3 ms·

Well, in some sense the question only makes sense within a narrow band. If one group of humans (sex, race, whatever) were to be _vastly_ more intelligent than

Well, in some sense the question only makes sense within a narrow band. If one group of humans (sex, race, whatever) were to be _vastly_ more intelligent than the other, then we may well simply not care about the question at all. Consider animal welfare. We may care about the treatment of animals to some extent, but the idea that a cow should, say, be able to become a computer science major is laughable. It's not even on the radar.

causality0 7y ago
True, but I mean vast differences on the sapient being scale. What if a human subspecies was otherwise the same as us but had the life expectancy of a chimp, about forty years at best? What if the difference was as small as a thirty point difference in IQ?
- cdirkx 7y ago
  Thirty points is about the difference between humans and chimps/gorillas/orangutan. (around 70 IQ I think, but sources are very much in disagreement on this, claiming it's more around 25-50 [1]. Taking tests on animals is hard) Last I checked they were all in the "critically endangered" category [2]. [1] https://www.quora.com/Using-human-standards-what-would-be-the-approximate-IQ-of-a-chimpanzee https://www.quora.com/Using-human-standards-what-would-be-th... [2] https://www.iucnredlist.org/ https://www.iucnredlist.org/
- catalogia 7y ago
  I'm not sure if you tried this, but your hypothetical is quite close to a real category of people. Young adults with down syndrome (a chromosomal disorder) have an average IQ of 50 and in developed countries typically live to only 50-60. They used to be treated very poorly, sometimes exceedingly poorly. In the modern era they are generally treated with more respect than they were historically, despite almost everybody having lower expectations of them.
  - CuriouslyC 7y ago
    While people will take this as a sign of progress, I think realistically people with downs or other significant handicaps were a much greater burden on society in the past, and I think our current attitude of acceptance has more to do with our increased ability to care for such people. As cruel as it seems to us now, if you're struggling to survive and there's no social safety net, infanticide or child abandonment start to become much more attractive options in comparison with being burdened by taking care of a dysfunctional human for the rest of your life.
joe_the_user 7y ago
...but the idea that a cow should, say, be able to become a computer science major is laughable. However, even more, if say, not a cow but a crow (a plausibly intelligent creature) was being helped through the steps of learning computer science, I suspect the reaction would be fascination rather than the anger characteristic of racism. Indeed, the notable thing for me about racist responses is how far they are from a rational response to hypothetical situation of biological variation between types. The core racist position is overall fixated on avoiding race-mixing yet any animal breeder could tell you that a hybridized type is often a stronger individuals than either antecedent. So racist reactions might be a biological responses then but not responses that strengthens humanity but responses from a single selfish but not superior gene.
- the8472 7y ago
  > I suspect the reaction would be fascination rather than the anger characteristic of racism. That seems quite optimistic. One crow would be a curiosity. A million crows would be seen as competition and there would be torches and pitchforks.
  - edanm 7y ago
    I mean, we've domesticated plenty of animals to do various parts of our work for us. It was a huge part in the advancement of humanity. I don't think any pitchforks were involved.
    - the8472 7y ago
      Pitchforks are definitely involved in ruminant husbandry. Pedantics aside, it still seems quite optimistic that a hypothetical crow graduating in computer science would be fine with being treated like a domesticated animal. Perhaps it is possible, but ethically that would be uncharted waters.

causality0 7y ago

True, but I mean vast differences on the sapient being scale. What if a human subspecies was otherwise the same as us but had the life expectancy of a chimp, about forty years at best? What if the difference was as small as a thirty point difference in IQ?

cdirkx 7y ago
Thirty points is about the difference between humans and chimps/gorillas/orangutan. (around 70 IQ I think, but sources are very much in disagreement on this, claiming it's more around 25-50 [1]. Taking tests on animals is hard) Last I checked they were all in the "critically endangered" category [2]. [1] https://www.quora.com/Using-human-standards-what-would-be-the-approximate-IQ-of-a-chimpanzee https://www.quora.com/Using-human-standards-what-would-be-th... [2] https://www.iucnredlist.org/ https://www.iucnredlist.org/
catalogia 7y ago
I'm not sure if you tried this, but your hypothetical is quite close to a real category of people. Young adults with down syndrome (a chromosomal disorder) have an average IQ of 50 and in developed countries typically live to only 50-60. They used to be treated very poorly, sometimes exceedingly poorly. In the modern era they are generally treated with more respect than they were historically, despite almost everybody having lower expectations of them.
- CuriouslyC 7y ago
  While people will take this as a sign of progress, I think realistically people with downs or other significant handicaps were a much greater burden on society in the past, and I think our current attitude of acceptance has more to do with our increased ability to care for such people. As cruel as it seems to us now, if you're struggling to survive and there's no social safety net, infanticide or child abandonment start to become much more attractive options in comparison with being burdened by taking care of a dysfunctional human for the rest of your life.

joe_the_user 7y ago

...but the idea that a cow should, say, be able to become a computer science major is laughable. However, even more, if say, not a cow but a crow (a plausibly intelligent creature) was being helped through the steps of learning computer science, I suspect the reaction would be fascination rather than the anger characteristic of racism. Indeed, the notable thing for me about racist responses is how far they are from a rational response to hypothetical situation of biological variation between types. The core racist position is overall fixated on avoiding race-mixing yet any animal breeder could tell you that a hybridized type is often a stronger individuals than either antecedent. So racist reactions might be a biological responses then but not responses that strengthens humanity but responses from a single selfish but not superior gene.

the8472 7y ago
> I suspect the reaction would be fascination rather than the anger characteristic of racism. That seems quite optimistic. One crow would be a curiosity. A million crows would be seen as competition and there would be torches and pitchforks.
- edanm 7y ago
  I mean, we've domesticated plenty of animals to do various parts of our work for us. It was a huge part in the advancement of humanity. I don't think any pitchforks were involved.
  - the8472 7y ago
    Pitchforks are definitely involved in ruminant husbandry. Pedantics aside, it still seems quite optimistic that a hypothetical crow graduating in computer science would be fine with being treated like a domesticated animal. Perhaps it is possible, but ethically that would be uncharted waters.