do know that more people are literate today, people live longer today and the quality of life is better.
Society obviously hasn't had a dumbing down effect on us.
It may have made us more specialized, but that's a different argument.

13 Nov 2012 08:07 AM
Reply
LonMead     

AverageAmericanGuy: phrawgh: This was already predicted.

HG Wells was onto something there.


Somehow, I'm thinking wanting to nail a woman who looks like Yvette Mimieux back in the day...
4.bp.blogspot.com1.bp.blogspot.com2.bp.blogspot.com

... doesn't really involve higher brain function.

13 Nov 2012 08:17 AM
Reply
Millennium     
Yeah, yeah; it's the old Idiocracy thing again. It made for a funny movie, but it won't pan out. Isolated pockets of stupidity may indeed arise, and have probably arisen to one degree or another throughout history. But these are far more likely to be triggered by behavior rather than genetics, and they tend to find themselves overtaken in fairly short order by people who are not very nice, but do manage to stop that unique brand of stupidity before it can grow too large and collapse things completely. Society remains held together, and life goes on.

13 Nov 2012 08:21 AM
Reply
Ishkur    [TotalFark]  

untaken_name: Wow. Some people just can't take a compliment.


Oh, is that what you were doing?

To be fair, I just watched the Southpark episode "Sarcastiball" and now I'm reading everything in Randy's voice.

untaken_name: I totally forgot how wrong you were in that thread.


Yeah, I was so wrong you left the thread and never came back.

13 Nov 2012 08:25 AM
Reply
ElPresidente     
Theory: People are getting dumber.

Method: See if people visit the Daily Mail website or buy the printed version in sufficient numbers to make it commercially viable.

Observation: They do.

Conclusion: They are getting dumber, and we're all farked.

A family friend said to me once that the only reason she bought the Daily Mail was "for the crossword". I replied that was interesting, because I only went to the supermarket for the background music.

13 Nov 2012 08:28 AM
Reply
JackieRabbit     
FTFA: "...by the time it becomes a real problem technology will have found a solution making natural selection obsolete."

No, it will not. Natural selection cannot be overcome. It is impossible.

13 Nov 2012 08:28 AM
Reply
Millennium     

JackieRabbit: FTFA: "...by the time it becomes a real problem technology will have found a solution making natural selection obsolete."

No, it will not. Natural selection cannot be overcome. It is impossible.


It can be overcome to a limited degree. To some extent, we already do it. Consider the various forms of plastic surgery that people get to overcome our inbuilt mate-selection instincts. Those are traits that don't get passed onto offspring: the initial -ahem- "unenhanced" traits are.

13 Nov 2012 08:50 AM
Reply
JackieRabbit     

Millennium: JackieRabbit: FTFA: "...by the time it becomes a real problem technology will have found a solution making natural selection obsolete."

No, it will not. Natural selection cannot be overcome. It is impossible.

It can be overcome to a limited degree. To some extent, we already do it. Consider the various forms of plastic surgery that people get to overcome our inbuilt mate-selection instincts. Those are traits that don't get passed onto offspring: the initial -ahem- "unenhanced" traits are.


That is not natural selection. Not even close.

13 Nov 2012 08:56 AM
Reply
Smackledorfer    [TotalFark]  

JackieRabbit: Millennium: JackieRabbit: FTFA: "...by the time it becomes a real problem technology will have found a solution making natural selection obsolete."

No, it will not. Natural selection cannot be overcome. It is impossible.

It can be overcome to a limited degree. To some extent, we already do it. Consider the various forms of plastic surgery that people get to overcome our inbuilt mate-selection instincts. Those are traits that don't get passed onto offspring: the initial -ahem- "unenhanced" traits are.

That is not natural selection. Not even close.


Natural Selection and survival of the fittest involve traits which increase the success of offspring (either having more of them or giving them a leg-up on life) resulting in the passing on of more of those genes, and fewer of genes which decrease that success.

Attractiveness is absolutely a factor here. Obviously anything from a 4 to a 10 is going to be able to find a mate, but a 10 may well find one earlier in life which makes a difference, and I'm sure there is many a 1-3 that is going to live a celibate existence.

ALL of evolution merely comes down to randomness constricted by the factors of how many offspring you will have and how viable they are.

JackieRabbit: No, it will not. Natural selection cannot be overcome. It is impossible.


Given a high enough level of technology every single genetic trait that affects the passing down of genes could be supplemented and become obsolete. That said, as we approach that level (and the level itself may be a limit point for some aspects- which I guess would make it impossible, but only barely so and we can't be sure if technology might eventually reach that point) we will be seeing an increasing variance in our DNA and thus our evolution, not a decreasing one. Furthermore, if it is merely technology that so surpasses nature then technology will probably be able to keep up with any damage we could theoretically be doing to our genetics. If we reached the point at which it wouldn't matter if one was a drooling mental patient because they could be supplemented with a brain implant, then it no longer matters if children are born as geniuses or drooling mental patients. So an idiocracy is unlikely.

Heck, we currently just about have the technology to control the genetics of every single baby on earth. That alone would eliminate natural selection, even if it would only do so in an incredibly stupid and risky way. We don't have the ability to control whether the genetics are good or optimal, nor play mad scientist with the genes themselves, but I believe they've managed to clone a male of a species. That means no limitation on eggs produced by one genetic female, and no limitation on how many of our world's offspring could have one identical set of DNA.

13 Nov 2012 09:22 AM
Reply
Millennium     

JackieRabbit: That is not natural selection. Not even close.


That's exactly my point.

13 Nov 2012 09:22 AM
Reply
Showing 1-50 of 64 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined