i don't know about you. but i think we've reached effectively the end of
natural biological evolution. evolution nowadays is in the technological/knowledge evolution. the most likely way we'll be evolving biologically is by genetic engineering now.
Not only, but positive and negative Eugenic as well, which does not have to mean genetic engineering, but can be both an independent or cooperating strategy.
Its a very new phenomenon IN THIS SCALE.
But thats something which can be just solved if looking at the sociocultural history of f.e. Europe.
The first big turning point was the Neolithic revolution. Before the Neolithic revolution being more intelligent was usually not only important for the individual but the whole group. Having more intelligent individuals was a reproductive advantage.
But how big this advantage was depends on the situation. F.e. in a new and furthermore always changing climate, like we have it in Europe and great parts of Eurasia (especially at that time) means that being more intelligent and flexible + group oriented was more important than lets say in Australia.
So climate was the main factor.
You should never forget that under such conditions its not so important how many children you get, but how many you get through...
After the Neolithic revolution, things changed. Culture was more important.
I give you two examples:
a) The Ukraine. There lived herders and peasants side by side, the more progressive type was that of the herders, but the herders had less children and made birth control. The peasants were (slightly) less progressive and had more children which were often ill-nourished.
So you had two strategies, one more k, one more r-oriented.
b) There was made a study about Northern German peasants and how many children they had or if they used infanticid.
It came out that it depended on factors like: Law of succession, available free land and crop production.
Now the interesting point is here, that the richer farmers tended to kill children more often or just get less than the poor ones if the situation was rather negative and already not enough land left f.e.
So they wanted to keep their land together and dont destroy it due the law of succession.
The poor peons had more children, mainly because more children just meant more work.
That was always the case after the Neolithic revolution for farmers, as long as enough land was available.
From the 19th century in particular rather intelligent and rich individuals tended to have less and less children. This demographic transition was highly negative and contraselective, since the more negative variants still got more children and could even manage to bring more through.
Of course at that time, in the lower classes was still great potential, so that wasnt just bad, but with urbanisation and a new culture even on the countryside, the contraselective trend was getting worse and worse.
Now with immigration of people which are not integrable, things are getting catastrophic.
So this is the "intelligent form" of getting less children, because of planning.
But there is another one, which is dominating now but was already known at the time of the Roman empire.
I call this the "decadent childlessness".
Thats something if people are very hedonistic oriented and live in luxus, they use surrogats to feel good and lost their boundaries with nature and their group.
Such people prefer hedonism and career before children and especially the more intelligent ones, which can have "success" in such a society (money, career, "fun", hedonism) tend to have almost no children.
This is in Europe a very recent phenomenon which was getting catastrophic because of contraceptiva and the birth control pill and free abortion (of healthy children) in particular.
Associated with this cultural change, the "American way of life" was the "sexual revolution" and sex as a "fun factor in life" as the main use of sex...
The loss of tradition and a new anti-white and anti-ethnic.
Children lost their worth for rational people because only those people benefit from children in the Western world which have none if its about material benefits.
Therefore if you have no ideology or really, really love children but are "rational-intelligent" and on the line with the current way of living, you get no or not more than 2 children.
Children are for the something to have a "rounded life" or "experiencing a small being", not something which is good for the group, helps them in life or is necessary to life on or keep the family, clan, line alive.
Thats of course big reason why rather rational-intelligent people which believe in our hedomatic-individualistic society dont get any children...
In the past they wouldnt have thought like that, especially as herders or farmers f.e. they would have though in bloodlines, future, group oriented etc.
So inteligent people would have had children and would have brought them through (if they would have had no other defects of course ;-) ).
Of course thats a very recent and catastrophic phenomenon.
For Europe there were more than one steps to this, from Christianisation until now.
But the most catastrophic one was the cultural-social-ideological change of the 60's...
Such a demographic catastrophy of that kind and on that scale is unrivalled in history from what we know.
We see a full degeneration of the genpool plus a massive and mostly negative geneflow from foreigners...
Europeans have, Germans in particular, only some decades time to turn it around or die...
Thats not only what I'm saying, its what honest demographers are saying.
I spoke with one personally and the situation is really terrible.
If you say "intelligence" is not biological successful, than such irrational view is only possible in a society like ours...