Page 45 of 45 FirstFirst ... 35434445
Results 441 to 447 of 447

Thread: The Daily Thought - The 24th!

  1. #441
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    5,991
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    As nice as it would be to believe that everyone's equal, anyone who's worked with James Watson knows that's not true.

    I'm pleased that his laboratory finally recognized that.
    "If you are worthy of his affection, a cat will be your friend but never your slave. He keeps his free will though he loves, and will not do for you what he thinks unreasonable; but if he once gives himself to you, it is with absolute confidence and fidelity of affection." -Theophile Gautier

  2. #442
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    I wish I lived in Wyoming
    Posts
    1,070
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    I know lots of people think that calling a trait genetic is to imply it can't ever be changed, but I think someday intelligence can be increased through genetic alteration. I'm less opposed to the implication that some traits are inborn, and more opposed to the idea that this means there's nothing we'll ever be able to do about it. That fatalism.
    To me, the nature vs. nurture debate isn't about whether or not we can change things. All it means to me is the decision on what method we'll use to improve lives.
    For the record, I think this applies to all individuals, and that intelligence is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors- so I don't agree with James Watson on this. Just saying for those who DO think everything is genetics, that even genes can be changed.
    Last edited by Kerguelen; January 15th, 2019 at 01:39 AM.

  3. #443
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    5,991
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    The human brain is not a straightforward system, and any genes that increase intelligence likely affect other things as well. If you think IQ is a good measure of intelligence (and I don't think it is, but that's another discussion), then intelligence is also correlated with physical and mental disorders, like depression, anxiety, and asthma.* Pushing someone up a few points on the IQ test is not worth dealing with that shit. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using genetic alteration to add desirable traits as well, especially in the womb.

    It's true that you can say, "We'll just genetically engineer people" and try to take the wind of the sail of racists that way, but I think it ends up playing into their hand. I'm pretty sure that as far as they're concerned, you're admitting that the solution to the gap in IQ scores is to make people more white, at least on the genetic level. And, well, it implicitly cedes the argument for the foreseeable future.

    * Or it's just that people in Mensa are more prone to those things. Certainly a possibility.
    "If you are worthy of his affection, a cat will be your friend but never your slave. He keeps his free will though he loves, and will not do for you what he thinks unreasonable; but if he once gives himself to you, it is with absolute confidence and fidelity of affection." -Theophile Gautier

  4. #444
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    I wish I lived in Wyoming
    Posts
    1,070
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Yeah, I don't think it is a good measure at all. There's a long history of problems with the IQ test for sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by cheetah View Post
    you're admitting that the solution to the gap in IQ scores is to make people more white, at least on the genetic level.
    Yeah, that certainly wasn't my intention. I hadn't thought of that.

    try to take the wind of the sail of racists that way
    Yeah, this is more what I was trying to do lol

    Edit to add: there's also a decent article here on how intelligence testing is often culturally biased: https://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx
    So if one culture is advantaged in a certain test because that culture focuses more on things tested in the test, people from that culture will likely do better. Like they mention in the article "In societies where formal schooling is common, she says, students gain an early familiarity with organizing items into rows and columns, which gives them an advantage over test-takers in cultures where formal schooling is rare."

    So intelligence may be partly genetic but I'd say the idea that it is purely genetic, and that certain groups are "less intelligent" than others because of this, is wrong
    Last edited by Kerguelen; January 15th, 2019 at 02:11 AM.

  5. #445
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The problem with biological tampering is that it seems either very difficult or impossible for actually existing people to gain the benefits of it. Most of the benefits of such things would only be derived by a new generation. That's *one* of the core problems with it. What's going to protect the older, 'inferior' generation of people from the new 'master race'?

    This is just one reason why I think in theory things like cybernetics are much more promising and give much more of a leveling potential.

    I would be surprised if intelligence could ever be reduced entirely to genetics because consciousness itself is not reducible to biology. Some have tried to argue this, without evidence, and usually with comical results like Noam Chomsky. Which gene encodes for the idea of the number zero, for example? All ideas are abstractions and by their very nature are immaterial. Obviously our brains are required for the possibility of conceiving of the idea of zero, but the concept of zero hasn't been able to be reduced to some particular gene or even a combination of genes.

  6. #446
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    I wish I lived in Wyoming
    Posts
    1,070
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Cybernetics sound awesome!
    Yeah, like I said before, I don't actually believe genetics explain intelligence in its entirety. Probably not even the majority of it, and even if it did, it would vary more by individual, not by "race." The idea that there's racial differences in intelligence is pretty much discredited, but frequently revived by some out there as an attempt to excuse discrimination and mistreatment of people.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06784-5

  7. #447
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    5,991
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Cybernetics are less likely to lead to the creation of the Nazi's wet dream, that I agree with. But I've got to say, I'm worried about what large scale adoption of performance-enhancing cybernetics would mean. If a large number of people have them but some don't (and this doesn't have to be because they can't afford them, it can be as simple as not wanting extensive cybernetics), then what happens to those who don't? Because they're less competent, they'll be left farther and farther behind, and be increasingly unable to participate in society on the same level. It would be like not having a cell phone today, or refusing to own a car in most areas. You didn't need those things at one point, but after they became ubiquitous society became structured around the assumption everyone would have one.
    "If you are worthy of his affection, a cat will be your friend but never your slave. He keeps his free will though he loves, and will not do for you what he thinks unreasonable; but if he once gives himself to you, it is with absolute confidence and fidelity of affection." -Theophile Gautier

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •