3 of 8
3
Prisoner’s Dilemma and fecundity among free thinkers
Posted: 17 August 2007 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29
dougsmith - 17 August 2007 09:53 AM

I would expect them to affect IQ in the same way they would affect any human abililty. When people are on average well fed rather than undernourished, and healthy as opposed to ill, they are likely to perform better on all sorts of tests. (We do also know that chronic undernourishment affects brain function).

I see. You might be right, but I would expect the difference to be minimal, perhaps not visible at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  35
Joined  2007-08-15

I have been in discussions with leaders and their spouses from Sunni Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Anglicans, Pentecostals and many other religious communities. The leaders are and their spouses were intelligent literate in science. Leaders were unequivocal: ” We are a righteous people: who should inherit the earth.” They believe secular humanists lack of fertility—as a sign of moral weakness. The pro-family religious communities are more than happy to use the resources vacated by secular humanists. MIT and other universities are educating professors to teach students from devote religious backgrounds. Why?, because the professors predict, that a significant portion of new students will come from these backgrounds. The couples having the children will have a legacy. Charles Darwin had a larger family and Bertrand Russell had children? My opinion: we can have morals without a divine spiritual forces, and we can have larger families without the divine motivation. Fuzzy logic, we can have a balance in family between quality, quantity, nature and resources. I feel like a man without a community: a glutton to secular free-thinkers and a heathen to the devote.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 10:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02
dougsmith - 17 August 2007 09:53 AM
George - 17 August 2007 09:44 AM

Why do you think better nutrition and public health would affect IQ?

I would expect them to affect IQ in the same way they would affect any human abililty. When people are on average well fed rather than undernourished, and healthy as opposed to ill, they are likely to perform better on all sorts of tests. (We do also know that chronic undernourishment affects brain function).

I have to agree with Doug.  We are eating a lot healthier than our grandparents did and healthier than we did in the 50s even.  People use to have bacon and eggs every day and were dying of coranary artier disease.  Not that people don’t still die of heart troubles, but I suspect that those who eat healthier now will not be as susceptable to heart disease when they are older.  There MIGHT be a decrease in bi-pass surgeries with the current generations when they are older.  It is a trend I wish I could see, but that verdict on that probably won’t be out until long after I’m dead.

The same with IQ- better nutrition does contribute to better intellectual performance.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 10:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29
Mriana - 17 August 2007 10:31 AM

We are eating a lot healthier than our grandparents did and healthier than we did in the 50s even.

Have you ever tasted a tomato grown in your own garden compared to one from a local store? And what about all the peanut allergies and hey fevers? We are different, not better.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

ohmigod, homegrown tomatos are the best. I love tomato sandwhiches with just slices of tomato, mayonaise and pepper on buttermilk bread!

but, george, I think the point is that nourishment in the sense of having enough to eat - maybe not so much the quality - has made some improvements for us, generally. I can see that. Compare students who eat well and those who have poor diets and i would not be surprised to see a difference.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2006-11-28

Certainly it makes sense nutrition might affect IQ, and there is some evidence that performance on IQ tests (whatever that means) is heritable, but we are still taking about whether one group of people with a certain point of view is more intelligent and has the right to decide what is best for everyone and act on it, or has the responsibility to breed more so there will be more intelligent people with that point of view to compete for political control. That is how I see the question retrospy is posing, and I don’t think it makes sense. We like to think we have our enlightened point of view because we are smarter, but even if there is some measurable correlation on a statistical level, there are plent of smart people who don’t share our POV. There is no reason to think that even if we won some sort of struggle to breed a smarter subset of the population that we’d end up with a wiser set of ideas or policies. Think of any idiotic world view from history that we now disdain, and I’ll bet you some very smart people bought into it at the time.

George,
I do’t know about the 50s, but the difference in the average quality of the diet from the 19th century to the 20th was profound, and had measurable impacts on longevity and physical development. Homemade tomatos might taste better than commercially farmed ones, but cheaper and more widely distributed tomatos are more accessible to everyone, whether they have a garden or not, so on average the qualiity of nutrition has improved.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 10:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02
George - 17 August 2007 10:42 AM
Mriana - 17 August 2007 10:31 AM

We are eating a lot healthier than our grandparents did and healthier than we did in the 50s even.

Have you ever tasted a tomato grown in your own garden compared to one from a local store? And what about all the peanut allergies and hey fevers? We are different, not better.

From my grandmother’s garden when she was alive I have.  They are the best tomatoes.  I do have hay fever and other allergies, but I’m glad I don’t have too many food allergies- just eggs.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29
mckenzievmd - 17 August 2007 10:48 AM

the difference in the average quality of the diet from the 19th century to the 20th was profound, and had measurable impacts on longevity and physical development.

I can see the antibiotics and other major scientific accomplishments of the 20th century being responsible for longevity. But diet?

[ Edited: 17 August 2007 12:04 PM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

george you can find all kinds of information on how malnutrition stunts growth and effects brain development.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29

Easier access to food (or “better nutrition”, if that’s what you want to call the commercially farmed tomatoes) makes most people fat and obese, not more intelligent. I just drove across the U.S. and saw the result of a well-fed nation: nine out of ten people are overweight – a sure sign of longevity.

[ Edited: 17 August 2007 10:12 PM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

george, i absolutely agree with you about the quality of food and obesity. but what would you think has a bigger impact on brain development, malnutrition by lack of food or obesity?

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

I don’t know of any studies that conclude that obesity causes a decline in brain function. And commercially farmed food is no more likely to make one obese than non-commercially-farmed, except insofar as the commercially farmed stuff is cheaper, so easier to buy and eat in larger quantities for poorer people.

At any rate, I’m not really sure what this has to do with the issue of fecundity among freethinkers.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16
dougsmith - 17 August 2007 12:09 PM

I don’t know of any studies that conclude that obesity causes a decline in brain function. And commercially farmed food is no more likely to make one obese than non-commercially-farmed, except insofar as the commercially farmed stuff is cheaper, so easier to buy and eat in larger quantities for poorer people.

At any rate, I’m not really sure what this has to do with the issue of fecundity among freethinkers.

in an abstract way it does. what are we freethinkers doing instead of reproducing? LOL!!!

but seriously, I think it had to do with fecundity in that genevere pointed out that intelligence has increased, which you likened to diet. so, what i have taken from it is that one way to be more reproductive is to increase the number of freethinkers, which can be achieved by a variety of initiatives with diet being one of them (increased intelligence generally promotes freethinking qualities).

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 12:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2006-11-28

Gearge,

THIS is a link to the CDC article on the increasing quality and safety of the food supply, which it lists as one of the 10 great acheivements in public health from 1900-1999. Antibiotics only came to play a significant role after 1947, and the average life expectancy in the U.S. had already risen substantially in that time. Better nutrition allows for better resistance to infectious disease, which is a major reson why it contributes to life expectancy. It also lower infant mortality. Nutritional deficiencies seem hard to take seriously as a public healthy issue today, but through most of human history they have been extrememly improtant. A similar pattenr holds for my patient population, in which the development of commercial foods that are nutritionally balanced has coincided with a dramatic increase in average life expectancy since the 1950s. Depsite the hysteria in themedia about “chemicals” in commercial pet food, and the recent melamine contamination issue, there is no doubt in my mind, and that of most vets older than me who remember when table scrap feeding was the rule, that nutrition is a huge factor in increasing the length and quality of pets’ lives.

As for lifestyle diseases such as obesity and coronary artery disease, there is no question our nutritional habits play a role. But it is complicated. What we choose to each, rather than the availability of abundant food, is a big part of the problem. And cultural/genetic factors are improtant too. The French have a lower risk of coronary artery disease than the Americans, depsite eating as much or more saturated fat. And African Americans have a higher rate of hypertension even when diet is controlled for, possibly due to founder effects on the population as a legacy of the slave trade. Overall, there is no serious doubt among public health scientists that nutrition has improved health over the last century. I suspect the same is true for average IQ, though I am less convinced that is a reliable, useful factor to measure.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 12:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29
dougsmith - 17 August 2007 12:09 PM

the commercially farmed stuff is cheaper, so easier to buy and eat in larger quantities for poorer people.

At any rate, I’m not really sure what this has to do with the issue of fecundity among freethinkers.

Right. And most people are probably poor due to their intelligence. Their brains calculate the statistics and realize that to compete against the more intelligent ones (the “freethinkers” as you call them) is possible if not through quality, then quantity. That’s why they have more kids.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 8
3