Human Beings Are Getting Dumber, Says Study

It's easy to look down on our prehistoric ancestors for their primitive, electric screwdriver-less way of life. But one scientist says we shouldn't be so quick to judge.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

Just look at all the amazing innovations modern technology has given us: at-home HIV tests, motion-activated screwdrivers and self-inflating tires. It’s easy to look down on our prehistoric ancestors for their primitive, electric screwdriver-less way of life. But one scientist says we shouldn’t be so quick to judge.

In a two-part paper published in the journal Trends in Genetics, Stanford University researcher Gerald Crabtree suggests that evolution is, in fact, making us dumber — and that human intelligence may have actually peaked before our hunter-gatherer predecessors left Africa.

(MORE: Creationists Boycott Dr Pepper Over ‘Evolution of Flavor’ Ad)

The reason? Life on the veldt was tough, and prehistoric humans’ genes were constantly subjected to selective pressure in an environment where the species’ survival depended on it. For humans, that meant getting smarter. “The development of our intellectual abilities and the optimization of thousands of intelligence genes probably occurred in relatively non-verbal, dispersed groups of peoples before our ancestors emerged from Africa,” Crabtree said in a news release.

The urbanization that followed the development of agriculture simplified survival by removing some of its challenges, which likely weakened natural selection’s ability to eliminate mutations associated with deficiencies in intelligence. Crabtree estimates that over the last 3,000 years (about 120 generations), humans have sustained at least two mutations that have eroded our intellectual and emotional intelligence.

“A hunter-gatherer who did not correctly conceive a solution to providing food or shelter probably died, along with his or 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,” Crabtree wrote in the paper. He also noted that the average Athenian from 1000 B.C. would rank among the smartest and most emotionally stable in today’s society.

Not everybody agrees with Crabtree’s reasoning, however. Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London, believes there is insufficient data to support his theory. “Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” Jones told The Independent. “I could just as well argue that mutations have reduced our aggression, our depression and our penis length, but no journal would publish that. Why do they publish this?”

Crabtree does argue that no matter how deteriorated our intellectual abilities may have become over the millennia, advancements in technology will someday render these changes insignificant.

“I think we will know each of the millions of human mutations that can compromise our intellectual function and how each of these mutations interact with each other and other processes as well as environmental influences,” Crabtree said in the release. “At that time, we may be able to magically correct any mutation that has occurred in all cells of any organism at any developmental stage. Thus, the brutish process of natural selection will be unnecessary.”

MORE: South Korean Textbooks Reject Evolution

129 comments
Adrasimk
Adrasimk

I wonder if we are actually causing other animals to become smarter.  We are, after all, making it much harder for them to survive with our tendency to put buildings or concrete and asphalt over any sufficiently flat surface, not to mention our tendency to pollute the water and air and decimate entire ecosystems hundreds of miles away from where we are.  We are putting enormous pressures on other animals.  Maybe we won't amount to much in the future, but maybe some super-intelligent squirrel descendants will take our ancestors' place?


But, joking aside, this really does make me sad.  Could having children inter-racially help eliminate some of the bad mutations?     

CarmenDamocles
CarmenDamocles

If dumber means missing the things that should have been obvious and being woefully lacking in reason... perhaps it's because some people have poor health habits. I'd agree, it's a big factor. This video lists a bit of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89s1MJmmB4w

KonstantinZaytsev
KonstantinZaytsev

Dumb people replicate faster because they don't use condoms as often and don't think about the future.

FranklinLeroyCarrollIV
FranklinLeroyCarrollIV

@EmileGerber @KonstantinZaytsev Actually, it is a valid point. Birth control must affect the genetic makeup of our society. Even if you have the same number of kids, how quickly you have them matters: Would you rather your interest on your savings account be compounded daily or yearly? This is the same basic principle. Your sarcasm doesn't make his point any less valid.

betweenkavodandkaved
betweenkavodandkaved

Actually, given that farming turned out to be more difficult, requiring many new tools and had many unforeseen consequences (salt in soil from irrigation, diseases and pests attacking long term food stores) that had to be solved, as well as driving the need to keep records of what was stored and sales of surplus, farming should have made us more intelligent, or caused us to develop new forms of intelligence while potentially losing old ones. There are hunter-gatherer cultures where nothing much has changed technologically or in lifestyle for tens of thousands of years, because the ancestors already got it all figured out. Why on earth should people just "doing what their forefathers did" be smarter that people having to adapt to a quickly changing world? (I'll give you the emotional...people trying to cope with constantly changing environments are deeply stressed)

Has this professor gone to study the intelligence and good genes of any of these tribal people? The Bushmen of the Kalahari and the Pygmies (Aka, Baka etc) represent some of the earliest preserved lineages, genetically speaking, and so might be closer to this purported maximally intelligent caveman ancestor...any word on how much smarter they are?


If we've been getting stupider, it's been only in the last few hundred years, not millions.

JamieNicholl-Shelley
JamieNicholl-Shelley

Expanding on the idea that our brains are evolving to accommodate more complex and abstract thinking; as much I would like to believe this , you have to look at conditions necessary to to survive in environments such as the first world that is to say : very little. Looking at basic social dynamics it appears we will end up with the majority getting 'stupid' but a smaller proportion developing in leaps and bounds intellectually due to their predecessors requirement of a certain level of intelligence or rather type of/ E.G. university.

To which my proposal is artificial Darwinism via the progenitor of  social engineering that is self sustaining in ideology.

XavierVandelanotte
XavierVandelanotte

In response to some comments on the evolution of our intelligence and the selective process pertaining to survival of the fittest, this survival theory would depend of the environment remaining the same.  It is certain that many people today wouldn't survive if it weren't for the advancements in science and technology that we (as a species) have made.  Whether this implies that we could get dumber at the same time that we're getting smarter at finding the solutions to our survival is a bit of a leap. We may not be as fast on our feet (literally) than we were 2,000 years ago to outrun the wildlife, we may not know how to survive harsh winters or know to avoid eating certain foods to avoid poisoning.  Today, we don't need those abilities to survive.  This may lead to the atrophy of using some of our "instincts" or senses and not require us to process (or concern ourselves with) some intellectual processes needed for our survival.  However, this has nothing to do with how we process other information, and everything with what we need to know.  Our circumstances for survival have changed.  Furthermore, I would suggest that our abilities in abstract thinking have significantly improved and that would support we are getting smarter.  Just look at some of the scientific and mathematical equations 8th graders are able to solve, or how kindergartners manipulate a PC or a smart phone.  Continuously training our brains to think in multiple dimensions would imply we are learning to use our brains differently and we are able to comprehend and mentally manipulate more complex systems and ideas.  While we are getting smarter about certain things, and our brains are continuously being challenged at more complex tasks, we are getting dumber at others.  Our vision of the world and our comprehension of our place in society is skewed, leading us to ignore factors that may be required to sustain our survival in generations ahead. The damage we are doing to our planet (because of our intelligence to plunder it of its riches) and the hatred we show one another may well cause our demise, someday.  Perhaps, though, that will bring along its built-in solution and in some not so distant future, we may cause a war or a global pandemic that will cause devastating loss of life.  Perhaps, in all of these discussions, we should concern ourselves with boosting our 'Emotional Intelligence' and resolve the issues pertaining to our cohabiting on this planet so as to sustain the long term survival of humanity.
Cheers, XV

AdysonMahardhika
AdysonMahardhika

Just look at classical music, they are more complex and genius compare to most today's musics.

TaraRahman
TaraRahman

SOME people say that “Anything at all is possible. Some things are unlikely. Some things will never happen. But they always could, at..... http://ogibogi.com/node/16659 for details.

YunZeng
YunZeng

Human intelligence level is higher than 2000 years ago. See "Human Domain Stem Cell".

SeanThayer
SeanThayer

To answer Steve Jones' question: because it's an interesting hypothesis.

A couple of thoughts I have on this:

1.We have a great deal of knowledge today on how natural selection works. It's fairly easy to see that there is little to no selection for intelligence happening in today's human environment. Even when individuals become successful and essentially out compete their peers because of superior intelligence that does not translate into survival or greater reproduction. Because of this it seems we have every reason to expect that under the current environment intelligence will diminish; even if we have no evidence that this has in fact occurred.

2. The lack of selection I'm talking about above is only true for abstract intelligence. We think of our environment as being easily survived compared to life on the Savannah but that is only partly because it suits us and largely because we are adapted to it. Take a hunter gatherer from 10,000 BC and dump him in present day Los Angeles; with no guidance his odds of survival start to look pretty slim. Just look to the infamous "Darwin Awards" for inspiration on the thousands of ways stupidity can kill you(or geld you) in the modern world. I suppose it does take a certain amount of intelligence to understand that replacing an electrical fuse with .22 caliber ammunition is a bad idea. Traffic accidents are the number one cause of violent death in the U.S. so if nothing else there is at least a fair amount of environmental pressure to become a better driver - reaction, coordination, spatial reasoning, planning.

3.We broadly define intelligence as the ability to assimilate and utilize information. But this is a definition that can be used to make even the brightest human appear less intelligent than a chimp or even a dog in certain situations. Chimps are thought to have super-human working memory and subitizing ability. Ayuma the chimp is better at a working memory game than any human, even with equal training. The point is that there is much confusion about what intelligence means because we define it broadly but we measure it - by necessity - very narrowly. The original purpose of the brain is simply to conduct the body's physical movements. Therefore all intelligence however abstract is exapted from this purpose. And therefore it is also reasonable to expect that an adaptation toward increased intelligence in one area might effect a decrease in another. 

The Flyn effect seems to directly contradict Crabtree's hypothesis. But I would argue that because of our chronic conflation of many specific measures of intelligence with our extremely broad definition of general intelligence, we could find evidence that humans are both getting smarter and getting "dumber" simultaneously.

nesha
nesha

"Human beings are getting dumber"...around the world or here in the U.S.?   Thanks to the teacher's union and decades of absurd dallying with teaching "techniques" and curriculum, it is clear the U.S. is getting dumber in total numbers. Certainly, we will always have extremely bright, motivated students who become productive adults, but, our last election is empirical evidence that the "DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA" has been successfully accomplished by the predominant number of teachers.  FYI: the phrase "Dumbing Down of America" was coined by none other than a respected democrat, the late N.Y. U.S. Senator Daniel "Patrick" Moynihan.    

Also, the late attorney for the UNITED FEDERATION FOR TEACHERS for over 20 years said at a convention:   

"When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children."

This helps to explain why human beings, here in America, are getting dumber. You cannot ascribe such a comment, implied by the article,  to include each person on the planet. 

nesha
nesha

KIM KARDASHIAN & KANYE WEST......do I need to say more?

nesha
nesha

When you have over one half million marriages (and more non married couples) between blacks and whites, what else do you expect?   It is a simple matter of DILUTION.

JamesSavik
JamesSavik

>>Human Beings Are Getting Dumber, Says Study

That explains a lot about the last election.

JimBalter
JimBalter

If wanted to provide anecdotal evidence for Crabtree's otherwise baseless supposition, they could point to many of the comments here.

JimBalter
JimBalter

Who cares what some geneticist "suggests"? It's an argument from authority. The *evidence* is to the contrary, in the form of the Flynn effect ... IQ tests have to keep being recalibrated because the average score keeps rising.

AllanHytowitz
AllanHytowitz

Crabtrees argument that humanity is about to become the Eloi is as valid as measuring IQ by counting the bumps on a person's head.

His argument about the evolutionary biological loss of intellect totally ignores the evolutionary cultural gain in intellect.  

Despite his comments about the "intellect" of an Athenian in 1000 BCE, the time period was shortly after the demise of Socrates, the World's First Certified Dyslexic, who viewed reading and writing to be an abomination mostly from his disability to master it.  Without the heresy and disobedience of his student Plato, we would never know of the bigoted  "wisdom" of Socrates.

Instead our survival as individuals and as a species has gone from the Age of Information (Orwell's "Information is Power") to the Age of Information Overload in which our survival as individuals and as a species is dependent on filtering OUT the specious data that consumes and wastes our time.  (You can read about it in your local newspaper, if you can find one.)

And comparing Sumerian letter writing to Native Americans pictographs is specious, since 90% of Native Americans likely have dyslexia and and are still not able to master the flexibility of letter-based writing systems.  That too will change with the upcoming advent of lenses that eliminate the chromatic-induced photoreceptor problems that likely cause dyslexia symptoms.

And the verification of dyslexia type symptoms as being chromatically based can be determined by viewing the free acuity tests at http://www.dyop.org/documents/ColorScreening.html



bcaa12
bcaa12

the argument could also go the other way around that intelligence has simply changed from the natural adaptive, to technological abstract, in the last 100 years there has been more abstract advancement of knowledge than in the actual natural arena. there is probably more evidence that the adaptation is towards ever more organized social structures rather than brute survival.

manjeetchaturve
manjeetchaturve

Since they could not invent a non - warring, non - exploitative, non - unequal, non - discriminating, 'without borders' world how long they would be called smart? And yes, they are killing their own environment in which they want to survive.  What else is dumbness?

mrbomb13
mrbomb13

Must have been a slow day in the Time Magazine newsroom...

Is the writer of this article aware of the Multiple Intelligences Theory proposed by Howard Gardner?

In his writings, Gardner expressed that each of us are intelligent in different ways.  Some of us learn better through reading, others through viewing pictures, others through engaging in physical activities (i.e. hunter-gatherers), etc..

Just because today's human beings do not excel at hunter-gatherer type behaviors DOES NOT mean that "we as a whole are getting dumber."  It's amazing that JuJu Kim (the article's writer) did not catch that over-generalization as he was typing this piece.

Articles like this would not, "have gone to press" (to borrow an old phrase) even 10 years ago.  

Time Magazine should know better.

John
John

One of the factors that I think dumbs down the population is that at the current time we have very few real challenges.  Everything is either mechanized, or electronic, or given to us by the government.  The general population just has it too easy.

If we had to struggle to even survive, the dumb ones wouldn't, and if intelligence has a genetic component, the average intelligence of the population would go up

BarryNeilson
BarryNeilson

"Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?"

"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over HERE in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our children." - Caitlin Upton (2007 Miss Teen USA pageant)

I don't know about anybody else, but this particular human isn't too bright.

ghintlia
ghintlia

Sure thing.  Since when did our ancestors bring us electricty, lamps, airplanes, and especially personal computers that started hiting the US around 1980.  Possibly since illegal drugs are making mush of some peoples brains those are the ones that do not contribute much to our high technological society.  The others are fine!!!

kc2siz
kc2siz

Assuming that the selective pressure that originally resulted in our intelligence has waned, the result should be static, not decreasing, intelligence. Our intelligence should decrease only if there is some selective advantage to being dumb, yet no one has argued for this conclusion and it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which there would be some long term advantage attached to stupidity. 

gradkiss
gradkiss

The great thing to accomplish here would be for everyone to join together and insure we are the intelligent ones...but then the current laws guarding intellectual intelligence would destroy the movement.

SentientBeing
SentientBeing

Like the ancients we carry genes. These genes, along with our environment, culture, etc. predispose us to either fail or to succeed given any particular set of circumstances. There are no promises. There are no excuses. 

Fortunately for us, the shelters which the ancients enjoyed did not immunize them fully against reality and nature. Those who failed tended to fail soon. Those who succeeded tended to start showing their success, their supremacy, soon. The net result is that good genes (relative the given set of circumstances) that express themselves early enough are increased proportionately and, negative genes (relative the given set of circumstances) which are expressed before breeding age are more likely to be segregated out of the gene pool. Those genes, positive or negative, which are expressed after breeding age, are not generally segregated out. 

Unfortunately for us, democracies (primarily democracies that embrace pseudo-capitalism or other forms of constitutional socialism) are too effective at both sheltering and immunizing humans by means of their safety nets, universal education, etc. from both: their own legalized choices and the subsidized consequences of those choices.

These shelters introduce a broadening learning-curve and they sustain an increasing time-delay. In general, these shelters allow the masses (in the aggregate) to remain intuitively 'blind, deaf, and dumb' for roughly the first 27-38 years of each respective members life (the normative member of the mass). In short, our so-called security breeds true insecurity. We aggregated mass keeps becoming more and more infantile. Yet, the members can still mate, they can still breed, they can still propagate their numbers.

In short, our societies neither require nor desire the masses of our people to be sovereigns. Most people can be unwitting-drones. These drone can be trained with formalized education ('trickling-down'/dumbing-down skill-sets). They can model the standardized creativity which the sovereigns discover. Over time, the proportion of drones keeps increasing while the sovereigns keep decreasing.

Dr_gibberish
Dr_gibberish

Wow, just came across this article as well as a slew of others on this topic across the internet, and read comment after comment of people bemoaning the declining intelligence of human beings. The argument IS marginally persuasive but has one fatal flaw - it is in absolute contradiction to the facts. We have more than 100 years of standardized IQ testing, administered to literally thousands of people around the world in hundreds of different forms. We have looked at verbal reasoning, mathematical skills, visual spatial processing, memory, reaction time, abstract reasoning and on and on. So what have we found? Without question, over and over, in societies around the world, WE ARE GETTING SMARTER. In fact, psychologists have a term for this - "The Flynn Effect" and it shows not only that we are getting smarter but that the rate of change in intelligence is quite large. How big? Big enough that people who tested average in intelligence at the turn of the last century would test as mentally retarded now. And while it is easy to come up with examples of people doing stupid things (especially young people), this has ever been so. (Socrates complained about the behavior of the youth of his time, and worried that reading was destroying their ability to remember things by rote.) However, the most obvious counterexample to this is that 300 years ago Isaac Newton bemoaned his difficulty in getting his university colleagues to understand Calculus (which he developed). Today, tens of millions of teenagers around the world not only understand calculus but use it a level that would make Newton's colleagues collective heads spin. So when you, like Newton, bemoan the idiocy around you, don't be shocked about how stupid kids are today. Instead be even more shocked about how stupid their great grandparents were that they represent an improvement :) 

RobertDanielShepard
RobertDanielShepard

I have been talking about a concept I call the Ultimate Liberal Paradox for years now.  Simply, it is that the liberal, progressive position of taking basic care of everyone runs counter to the  survival of the fittest evolutionary development and progress of mankind.  Of course, the conservative political, usually Christian, ethos of individual responsibility for yourself is actually more in line with evolutionary change.  Perhaps the flip side is the Ultimate Conservative Paradox, since they dispute evolution yet their position fosters it.  For now, both agriculture and civilization, the calculator, the teaching of job preparation basics rather than the ability to think, the decrease in reading with the rise of tv, all abetted by by the ULP we currently apply in our society, I do believe we are dumbing down with unknown long term consequences.

EricStrickland
EricStrickland

Let me boil this article down to a single sentence...

Due to the advancements of modernity and really hard working smart people, society is now able to support and protect more and more dumb people who would have never survived in prior times, thereby dragging down the average.

sharinlite
sharinlite

You have got to be kidding me...Time is actually running a story on the dumbing down of Americans?  Truly?  Oh, I forgot...the election is over so Time can now begin to tell a bit of truth...what exactly did they think would happen to the citizens when the progressives took over the education system in this country?  And, the media which is extremely leftist by their own admission encouraged this for over forty years.  Now they're concerned?  Please...Time needs to go the way of Newsweek...people can't read anyway and don't understand what the words mean!

scullymjs
scullymjs

It takes a Sanford researcher to tell us the obvious? Maybe it is the eggheads who are getting dumber. The rest of it have known it for forty years. It was a planned dumbing down starting with the 1965 Immigration Act, the 1971 26th Amendment, decades of no southern border control and a dearth of Judeo-Christian values culminating in an American Idol president steeped in marxist and islamic ideology. 

rhcrest
rhcrest

This would explain the results of the election! Makes a lot of sense now!

LanceTaylor
LanceTaylor

Did I forget to mention High-Fructose Corn Syrup?  This lab created monster was introduced about the time people began getting much fatter, in the mid-70s .  The industry has its' defense system in place , but it is not truthful in the percentage of fructose to table sugar it represents, the actual percentage being much higher in HCFS than in ordinary sugar than they admit to, and this fructose is associated with a greater amt. of body fat. Look at TV shows from the 60s,, people in the US were far slimmer than today. Drink a cola made with sugar, compare with HFCS soda...the sugar soda tastes much cleaner and fresher, not Sour like the HFCS one.  Coca-Cola doesn't want you to make that comparison, it seems, they lately started putting HFCS in their Mexican sodas so you can't taste for yourself.

LanceTaylor
LanceTaylor

People are indeed stupid nowadays...they are because of modern factory agriculture, food industry practices,  pharmaceutical practices, medicine, and the medical and dental industries.  When we eat trans fats to clog our arteries, BPA plastics in our can linings and containers, TO REDUCE  male testerone, and this along with growth accelerators in farm animals, making our children hit puberty years earlier than they should, deadly mercury fillings are put directly into our bodies instead of being banned, dangerous GMO foods designed to allow deadly pesticide spraying of foodcrops, and the widespread elimination of natural ancient crops through cross-contamination, as well as the OWNING of seeds by Monsanto, Syngenta, etc. and the wipeout of bees from deadly ag chemical spraying, the increase of autism and other threats to the immune system  from the concurrent increase of  inoculation.Flouride in water? That has been shown to be associated with countless health risks, even the ADA has concluded it needs to be reduced to stop Flourosis, the weakening of teeth along with white spots on dentition, there is even evidence it lowers IQ in population along with assorted damage it causes in the body. The FDA? USDA? They are composed of industry insiders. Until people wise up and stop thinking that if it is approved by government, it is OK, we'll be sick and dumb. Study these issues for yourself, before industry tries to slant you away from the truth.

Cognosium
Cognosium

The feature which is remarkably highly developed in the human is imagination.

Imagination being quite clearly definable as the ability to form, store and morph neural representations of the external world. Greatly enhanced in our species by the transfer and external storage of imagination which we call language.Since the exponentially growing collective imagination which language has enabled is the predominant characteristic of our species at present we must conclude that, although we have lost some of our earlier skills, on the whole we should now be considered "smarter".However the individual is only "smarter" by virtue of his/her exposure to a richer environment of ideas.Furthermore it is reasonable to assume that genetic evolution, although now greatly outpaced by the evolution of technology, would favor adaption to this new environment by making us inherently (slightly) smarter.The broader evolutionary model which supports these contentions is outlined (very informally) in "The Goldilocks Effect", which is a free download from my "Unusual Perspectives" website,

mozimaxweb
mozimaxweb

If mainstream media is picking up stories like this, then watch this space. Rumors and speculation aside, check the historical data for yourself, look at the current cultural systems trending (see PeaceDoves' comment above) and ask yourself, could it be? Of course, you'll need to be intelligent... ;-)

Djiril1
Djiril1

I think this is the only real scientific quote in the article:

"Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London, believes there is insufficient data to support his theory. ”Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” Jones told The Independent. “I could just as well argue that mutations have reduced our aggression, our depression and our penis length, but no journal would publish that. Why do they publish this?”"

BorisIII
BorisIII

I wonder if people are not as able to handle very hard times like being in a war as much as we use to.  Because of maybe constant entertainment.

LargoLagg
LargoLagg

The least of us have found a way to feed, clothe and otherwise support themselves on the backs of the most productive.  I'd say that's pretty impressive, it is a time-honored dream to be supported for life.  

The next phase is going to test the limits of our generosity.  That will determine how dumb the rest of us are.

PeaceDove
PeaceDove

It wouldn't surprise me at all.  Look at all the people who spend most of the day texting!  Look at the idiots who are sexting!  There are now people who seem unable to read maps, and who must use GPS and listen to a voice telling them which way to turn, etc!  There are people driving into lakes and rivers because GPS told them it was the way to go!  These people did not even turn back when they saw the water right ahead of them!!!! There have also been cases of people texting while walking, and walking right off of curbs and falling into the street.

MohdFazril
MohdFazril

Heheh..Idiocracy (2006) started right now.

ProudPatriot
ProudPatriot

I agree with the author that we are being dumbed down. The designers/builders of the Pyriamids or many other ancient structures were amazing considering they did not have a fraction of the equipment we now possess.  We still possess the capacity, we just choose not to use it.  The unfortunate outcome is the same. Technology can make us lazier, both physically and mentally.  Ultimately, we choose which we will use.  Do I spend a greater amount of time in front of a computer/telelvision or do I chose to read and formulate my own opinions based on all the information?  Do I choose to drive two blocks or ride my bike?; do I play PS2 Madden Football or do I go to the park and play football? Do I do simple calculations in my head or do I pull out a calculator? Do I read tabloids or novels? The list goes on.   

deberaddaniel
deberaddaniel

I personally believe this author's observations are based on Darwinism as well as subtly suggesting the invocation of the transhumanism agenda (brain implants/chips to increase one's knowledge).- God'sdiva

raemsmith
raemsmith

The theory mentioned in this article is logically a valid argument. I agree that there is no significant factors that challenge the mental and physical competencies of the human race in its entirety. That does not mean all of mankind truly suffers from a lack genetically challenging aspects. although the "dumber" people will be allowed to thrive the not so "dumb" people will be given the same opportunities because of  technology. Technology has caused the intellectual, the practical and the consumer to befit in financial means, competition and ease of life respectively.  

Frediano
Frediano

Someone's been reading Twitter.