PHENOMENOMIX

science lies an alarming vision of what a ‘good’ society might be: one that allows the supposedly genetically inferior to die. Perhaps the crowning glory of our liberal culture is that, at our best, we care passionately for those who diverge from some notion of the genetically normal or healthy. We respect the dignity of all, regardless of their genes. Dr Andrew Edgar Cardiff University It is worth reflecting on the notorious fact that on the whole the average intelligence of the wealthy and the aristocracy tends to decline over generations. Having used intelligence to get to the top of the pile, they no longer need to maintain it. This would not be the case if intelligence were largely hereditary. However, younger sons who will not inherit and therefore need to use their brains tend to show greater intelligence (e.g. Bertrand Russell).

I do not know what basis there is for saying that Greece, Rome and China collapsed on the verge of an industrial revolution; but I do know that this is not true of Rome. The Roman Empire achieved industrialisation on the basis of slave labour in the first century and maintained it until overrun by external invaders three centuries later.

The claims about mutation are wrong; they only make sense if you assume that everything that human beings do is the result of genetic mutation rather than of rational choice or other factors. To give just three examples: the increase in allergies is not due to mutation, but to environmental factors (by providing “healthier” environments in childhood, we prevent the full natural development of the immune system); the prevalence of right-handedness has (it has been suggested) nothing to do with genetics and more to do with the bias of the human heart towards the left side of the body (making it a better target for the right hand); and women have fewer children because efficient contraception allows them the choice which they did not have in previous centuries.

I challenge Dutton’s implied view that mutation is a bad thing. Mutation is the driving force of evolution. Organisms mutate and, if lucky, end up better adapted to their environment, leaving successful descendants to form new species. What Dutton is suggesting is that the collapse of civilisation will drive humanity back to its unmutated form. This is a formula for stagnation and failure. Finally, may I cite the warning offered by Mark Greener about the danger of building theories on the basis of only one experiment [ FT356:61]? Martin Jenkins London I disagree with much of Edward Dutton’s feature, especially extrapolation from Calhoun’s study to human society. We do not have an environment that matches the “mouse utopia”. Lower status humans find it hard to migrate to less suitable habitats because they live and are often born in such habitats. We still have resource shortages. We still have bad weather. And we still have epidemics: SARS, HIV/ AIDS and that stalwart Flu seems able to mutate round all our scientific advances.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that we are subjected to those very efficient predators known as humans. The rich prey on the poor, the poor can only prey on each other, as some do, while politicians, priests and religious extremists pray (pun intended) on everybody. We cannot blame mutational overload for an increase in autism, allergies, and mental illness: there is a case to be made for environmental factors in each of these cases and lefthandedness should not be in the list. Only the alleged increase in the incidence of entirely genetic disorders could be attributed to mutational overload. Social factors and cultural factors may induce the ‘spiteful’ mutations mentioned.

Woodley’s argument, as presented by Dutton, reeking of genetic determinism and an elitist conservative view of society that seems to consider only the West, the USA and UK in particular. There is, however, one segment of society that can monopolise all the best habitats, which become increasingly identical, is immune to almost all resource shortages and bad weather, can avoid the effects of epidemics and is almost immune to human and other predators: the top one per cent.

Perhaps the rich are becom- ing less intelligent, less able to analyse and solve problems – I can cite the case of a multimillionaire politician calling out engineers to change a fuse – but less affluent layers of society are still subject to selection for intelligence, albeit a manifestation of intelligence that suits the needs of large corporations.

What I see, if Dutton’s argument has any validity, is a class of super-rich people evolving into a population dominated by morons, an evolution masked by their ability to use technology and hire minders, or as they call them servants, bodyguards, doctors etc. Less affluent segments of society still need intelligence to survive. The lowest levels will need street smarts to stay alive, the middle classes need academic as well as practical intelligence and those in employment will need intelligence to stay employed. Alex Kashko Edinburgh I found ‘Of Mice Utopias and Men’ both fascinating and unnerving. I am probably not the only reader to be reminded of the 2006 comedy Idiocracy, directed by Mike Judge. In the film, an “average American” is selected for a clandestine government hibernation programme, finally being awoken 500 years into the future, when the burgeoning population of the “underclass” has created a nation of idiots – which makes our hero, by default, the most intelligent guy in the society. Possible solutions to the “mutational meltdown” described by Dutton are at least as disturbing as the problem itself. Good job we can laugh about it. Anthony Wilkins Ripponden, West Yorkshire Henry Cow called a track on their debut LP “Nirvana for Mice”. This could have been an allusion to John Calhoun’s experiment, as the band, formed at Cambridge University in 1968, were renowned for “erudite noise”. They even provided the music for Robert Walker’s production of Euripides’s Bacchæ. Richard George St Albans, Hertfordshire