Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you're really plugged into this. Is there really a contingent out there that thinks Gattaca[1] is a desirable outcome? Edit; citing the movie as a widely known example of a stratified society with both engineered and non engineered humans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
Me. In general, the less intelligent people are, the less they contribute to society. I'd rather live in an engineered society with engineered people. The primary problem to solve is discrimination against non-engineered people. That problem was the only reason Gattaca was so dystopian. As long as there are controls in place that make it difficult, it should be possible to move forward with engineering humans in a pr…
China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)
131–140 of 150 posts
Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
the Soviets were hampered in many ways. One of them was a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
And a fundamental misunderstanding of intelligence. The USSR was run primarily by highly educated engineers. China has the same issue. Yet somehow the preference of large communist dictatorships for credentialed leaders does not correlate with actual success. One problem is that 'intelligence' is a very tricky thing to define and isn't at all the same as IQ or academic achievement. The world is full of foolish academ…
The reliance of measuring intelligence in only a handful of highly specific ways is a failing that is found across humanity.
Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)
#133This article interviews Geoffrey Miller. He wrote an article around the same time here: https://www.edge.org/responses/q2013 Here is a response to that article: https://eastasiastudent.net/china/edge-org-chinese-eugenics-... TLDR; The view promoted by this article is probably only supported by a single person(Geoffrey Miller) and is highly speculative.
I know this enters the realm of character assassination, but, after reading the article I also was curious who Geoffrey Miller is. Found a wikipedia article which contains one of his twitter posts:
"Dear obese PhD applicants: if you didn't have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation. #truth." [0]
I know that doesn't invalidate his arguments and you can't judge a whole person by something they posted on twitter, but man, I'm disappointed this is the kind of person whose genes are considered so valuable to replicate. In our efforts to optimize for intelligence we may leave so many other good traits behind.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/how-twi...
Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)
#134Here's the primary piece: > At BGI Shenzhen, scientists have collected DNA samples from 2,000 of the world’s smartest people and are sequencing their entire genomes in an attempt to identify the alleles which determine human intelligence. Apparently they’re not far from finding them, and when they do, embryo screening will allow parents to pick their brightest zygote and potentially bump up every generation's intelli…
is a high IQ enough to determine 'success'?
No, just like a healthy immune system doesn't mean success. I keep telling everyone that having a healthy immune system isn't everything.
Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you're really plugged into this. Is there really a contingent out there that thinks Gattaca[1] is a desirable outcome? Edit; citing the movie as a widely known example of a stratified society with both engineered and non engineered humans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
Me. In general, the less intelligent people are, the less they contribute to society. I'd rather live in an engineered society with engineered people. The primary problem to solve is discrimination against non-engineered people. That problem was the only reason Gattaca was so dystopian. As long as there are controls in place that make it difficult, it should be possible to move forward with engineering humans in a pr…
>The primary problem to solve is discrimination against non-engineered people.
You can't be naive enough to think that this problem wouldn't occur. On the contrary, if genetic engineering on such a level was realized (which would require a shift in our current biomedical ethics to begin with), discrimination against the less-optimized would be a foregone conclusion.
In such a scenario, we could only hope that everyone would be optimized equally and the suboptimal humans wouldn't be born into a world where they are second class citizens.
Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Me. In general, the less intelligent people are, the less they contribute to society. I'd rather live in an engineered society with engineered people. If you are looking for bang for the buck in raising the average IQ across the whole population, then there are serious quick wins in eliminating things that drag it down. For instance, exposure to lead. And it's doable, hardly rocket science or genetic engineering. I…
Agreed. Wouldn't it be MUCH easier to, say, invest heavily in our early and middle education systems? Much cheaper than eugenics.
Education has little to none effect on IQ. Data shows almost all of it depends on nature, not nurture.
If You give idiots iPads they won't get smarter, sorry
Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)
#137I'm exaggerating a bit but basically:
- Primary source of the article says "It’s not genetic engineering or adding new genes"
- Vice's marketing department: "Gina is engineering babies!!!@$@#%1111"
Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you can empty the trash and they can't build your apps. Also, when thinking about creating value, you need to think about scale. They change your trash and are limited by their physical ability and time. Let's say they saved you 4 minutes and changed 400 trashes, saving 399 other people 4 minutes. They've created ~24 hours of value. If your app helps people save 30 seconds a day and did that for 100k people, then…
Your argument can easily go the other way. What if your app wastes 30 seconds a day for 100k people? By, say, building addictive mobile games, or a social network dedicated to watching food pictures, or gambling websites, or, like the parent comment said, throwaway apps.
If an app provides entertainment then it wastes time?
Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Gattaca is a fictional movie, not a realistic outcome. What anyone thinks about it is irrelevant because it has not, will not, and could not happen, any more than Brave New World.) As far as making use of these techniques, certainly. Transhumanists, socialists, and 'liberal eugenicists' have always advocated 'seizing the means of reproduction', so to speak, but it's mostly been theoretical; modern behavioral genetic…
Why do you say its unrealistic? Eugenics has been seriously considered in the past, and is likely to be seriously considered in the future. If genetic modification and control becomes 'easy' and relatively safe I don't see why those in power wouldn't try to exercise control over that power. In that future its not hard to imagine lawmakers banning having children who would have inherited known genetic 'defects'. Now i…
Wait a sec. If this dystopic future you cite is able to genetically engineer embryos, then wouldn't everyone be able to reproduce? (Less-fit people would obviously pass on less of their genes.)
And while your complaint about skin color is certainly valid, why do you abhor making humanity smarter on average?
Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
>while organizations use solely genetic information far beyond its predictive limits (set by heritability estimates, which are noticeably Organizations cargo-cultishly over-emphasizing certain ability signals? Seems pretty realistic to me! "How many golf balls can fit in a bus..." >but puts this in a setting where there are no genuine consequences to any of this, no genetic engineering, no embryo selection, all of wh…
It is not realistic. Look at NASA - do they mindlessly go 'you must have X DNA' or do they do testing, like the women astronauts? > Maybe that's short of maximizing the potential of the tech, but it seems like a genuine consequence. It's not, because you get literally the same consequence by not genetically testing sperm/eggs at all and simply screening by motility and donor health etc - people who don't do that have…
Gattica didn't have many large generations of engineered children. The movie happened during a transitionary period.