6 ms·

It's going to be depressing if we get to a point where the next generation is vastly superior both in intelligence and physical fitness. Mind you, still great f

by Salgat 8y ago

It's going to be depressing if we get to a point where the next generation is vastly superior both in intelligence and physical fitness. Mind you, still great for humanity, but depressing to have missed out on that. We may be considered primitive compared to humanity in a few centuries.

vtange 8y ago
IMHO that next generation is going to seriously need it; the world has grown very dense with information and distractions - much more than when we were younger or our parents. They're going to need that extra concentration to filter out all the garbage..and I sure hope they can discern fake information from real information because it will be everywhere by the time they come of age. If anything, we're the lucky ones to see these problems grow from the start. The ones after us will be in the deep end right from the start.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
adtac 8y ago
We're the last dumb gemeration. Has a nice ring to it, I like it.
- teekert 8y ago
  Yes but we're the ones who made the smartness possible, right ;)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
PakG1 8y ago
Humans today are vastly superior in intelligence to humans centuries ago. Physical fitness, maybe not. Anyway, why be depressed? Would Columbus be depressed to know that if he had lived a few centuries later, he could have just flown around the world on a plane instead of going on his big adventure to confirm his big claim? The guy got to go on an adventure that he firmly believed in. Be content with who you are and where you are, and find your calling to go farther and higher if you can't be content. Just... no reason to be depressed.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  How are you defining intelligence here? Today we have the benefit of knowledge and training. Do we have more innate intellectual horsepower? Speaking of more horsepower, could manufactured eugenics come at a cost of unintended side effects? How would we be benchmarking horsepower? Would we have the foresight to know some improvements would come at a cost of others? Would an intellectual arms race sacrifice traits such as altruism or curiosity or creativity for more easily measurable traits?
  - PakG1 8y ago
    It's better for you to reply to the parent, rather than me. I was simply discussing the absurdity of being depressed at missing out on the future, not the validity, ethics, or consequences of modifying intelligence.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      My first sentence was a direct reply to your statement about relative intelligence over generations.
  - jaredklewis 8y ago
    > Do we have more innate intellectual horsepower? It seems very likely. Though not from genetic improvements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      Take that with a grain of salt. According to IQ scores, the average person in the 1930s was within one standard deviation of litetally being retarded, and when Feynman was alive, he was a mere two standard deviations above the norm. Personally I dont believe IQ correlates with g. And anyways, how can you even define g in the first place, let alone IQ? There seems to be some colloquial tautology here: Ddoing so by defining it as IQ, then testing for IQ and calling that g. It is ridiculous. From Wikipedia: >Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'" He also wrote that "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial."
interfixus 8y ago
We have no idea how that's gonna play out. We always think in terms of linear extrapolation, when in reality every new development eventually veers off into unintended consequences and totally unforeseen societal directions. Nobody in the nineteen sixties foresaw where computers where going. They thought Multivac paradise. We got the Facebook nightmare. Nobody in the eighteenth century saw past the exiting novelty of self driving carriages to the unliveable infernos we have let our cities turn into today. Nobody foresaw the overwhelming cultural rifts eventually resulting from universal wealth and mass education. A new race of superhumans may vanquish Everything Bad That Ever Was™, or they may blow up the universe. We just don't know.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  I agree. In fact it seems almost certain some traits will be sacrificed in search of others. Who is going to build more fit Thomas Paines or Edward Snowdens, and under which powrer structures would they be allowed to?
- magduf 8y ago
  >Nobody in the nineteen sixties foresaw where computers where going. They thought Multivac paradise. If you're referring to giant computers that took up a room, they really weren't that far off with that vision. Sure, a modern laptop computer or even smartphone has more computing power than an old mainframe, but we still have giant room-sized systems, but today we call them "server farms" or "datacenters".
kartan 8y ago
> It's going to be depressing if we get to a point where the next generation is vastly superior both in intelligence and physical fitness "intelligence and physical fitness" are overrated. Think of a generation without mental illnesses. People that is balanced and happy. People that has no malignant fobias and does not get fat just because does not know when to stop eating. You are still right, that they should also be smarter and healthier and better looking that us if they can. But I see a bigger change if we adress our mental problems first.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  Given the correlation between mental health, intelligence and physical health are all large and positive selecting for one is likely to lead to large improvements in the others. Intelligence Predicts Health and Longevity, but Why? http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01301001.x http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004...
PinkMilkshake 8y ago
I understand this feeling. But the glass half full perspective might be that these newer, smarter humans would have the ability to make faster progress on anti-aging and gene therapies which we could use to catch up.
- sushid 8y ago
  I hope you're right but I don't want to be an immortal gamma in a Brave New World.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Perhaps, but by then the unforeseen consequences will become clear too. There always are some. Some will choose not to edit because of it. In a few centuries we might call the two camps Eloi and Morlocks.
raxxorrax 8y ago
I think there is a theory about our brains being limited in volume due to birth and that further increases are unlikely. Likewise, I doubt you could significantly increase athleticism. We could use it to remove defects and certain predispositions though to fine tune our genetic code. But I remain skeptical about any super humans.
- beerlord 8y ago
  Limited by the birth canal. C-sections make that limit obsolete.
  - thedailymail 8y ago
    Ectogenesis could make c-sections obsolete.
    - raxxorrax 8y ago
      In any way, the first thing we should concentrate on is making reproduction without medical support impossible.
  - magduf 8y ago
    C-sections are really hard on a woman's body. Regular pregnancies are too, but C-sections leave them with a horrible scar and a giant cut across their abdominal muscle fibers, in the wrong direction, that never heals properly.
beerlord 8y ago
It won't be depressing at all, you will probably be raising that generation. It will raise questions over whether non-upgraded humans are obsolete...
java-man 8y ago
I think we are already at this stage. Just compare someone with PhD in physics against someone with just a basic high school education. This is a gap that very, very few people are able to cross. One may say that, intellectually, the humanity is already split into two unequal parts - less than 1% of, let's say, intellectually capable people, and the rest (I belong to the rest). It is important for us (the rest) to let the 1% work and drive the progress, and not to interfere. Unfortunately, this too requires effort, so the end result is... you know, just turn on the TV. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
true_religion 8y ago
To me, the whole point of humanity is to leave your children better off than you were. If we can do this at a genetic level that would be a boon, but I expect we are just going to be removing genes that lead to higher probability of illness.

by Salgat 8y ago

vtange 8y ago

IMHO that next generation is going to seriously need it; the world has grown very dense with information and distractions - much more than when we were younger or our parents. They're going to need that extra concentration to filter out all the garbage..and I sure hope they can discern fake information from real information because it will be everywhere by the time they come of age. If anything, we're the lucky ones to see these problems grow from the start. The ones after us will be in the deep end right from the start.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

adtac 8y ago

We're the last dumb gemeration. Has a nice ring to it, I like it.

teekert 8y ago
Yes but we're the ones who made the smartness possible, right ;)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

PakG1 8y ago

Humans today are vastly superior in intelligence to humans centuries ago. Physical fitness, maybe not. Anyway, why be depressed? Would Columbus be depressed to know that if he had lived a few centuries later, he could have just flown around the world on a plane instead of going on his big adventure to confirm his big claim? The guy got to go on an adventure that he firmly believed in. Be content with who you are and where you are, and find your calling to go farther and higher if you can't be content. Just... no reason to be depressed.

wallace_f 8y ago
How are you defining intelligence here? Today we have the benefit of knowledge and training. Do we have more innate intellectual horsepower? Speaking of more horsepower, could manufactured eugenics come at a cost of unintended side effects? How would we be benchmarking horsepower? Would we have the foresight to know some improvements would come at a cost of others? Would an intellectual arms race sacrifice traits such as altruism or curiosity or creativity for more easily measurable traits?
- PakG1 8y ago
  It's better for you to reply to the parent, rather than me. I was simply discussing the absurdity of being depressed at missing out on the future, not the validity, ethics, or consequences of modifying intelligence.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    My first sentence was a direct reply to your statement about relative intelligence over generations.
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  > Do we have more innate intellectual horsepower? It seems very likely. Though not from genetic improvements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Take that with a grain of salt. According to IQ scores, the average person in the 1930s was within one standard deviation of litetally being retarded, and when Feynman was alive, he was a mere two standard deviations above the norm. Personally I dont believe IQ correlates with g. And anyways, how can you even define g in the first place, let alone IQ? There seems to be some colloquial tautology here: Ddoing so by defining it as IQ, then testing for IQ and calling that g. It is ridiculous. From Wikipedia: >Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'" He also wrote that "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial."

interfixus 8y ago

We have no idea how that's gonna play out. We always think in terms of linear extrapolation, when in reality every new development eventually veers off into unintended consequences and totally unforeseen societal directions. Nobody in the nineteen sixties foresaw where computers where going. They thought Multivac paradise. We got the Facebook nightmare. Nobody in the eighteenth century saw past the exiting novelty of self driving carriages to the unliveable infernos we have let our cities turn into today. Nobody foresaw the overwhelming cultural rifts eventually resulting from universal wealth and mass education. A new race of superhumans may vanquish Everything Bad That Ever Was™, or they may blow up the universe. We just don't know.

wallace_f 8y ago
I agree. In fact it seems almost certain some traits will be sacrificed in search of others. Who is going to build more fit Thomas Paines or Edward Snowdens, and under which powrer structures would they be allowed to?
magduf 8y ago
>Nobody in the nineteen sixties foresaw where computers where going. They thought Multivac paradise. If you're referring to giant computers that took up a room, they really weren't that far off with that vision. Sure, a modern laptop computer or even smartphone has more computing power than an old mainframe, but we still have giant room-sized systems, but today we call them "server farms" or "datacenters".

kartan 8y ago

> It's going to be depressing if we get to a point where the next generation is vastly superior both in intelligence and physical fitness "intelligence and physical fitness" are overrated. Think of a generation without mental illnesses. People that is balanced and happy. People that has no malignant fobias and does not get fat just because does not know when to stop eating. You are still right, that they should also be smarter and healthier and better looking that us if they can. But I see a bigger change if we adress our mental problems first.

barry-cotter 8y ago
Given the correlation between mental health, intelligence and physical health are all large and positive selecting for one is likely to lead to large improvements in the others. Intelligence Predicts Health and Longevity, but Why? http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01301001.x http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004...

PinkMilkshake 8y ago

I understand this feeling. But the glass half full perspective might be that these newer, smarter humans would have the ability to make faster progress on anti-aging and gene therapies which we could use to catch up.

sushid 8y ago
I hope you're right but I don't want to be an immortal gamma in a Brave New World.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Perhaps, but by then the unforeseen consequences will become clear too. There always are some. Some will choose not to edit because of it. In a few centuries we might call the two camps Eloi and Morlocks.

raxxorrax 8y ago

I think there is a theory about our brains being limited in volume due to birth and that further increases are unlikely. Likewise, I doubt you could significantly increase athleticism. We could use it to remove defects and certain predispositions though to fine tune our genetic code. But I remain skeptical about any super humans.

beerlord 8y ago
Limited by the birth canal. C-sections make that limit obsolete.
- thedailymail 8y ago
  Ectogenesis could make c-sections obsolete.
  - raxxorrax 8y ago
    In any way, the first thing we should concentrate on is making reproduction without medical support impossible.
- magduf 8y ago
  C-sections are really hard on a woman's body. Regular pregnancies are too, but C-sections leave them with a horrible scar and a giant cut across their abdominal muscle fibers, in the wrong direction, that never heals properly.

beerlord 8y ago

It won't be depressing at all, you will probably be raising that generation. It will raise questions over whether non-upgraded humans are obsolete...

java-man 8y ago

I think we are already at this stage. Just compare someone with PhD in physics against someone with just a basic high school education. This is a gap that very, very few people are able to cross. One may say that, intellectually, the humanity is already split into two unequal parts - less than 1% of, let's say, intellectually capable people, and the rest (I belong to the rest). It is important for us (the rest) to let the 1% work and drive the progress, and not to interfere. Unfortunately, this too requires effort, so the end result is... you know, just turn on the TV. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

true_religion 8y ago

To me, the whole point of humanity is to leave your children better off than you were. If we can do this at a genetic level that would be a boon, but I expect we are just going to be removing genes that lead to higher probability of illness.