4 ms·
> This is likely to increase the pace of innovation drastically in those countries that allow it. And create a divide between the rich who can afford it for th
by Mikeb85 11y ago
> This is likely to increase the pace of innovation drastically in those countries that allow it.
And create a divide between the rich who can afford it for their children, and the poor who can't.
- ElysianEagle 11y agoNot sure why you're being downvoted but this is a perfectly valid concern.
- Mikeb85 11y agoGuess some don't like being reminded that the world isn't a meritocracy after all. The circumstances you're born into still correlate highly with life outcomes, no matter how much we try to convince ourselves otherwise.
- Moshe_Silnorin 11y agoYes. And your genetics is the most important circumstance you're born into to. If only we could seize the high IQ alleles and distribute them to the proletariat!
- Moshe_Silnorin 11y agoThere is already a huge wealth and status divide between those born with high IQs and those born with normal IQs. The incentives are such that it's going to happen. Also, it looks like very-large increases in IQ will be possible once we have millions of genomes tagged with their donor's IQ and a reliable means of editing thousands of alleles. More than a few standard deviations. I would certainly use this were it available today. If a rich person has to fly to Korea to do it, so what? Any country that bans it will fall behind. The gains from this may be such that governments will think it worth subsidizing it for the poor's children. High IQ people commit less crimes, pay more taxes, tend not to use welfare. Liberals and conservatives will likely both converge on such subsidization.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoYou're assuming IQ correlates with some capitalist notion of success, and genetic engineering can significantly improve IQ. Both are debatable. Empirically, many people with high IQs do badly financially, for a variety of reasons - not least because IQ doesn't correlate with ambition, creativity, strategic insight, mental health, empathy, or social skills. Practically I'd expect useful intelligence enhancement would be incredibly difficult, with many potential side effects. If you want to improve population intelligence, it may be better to invest in better nutrition, health care, and education. >High IQ people commit less crimes Or do they just get caught less often, and convicted less often if they're caught?
- Moshe_Silnorin 11y agoEmpirically, on average they do better. There are brilliant losers. But brilliant people, on average, are wealthier and have higher status than less-brilliant people. Also, I suspect conscientiousness (another big factor in success) has a significant heritable component. >If you want to improve population intelligence, it may be better to invest in better nutrition, health care, and education. We've already plucked this fruit. Genetic engineering of embryos to IQs higher than any living human looks possible without side effects, as alleles that effect intelligence aren't likely to be additive: http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421 http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421
- maxerickson 11y agoConscientiousness?
- Moshe_Silnorin 11y agoDamn auto correct! But conciseness is huge factor in success. Very few unconscious people achieve much of anything.
- nkurz 11y ago
- arvinsim 11y agoReminds me of the central conflict in the Japanese animation series, Gundam Seed.
- woofyman 11y agoVery "Brave New World". The Alpha pluses will have their Gamma, Delta, and Epilon servents.