0
2

[–] eagleshigh [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Intelligence. Uh-oh.

Here is where things will get sticky. Or begin to. There will be worse.

Intelligence beyond question is largely genetic. Yes, I know: The politically correct argue that intelligence doesn’t exist, and they are themselves compelling evidence for the thesis. Most people who actually have brains think that intelligence is a good thing.

Here uneasiness at Playing God enters the picture. Preventing disease seems pretty much like a vaccination. Nothing wrong with that. Editng ourselves for better hearing or athleticism? Maybe a bit creepy but, well, what’s wrong with having a better jump shot? Intelligence, though….

If increased intelligence meant ten or fifteen points of additional IQ, maybe not too much would happen. But if we designed people with IQs of 300, or mean IQs of 300, they would presumably regard the rest of us as little more than pets. I do not know where the upper bound of genetically engineered intelligence might lie. I don’t think anyone else knows either. It is certain that IQs extreme by our standards would instantly dominate the race. Given humanity’s instinctive immersion in corruption, egotism, psychopathy, war, slaughter, totalitarianism, torture, murder and thievery, caution might be advisable in producing people better than we are at these things. It could be a case of finding out what you asked for after getting it.

Here we encounter other thorny problems. A great deal of evidence suggests that behavior is substantially genetic in origin: twin studies, the ease of breeding dogs to be aggressive or pacific, similarities of neural responses in conservatives and other responses in liberals. This would explain why blacks, whites, Jews and the Chinese have exhibited their characteristic personalities over milennia and most of the planet.

Would we then design people to have desirable behavior? Who would decide what was desirable? The virtuous at NPR would want nice, sensitive people with an appreciation of diversity, safe spaces, and opposition to guns, along with an inability to recognize reality. Conservatives would want stern, wary people yearning to fight to the death against nonexistent threats.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Bilbo_Swaggins 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That shows a massive degree of concern for the well being of the next generation. I respect that.

0
1

[–] siggersnuck 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I'm pretty sure that genetically modified people with 300 IQs would be more concerned with Minecraft than world domination. As Fred notes, we already see people selecting for intelligence. What he doesn't mention is that the practice is likely what's causing the surge in autism.

0
3

[–] eagleshigh [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The cause for the increase in autism is due to the the changing and broadened definition of autism. Though, autism is correlated with high IQ, so there is a high correlation there.

0
0

[–] Bilbo_Swaggins ago  (edited ago)

Dirty smarts. Myopia adds seven points, and smarter people are more likely to drink more. I'd link a primary, but instead I'll link this infographic because it's too beautiful not to.

Also I love how this accounted for race and sex, but race and sex don't real goyim!

0
1

[–] MOTHERFUCKER___JONES 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Interesting. I have an autistic son who plays a LOT of minecraft.