A few years ago Utah, the founder of this blog, posited that there is a law of diminishing liberal intelligence that states:
If a liberal hasn’t said something illogical, self-contradictory, physically or financially impossible, historically inaccurate or just outright stupid, you just haven’t listened to them long enough,
Have patience and wait, they will eventually hang themselves if you give them enough rope. Just keep them talking. Evidence of intellect is inversely proportional to the length of the conversation.
Several bloggers around the interwebs have linked to a recent pronouncement from a Stanford professor that humans are becoming more progressive – that we are getting progressively dumber:
Professor Gerald Crabtree, who heads a genetics laboratory at Stanford University in California, has put forward the iconoclastic idea that rather than getting cleverer, human intelligence peaked several thousand years ago and from then on there has been a slow decline in our intellectual and emotional abilities.
Although we are now surrounded by the technological and medical benefits of a scientific revolution, these have masked an underlying decline in brain power which is set to continue into the future leading to the ultimate dumbing-down of the human species, Professor Crabtree said.
His argument is based on the fact that for more than 99 per cent of human evolutionary history, we have lived as hunter-gatherer communities surviving on our wits, leading to big-brained humans. Since the invention of agriculture and cities, however, natural selection on our intellect has effective stopped and mutations have accumulated in the critical “intelligence” genes.
“I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas and a clear-sighted view of important issues,” Professor Crabtree says in a provocative paper published in the journal Trends in Genetics.
“Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues. I would also make this wager for the ancient inhabitants of Africa, Asia, India or the Americas, of perhaps 2,000 to 6,000 years ago,” Professor Crabtree says.
“The basis for my wager comes from new developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology that make a clear prediction that our intellectual and emotional abilities are genetically surprisingly fragile,” he says.
In a way, doesn’t this explain that any ideology that is based on emotion and the insulation of people from even the most mundane of life’s risks is the recipe for the destruction of mankind?
Isn’t that what modern liberalism (progressivism) proposes to do?
I would propose that based on the good professor’s reasoning that we can frame this scenario and question:
Assume that you were born fifty years into the future and that during the prior 150 years, the spinning blades on your lawnmower have progressed from no shielding to warning labels to enclosed shrouds. Because of these modifications, by the time you are old enough to mow the lawn as one of your chores, there have been no reported injuries from lawnmowers in the past ten years, so therefore manufacturers decide that the guards are unnecessary. You have never heard that there have been any injuries caused by a mower and because the equipment has been so dumbed down and idiot proofed, you have no concept of how it works. So today, you have noticed these spinning things that are making a strange sound – would you recognize them as a hazard?
Think that is asinine?
Remember this demonstration in dumbass?
The need for hunting and killing of animals is obviously a debatable topic. Two common justifications used by hunters is that it is a sport, and that the hunter eats the animal after killing it. But in today’s world, one no longer needs to kill an animal himself in order to eat. There is no shortage of meat in our supermarkets.
The point being that the less we are exposed to life, the more ignorant we become about how to live it independently. A free society depends on people who know how to solve problems, recognize risk and strip the emption away in order to logically resolve issues. I would suggest that progressive policies that insulate people from the true hardships of life make society less advanced, not more.