Welcome to Future Generations! Future Generations is concerned with the current and future direction of human evolution. While much has been said and written about our past evolution, about how, over many thousands of years, we evolved larger brains and greater intelligence, remarkably little attention has been paid to the critical question, "Where are we evolving now?"
The fact is, human evolution didn't grind to a halt at the beginning of the 20th century. Just as history marches on indefinitely into the future, so does evolution. Reproductive patterns of each generation shape the innate character of successive generations--for better, or for worse. Future Generations wants to insure that we evolve in a favorable direction, for the good of all who come after us.
It's natural to want to give our children the same legacy our parents gave us, or, if at all possible, a better legacy. We want to leave them the rain forest, pure air and water, and a sound economy. However, the most important legacy we can leave to our descendants is the innate ability to maintain and advance civilization, for without civilization, chaos reigns, "might makes right," and suffering abounds.
In a word, Future Generations is about eugenics. The eleventh edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica defines eugenics as "the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity." Most people draw a blank when they hear the word, or it conjures up images of swastikas and jack-booted Nazi's. But eugenics has had a long history, extending back to ancient Rome (and probably beyond).
Here's our argument, in a nutshell:
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.
3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.
4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.
5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any appreciable decline is synonymous with an increase in the collective "misery quotient."
Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.
Scientists have discovered that identical twins separated at birth and raised apart are remarkably similar in IQ--almost as similar as they are in height. They also resemble one another strikingly in their mannerisms, the way they laugh, their likes and dislikes, phobias, temperament, sexual preference, educational achievement, income, conscientiousness (character), musical ability, whether they're criminals or law-abiding, and just about everything else that's ever been tested. (Bouchard, 1993) The extent of their similarity amazes even the researchers and the twins themselves.
The primacy of genes is also demonstrated in adoption studies. Adopted children's IQs resemble those of their biological parents--whom they haven't seen from day 1--more closely than they resemble those of their adoptive parents, who essentially provided their environments. When adopted children are grown, there's almost no resemblance at all between their IQs and those of their adoptive parents. Other traits show resemblance between adopted children and their biological parents to varying degrees (Loehlin, Willerman, and Horn, 1987).
These are established facts, the consensus of hundreds of studies conducted in different times and places by different researchers. The conclusion from both the twin studies and the adoption studies is obvious: heredity counts for a great deal in life. Yet many people are unaware of this, because the liberal media invariably portray scientists who believe in heredity's strong influence on intelligence (such as Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, Richard Lynn, Chris Brand, Raymond Cattell, Philippe Rushton, and Richard Herrnstein) as screwballs, or downright evil.
Furthermore, the media assert again and again that most experts in IQ testing believe IQ is largely environmental. This has been proven to be utterly untrue. In fact, the majority of researchers in the field of intelligence testing believes heredity is more important than environment in explaining variations in IQ among individuals (Snyderman and Rothman, 1988). It's obvious the liberal media have been misleading the public on a grand scale. One wonders to what extent journalists are merely ignorant, to what extent they are too cowardly to speak an unpopular truth, and to what extent they tell the public what they think is best for the public to believe (viewing the public as not quite capable of being trusted with the truth).
The liberal journalists have sold North Americans and Europeans a real bill of goods. In non-Western countries, the idea that there are no innate differences between people would be considered nonsense, just as it would have been in the West in years past, and just as it will be again in the not-too-distant future.
This assertion is pretty much self-evident. Lions, wild dogs, bees, ants, chimpanzees, and many other animals live in social groups, yet they have nothing that could be called civilization. Why? 'Cause they're not smart enough!
Obviously, if civilization depended entirely upon being exposed to an "enriched" environment, we'd all still be skulking about in caves!! Think about it--if human beings first existed in primitive conditions, and if civilization depended entirely on the environment, how could any progress ever have occurred? It's obvious there's an inborn streak of genius that drives the creation of technology and civilization.
One way to look at the relationship between intelligence and civilization is to speculate about ancient civilizations--why they rose, and why they fell. But a far more straightforward approach would be to simply look around us, and to survey the various countries of the world. Today, in 1997, there are countless gradations of civilization all over the globe. Japan has an average IQ of 104, compared to the U.S. average of 100 (Lynn, 1991). A small shift in the average makes a big difference in the tails of a bell-shaped distribution. (The tails in this case represent the very intelligent, and the very unintelligent.) So is it any wonder Japan is a an economic powerhouse, despite being a tiny country with virtually no resources? It's also a peaceful and predictable place in which to live. In Tokyo, a bag of money left on a park bench will probably sit there a while, and eventually someone will turn it in to the authorities. Would this happen in New York City? In Baghdad? In Soweto?
Israel and Japan have higher average IQs than America, Mexico has lower, and the black African nations have the lowest. Interestingly, the very same hierarchy of nations replicates itself in America, both in IQ scores and in socio-economic status. For example, Americans of Japanese ancestry score higher on IQ tests, and are more successful, than average Americans. (The fact that people of Japanese ancestry--both in Japan and in the U.S.--score high neatly disposes of the common objection that IQ tests are "culturally biased" in favor of Caucasians.) Jews, whether in Israel, Russia, or the U.S., score higher than average, and earn more.
Socio-economic status among individuals within one country is determined to a great extent (though not entirely) by innate intelligence. One U.S. study found that in families with 2 or more brothers, the boys with higher IQs than their fathers tended to move up on the socio-economic ladder when they became adults, whereas those with lower IQs tended to move down (Jencks, 1982). Brothers have almost identical environments--same parents, same house, same schools, same neighborhood. Why do they often differ? Because they get different rolls of their parents' genetic dice. Siblings share their environment almost entirely, but on average, they share only 50% of their genes. Some siblings will share more, some less. [Sperm and eggs are made with half the genes of each parent, so that when they unite, the fertilized egg will have the full complement of genes. But one child won't get the same identical half from his father or mother that his siblings got.] Is it any wonder brothers and sisters often grow up to be quite different? The fact that the smarter ones move up, and the duller ones down, proves that socio-economic status is, in part, due to innate intelligence.
Question: "Why do people from countries with low levels of civilization continually risk their lives to get to countries with high levels, but the reverse never occurs?" Answer: "They risk their lives because they think life is much better there, and they're right." If this were not the case, why would such one-way migration occur?
To say, "The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population," is almost axiomatic, like saying, "It's better to live than die." The fact is, people who live in countries with a high level of civilization are better fed, better housed, live longer, suffer less disease, have less uncertainty in their lives, endure less crime, possess more personal power, learn more, and generally enjoy happier and more fulfilling lives.
Innate intelligence is the sine qua non [without which, nothing] of civilization. But given that a population has sufficient intelligence to create civilization, other factors enter into the picture. For example, history has shown that Communism stifles innovation and progress, whereas democracy and free enterprise give them a big boost.
We have both the knowledge and the ability to leave future generations the same genetic legacy, or a richer one, than the one we inherited from our parents, yet the sad fact is, we are leaving them a poorer legacy, both in terms of who they are, and in terms of the society they will inhabit.
Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, by Richard Lynn, summarizes all the important studies on the current direction of human evolution. This is surely the most important book on eugenics ever written. It looks at studies from all over the world, and everywhere finds that the most unintelligent, poorest, least well-educated people are having the most children. In the United States, we may be losing as much as one IQ point each generation. It also demonstrates that we are losing ground in terms of character, as well as IQ. The only hopeful fact is that the cause of the difference infertility is largely attributable to greater birth control failure on the part of the unintelligent. So if all people had the size family they wanted, we would at least break even genetically.
This conclusion follows logically from premises 1-4.
Herrnstein and Murray, in their brilliant book, The Bell Curve, found that all social problems were exacerbated when they moved the average IQ down statistically in their sample by just 3 points, from 100 to 97. The number of women chronically dependent on welfare increased by almost 15%, illegitimacy increased by 8%, men who were incarcerated increased by 13%, and number of permanent high school dropouts increased by 15%. (P368) Every single percentage point of each social problem represents a great deal of unhappiness for the many thousands of people who are directly involved, and it also represents vast sums of taxpayers' dollars, thus unhappiness indirectly for millions more. When civilization declines, everything bad increases, everything good decreases, and the collective "misery quotient" skyrockets.
Another way to think about what, precisely, it means when "civilization declines," North Americans, Europeans, and Japanese can simply imagine living their entire lives in Mexico. Mexicans can imagine living their entire lives in Africa.
"OK, but . . ."
At this point, you may well be thinking to yourself, "OK, it's obvious we need civilization. And civilization depends on intelligence. And the studies show our innate potential for intelligence is declining. But, why aren't people all upset about this? Why isn't Congress doing something about it?"
I've already touched on the liberal media's distortions, and I will try to address this question specifically in the following segments. But the short answer is that "eugenics" has become a bad word' in the Western world. To say it's "very, very unpopular" would be an understatement! Eugenics is more than unpopular, it's a taboo subject. It's the worst possible heresy to the liberal egalitarian ideologues who currently have a stranglehold on public opinion. So it simply can't be discussed openly (except perhaps to condemn it vehemently), except here on the Internet, where freedom of expression reigns.
Egalitarianism is the ideology the Western world has embraced since the end of World War II. It is simply the belief that all people are born equal in intelligence, character, talents, and every other way, except for trivial differences in hair color, eye color, and so on. Immediately the question pops up, "If we're all born equal on everything, how did we end up so different?" Differences are said to be caused by environmental factors, and any kind of social problem or psychopathology is said to be the result of "cultural deprivation," "traumatic experiences," "sub-standard housing," and that ubiquitous arch-villain, "society." Genes and biology are obviously relevant to plants and animals, but somehow human beings--or at least their brains and their behavior--are exempt from the laws of nature which govern the rest of the world.
Egalitarianism is the ideology of the political left. Egalitarians have succeeded not only in making it the accepted view, but also in making it the only acceptable view. They have cowed the public by repeating in a thousand different ways that to question their basic argument is tantamount to racism.
Egalitarians give the pretense of scientific legitimacy by pointing to studies that report associations between one social pathology and another: "Children who grow up in poor neighborhoods tend to become criminals." On the basis of such associations, billions of dollars are spent trying to solve social problems. It's obvious to any casual observer that associations exist between poor environments and pathologies of various sorts. But associations do not prove causation! Roosters crow at sunrise. Does this mean roosters cause the sun rise? If poverty causes crime, shouldn't the U.S. have had an astronomical increase in the crime rate during The Great Depression? Well, it didn't!
There is no proof that the environment is responsible for any social problem, but the philosophy of egalitarianism seeks environmental solutions to problems it assumes are environmental in origin. Belief in the all-pervasive influence of the environment underlies ambitious governmental programs to turn criminals into good citizens, raise the IQ of the retarded, and induce the mentally ill to become sane. Despite high hopes, lofty rhetoric, and truly enormous expenditures, demonstrable benefits have been tiny, transient, artifactual, or non-existent.
The philosophy of egalitarianism is a left-wing political ideology masquerading as science. Again and again, it's predictions are not borne out, and its programs fail utterly. The welfare program in the United States (AFDC) was intended to eliminate poverty, and ameliorate the host of social problems associated with it. A major study of its effects reported that it has actually made the problems it was intended to solve worse, while costing taxpayers billions (Murray, 1986).
Programs designed to solve social problems based on liberal-ideology-disguised-as science are universally ballyhooed at the beginning. Extravagant claims are made about what will be accomplished--eradicating poverty, rehabilitating criminals, and raising the IQs of the retarded. For example, Head Start was supposed to dramatically increase the IQs of disadvantaged children by providing them with an "enriched" early environment. Few people realize there is not one particle of evidence that it has succeeded, and many studies have shown it has failed utterly (reference.) Somehow, its original purpose has been forgotten, it's lauded as a great "success," and it grows ever larger.
We often feel a self-satisfied, smug superiority when we read about follies of the past--the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, bizarre medical practices, such as letting blood or applying leeches to cure disease. Watching old films of man's early attempts at flight is always guaranteed to get a laugh. "Those people who lived in the past--ha! What silly ideas they had!"
But how do we know we're not, at this very moment, ourselves in the grips of one stupendous folly which will seem outrageously stupid to people who look back on us? How embarrassing! It really wouldn't be too far-fetched to say egalitarianism is the most prevalent "superstition" of the 20th century, perhaps of all times, given that it is a belief about causality which literally millions of people accept, for which there is no scientific evidence, which science has, in fact, disproven.
Does egalitarianism qualify as a superstition? Judge for yourself. Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary defines superstition as:
a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation . . . a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary [my emphasis]
A popular song entitled "Superstition" has lyrics that are quite appropriate: "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer." This sums things up pretty well. We, as a society, have accepted without question a huge amount of misinformation about human nature from the liberal journalists, for which there is no scientific evidence. Furthermore, abundant scientific evidence disproves their claims. As a consequence of our illusions, we suffer. We suffer in 2 ways: (1) We spend vast sums of money, for which we get nothing. (2) We waste precious time and energy that could be spent actually doing something useful, such as implementing a eugenics program.
People all throughout history may have had some strange ideas, but they had more common sense than to believe there are no innate differences in personality or intelligence. (Can anyone who has more than one child fail to notice they have their own unique personalities from the time they're born?) Only now, in the last 1/2 of the 20th century in the Western world, has this totally implausible doctrine become the widely-accepted belief.
Why? Why is the Western world so deluded? It seems incredible! How could the population remain totally ignorant, on such a massive scale, of scientific evidence about human behavior? How can they believe virtually all differences in behavior are caused by the environment, when there's a mountain of scientific evidence--which has been around for decades, and which is available in any library--which proves conclusively that heredity plays a crucial role (often the crucial role)?
The fact is, I really don't know precisely why this disgraceful state of affairs has come into being. In the early decades of the century, egalitarianism would have been laughed at, and eugenics was widely accepted by prominent people whose views spanned the entire political spectrum. To list just a few proponents: George Bernard Shaw, Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, H.G. Wells, Francis Galton (who coined the term "eugenics"), Theodore Roosevelt, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles Lindbergh, Winston Churchill, and Julian Huxley. Interestingly, Julian Huxley described eugenics as ". . . of all outlets for altruism, that which is most comprehensive and of longest range." Yet today, eugenics is considered evil! Why ideas go in and out of fashion like this is something I don't pretend to understand. However, below are 5 factors which almost surely enter into the picture:
(1) After World War II, the salient beliefs of the vanquished countries were universally rejected. German propaganda had placed a large emphasis on genetics, though not in the same way modern eugenicists do. (Hitler opposed IQ tests on the grounds that they were "Jewish.") Still, it was an emphasis on genetics, behavior, and race, so these things came to be regarded as unsavory ideas, indeed. Despite the fact that 23 other countries had eugenics legislation during the same period, that the movement originated in Britain and the United States, eugenics became associated in the minds of many with Hitler. This unfair association has been absolutely devastating to eugenics.
It's a sad state of affairs that because Hitler (along with thousands of others) once espoused eugenics, no one is permitted by the liberal thought-police to seriously propose the idea ever again, regardless of the price to be paid. (Wasn't Hitler also a vegetarian?)
(2) Christianity says "All men are equal in the sight of God." Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest they're all equally good at physics, basketball, and playing the clarinet, but people interpret it this way nevertheless.
(3) America has an egalitarian philosophy. "All men are created equal" has been taken to mean all men are created with equal ability. It's abundantly clear from their other writings that the Founding Fathers meant "equal before the law," not equal in innate ability
(4) Public opinion in the Western world is largely shaped by journalists. Studies have shown that journalists tend to be far more liberal politically than the general population. One study of students at a university showed that the business and hard-science majors were the most conservative politically, the literature and journalism students the most liberal. This suggests there's a self-selection on the part of journalists--people who are drawn to journalism, for whatever reason, tend to be liberal by temperament. Liberal beliefs hang together, and egalitarianism is one of them. Also, journalists don't seem to evince much interest in, or knowledge of, science.
A fascinating study was conducted in 1988 comparing what was reported about IQ--on TV, in newspapers, and in magazines--to what the scientists actually said about it. It was found that the media consistently gave extremely biased accounts, suggesting that IQ didn't really measure anything, that it was irrelevant, that it was "culturally biased," and that most experts agreed with such assertions, when, in fact, most experts disagreed with the assertions (Snyderman and Rothman, 1988).
(5) Genetic influences on behavior has become a taboo subject, much like sex in the Victorian era. People are afraid to express, or even believe, anything that's unpopular. Also, it seems so unfair that people are not all born equal in ability, and so unkind of nature to have made it this way. What's worse, people may also come to believe that racial differences are to some extent genetic, which is the most heinous sin according to the egalitarian religion.
Here again, on the issue of race, the liberal media have failed utterly in their responsibility to report scientific findings to the public. Actually, it's far worse than "failing in their responsibility to report the facts," because that would imply that they really just didn't do all they should have done. In reality, the media have blatantly lied to the public. This may sound like inflammatory rhetoric. But what kind of dishonesty should the term "blatantly lied" be reserved for, if not for this? There is proof of their deception. The same study mentioned above found that the majority of scientists who do research on IQ believes part of the black-white difference in IQ is genetic. This study also found (by analyzing hundreds of media reports) that the media overwhelmingly portray this view as one held only by a few screwballs (Snyderman and Rothman, 1988).
This massive disinformation campaign about IQ, genes, and race has been going on for several decades. Such a thing might be expected under a Communist regime, but for this to have occurred in democratic societies cries out for an explanation, and for justice. Shouldn't journalists be held accountable, like everyone else? This is a big story with dirty secrets to be uncovered. Investigative reporters should investigate this.
Some people--particularly Marxists and other radical left-wingers--will be positively incensed by the very existence of Future Generations. It's true! Just hearing the word "eugenics" makes them start to tremble with rage. Like a knee-jerk reaction, they cry "Nazi's!" There are a number of profound differences between Hitler, and Future Generations, not the least of which is that Future Generations strives to educate the public and effect changes in a democratic society, whereas Hitler was a totalitarian dictator who permitted not free speech!! This is what's been shown, again and again, to be dangerous and destructive, this lack of freedom-whether in the form of Fascism, or of Communism--not any particular scientific fact." The Communists believed everything was caused by the environment, yet they murdered more people, and caused more misery, than the Nazi's and all the rest of the world's tyrants combined. But in either case, the way to assess the validity of scientific claims is through science, not by judging the morality or immorality of political regimes whose ideologies adopted simplistic and often inaccurate versions of them.
To anyone who opposes what we do, for whatever reason, may I suggest the best way to neutralize our influence is to engage in honest debate, and to show the world we're wrong. Name-calling is childish. Instead, try finding an error in our reasoning! Provide counter-evidence! For example, show us (if you can) that intelligence is not profoundly influenced by heredity, or that intelligent people actually have more offspring that unintelligent people have, or that savagery is preferable to civilization.
We have 3 choices in dealing with the misery of the world: we can 1. ignore it, 2. continue paying massive amounts of money on misguided egalitarian programs that promise the moon and deliver nothing, or 3. implement a eugenics program.
To give you an idea of the power of eugenics, consider this. Over one-third of all mentally retarded people have a retarded parent. It therefore follows that if all mentally retarded people refrained from reproducing, mental retardation could be cut by one-third in one generation (Willerman, 1984). It may be unrealistic to think they could all be induced to adopt some permanent form of birth control, but just imagine for a minute that it actually happened. Do you realize what it would mean to have mental retardation cut by a third? It would mean a reduction in misery so vast it can't be comprehended all at once. It would mean a dramatic decrease in all social problems--crime, illegitimacy, chronic welfare dependency, illiteracy, chronic unemployment. It would be a huge boost to the economy. Taxpayers would save trillions of dollars.
Programs based on egalitarian ideology take a circuitous route to changing people--they keep trying (and failing) to change people by altering their environments. Despite witnessing their abysmal string of failures, our natural desire to alleviate suffering and improve the world persists. This desire is finding a new outlet in eugenics based on science, not ideology and wishful thinking. Eugenics takes the direct route. It holds the unique potential of actually delivering what it promises, of creating a better world, of making profound, lasting improvements in the human condition by improving humanity itself.