5 ms·

A very important part of this frontier is ability to create genetic copies to see which part of a trait is genetic. It is crazy that we ban research on cloning

by chr1 3y ago

A very important part of this frontier is ability to create genetic copies to see which part of a trait is genetic. It is crazy that we ban research on cloning, and still don't have many clones of successful scientists.

calepayson 3y ago
I think we put too much weight on intelligence as the factor differentiating innovators from the rest. If we were to clone some great scientists from the past I believe would be underwhelmed. Not because these aren’t brilliant people but because brilliance isn’t the most important factor in innovation. Rather, innovation is driven by people who are exposed to a novel environment and are just smart enough to not ignore it. Bill Gates’ highschool was the only one in the US with a computer. Albert Einstein was working in a patent office where he saw a conga-line of patents discussing how to standardize the measurement of time across vast geographies. Both brilliant people. Both exposed to a novel societal idea. Thankfully they were smart enough to run with it.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  > but because brilliance isn’t the most important factor in innovation I suspect having at least moderately wealthy parents is a huge factor. I'm sure a lot of potentially great scientists died unknown for absence of those.
  - lumost 3y ago
    Aye - having the choice to not take the economically best action is a unique one. On average you would expect this to be born out in most academic fields where the researcher either comes from a background enabling their exploration on economically viable terms - or academia is surprisingly the most economic choice.
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
  >Albert Einstein was working in a patent office where he saw a conga-line of patents discussing how to standardize the measurement of time across vast geographies. I don't thik this was a relevant factor. Certainly not as much as reading Poincare's work (which anyone had access to).
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
The issue with eugenics isn't the fundamental science, it's that the "elites" in charge of it are simply loaded with cognitive biases to support their (often inherited, arbitrary, or fortunate) positions. Almost all solutions to actually solving environmentalism and sustainability at a long term global level involve lots of complicated policies which seemingly can only be accomplished with a higher degrees of altruism, better intelligence of multiple flavors, etc. https://youtu.be/pRIIwJh1DDQ?t=165 https://youtu.be/pRIIwJh1DDQ?t=165 We kind of NEED a general increase to intellect and ability. Also would save on rising health care costs. Ironically, we'd need some sort of eugenics for the ruling elite to truly raise them to a point that they could then responsibly apply eugenics to the rest of the population. The "elite" will probably start doing this in the next 50 years. Honestly I'm shocked it hasn't started in my lifetime (I'm ~50 years old)
bigbillheck 3y ago
Seems like a better return on investment there would be to make sure everybody has access to nutrition, education, opportunity, and so on.
- Purplehermann 3y ago
  Depends how cheap gene editing gets. If you can mass-produce adenoviruses that improve iq 15 points and health significantly, that's going to be way cheaper than nutrition, forget education and of course opportunity. Of course, better genes means nutrition, education and opportunity go further
- chr1 3y ago
  No matter how well you eat and get educated, you are not going to be able to do even a fraction of what John von Neumann or Srinivasa Ramanujan were able to do. And very often people like them were able to do that despite all the odds, not because they had the best opportunities.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    The point isn’t that everyone could be a von Neumann, given consistently good conditions. The point is that the world would benefit from even one more von Neumann. Which would also indicate the likelihood of a lot of other people achieving more than they would have under more adverse conditions.
    - chr1 3y ago
      On the contrary, it indicates that truly talented and capable people are rare. Having more of them would allow the rest of us to live under less adverse conditions, find a way to become smarter and live longer. The point is that we could have dozens of von Neumann's twin brothers helping us to speed up that process, but we choose not to for no good reason.
      - Nevermark 3y ago
        I think we agree then. Even one additional Von Neumann would be great. More would be fantastic. And would be associated with a lot of other more impactful people. The “good” reason for not providing better conditions is we don’t have a system for that. My vote would be that the value of all raw natural resources not created by human beings efforts be considered a joint inheritance. The raw value of them being shared by all equally with a focus on health and education for children, and keeping adults above survival mode. We would all benefit from that investment, even the rich. The efforts of those who extract and process them, as with any human added value, would be rewarded by the competitive marketplace as usual.

by chr1 3y ago

calepayson 3y ago

I think we put too much weight on intelligence as the factor differentiating innovators from the rest. If we were to clone some great scientists from the past I believe would be underwhelmed. Not because these aren’t brilliant people but because brilliance isn’t the most important factor in innovation. Rather, innovation is driven by people who are exposed to a novel environment and are just smart enough to not ignore it. Bill Gates’ highschool was the only one in the US with a computer. Albert Einstein was working in a patent office where he saw a conga-line of patents discussing how to standardize the measurement of time across vast geographies. Both brilliant people. Both exposed to a novel societal idea. Thankfully they were smart enough to run with it.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
> but because brilliance isn’t the most important factor in innovation I suspect having at least moderately wealthy parents is a huge factor. I'm sure a lot of potentially great scientists died unknown for absence of those.
- lumost 3y ago
  Aye - having the choice to not take the economically best action is a unique one. On average you would expect this to be born out in most academic fields where the researcher either comes from a background enabling their exploration on economically viable terms - or academia is surprisingly the most economic choice.
Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
>Albert Einstein was working in a patent office where he saw a conga-line of patents discussing how to standardize the measurement of time across vast geographies. I don't thik this was a relevant factor. Certainly not as much as reading Poincare's work (which anyone had access to).

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

The issue with eugenics isn't the fundamental science, it's that the "elites" in charge of it are simply loaded with cognitive biases to support their (often inherited, arbitrary, or fortunate) positions. Almost all solutions to actually solving environmentalism and sustainability at a long term global level involve lots of complicated policies which seemingly can only be accomplished with a higher degrees of altruism, better intelligence of multiple flavors, etc. https://youtu.be/pRIIwJh1DDQ?t=165 https://youtu.be/pRIIwJh1DDQ?t=165 We kind of NEED a general increase to intellect and ability. Also would save on rising health care costs. Ironically, we'd need some sort of eugenics for the ruling elite to truly raise them to a point that they could then responsibly apply eugenics to the rest of the population. The "elite" will probably start doing this in the next 50 years. Honestly I'm shocked it hasn't started in my lifetime (I'm ~50 years old)

bigbillheck 3y ago

Seems like a better return on investment there would be to make sure everybody has access to nutrition, education, opportunity, and so on.

Purplehermann 3y ago
Depends how cheap gene editing gets. If you can mass-produce adenoviruses that improve iq 15 points and health significantly, that's going to be way cheaper than nutrition, forget education and of course opportunity. Of course, better genes means nutrition, education and opportunity go further
chr1 3y ago
No matter how well you eat and get educated, you are not going to be able to do even a fraction of what John von Neumann or Srinivasa Ramanujan were able to do. And very often people like them were able to do that despite all the odds, not because they had the best opportunities.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  The point isn’t that everyone could be a von Neumann, given consistently good conditions. The point is that the world would benefit from even one more von Neumann. Which would also indicate the likelihood of a lot of other people achieving more than they would have under more adverse conditions.
  - chr1 3y ago
    On the contrary, it indicates that truly talented and capable people are rare. Having more of them would allow the rest of us to live under less adverse conditions, find a way to become smarter and live longer. The point is that we could have dozens of von Neumann's twin brothers helping us to speed up that process, but we choose not to for no good reason.
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      I think we agree then. Even one additional Von Neumann would be great. More would be fantastic. And would be associated with a lot of other more impactful people. The “good” reason for not providing better conditions is we don’t have a system for that. My vote would be that the value of all raw natural resources not created by human beings efforts be considered a joint inheritance. The raw value of them being shared by all equally with a focus on health and education for children, and keeping adults above survival mode. We would all benefit from that investment, even the rich. The efforts of those who extract and process them, as with any human added value, would be rewarded by the competitive marketplace as usual.