>>12158373What about the hypothesis that propensity towards single motherhood is a function of genetics?
>>12158919Single motherhood does play a role, but it's not independent from genetics. Culture is the environment, and shit genes create shit cultures, and shit cultures select for shit genes, etc, etc, positive feedback loop.
Having better families isn't going to magically turn chimps into Euler on the individual level, but it would create an environment in which the gaps in fertility between high and low IQ narrowed, leading to improvements intergenerationally - essentially soft eugenics.
Remember legal systems, cultures, etc are environments too, but they, at least in part, artificial, and thus evolution with respect to them isn't guaranteed to be slow. Monogamous cultures vs polygamous cultures will create vastly different selective pressures, as does an individualist legal system vs a collectivist legal system, etc. We have been evolving under this artificial selection since the start of civilization, and have been adapting ourselves to suit the social environment, and adapting the social environment to suit us, for the entire time. Blacks basically just went straight from mud huts to industrial society with no intermediate selection with respect to large scale society.
I actually think ancient accounts of northern Europeans being nigger tier actually have truth to them - this would have been pre civilization, and hence they wouldn't have spent millennia evolving with respect to civilization. Once true formal law was imposed, this would have changed, not in a "people are the products of their environment" individualist sense, but in the sense that law is an environment, and it creates selective pressures which act as soft eugenics.
