From: Gary Miller (garymiller@starband.net)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 08:20:06 MST
Ander Sandberg said:
>> Maybe the reason it has not been discussed before
>> (besides extraneous complications like public distaste
>> for eugenics and cloning done by tiny self-appointed elites)
>> is that it is based on a faulty chain of correlations:
>> high IQ => genes for high IQ => a clone will be potentially high
>> IQ => good upbringing makes this potentiality real => several
>> really smart people help accelerate the singularity.
>>
>> Imagine that each implication has a correlation of 0.8
>> (which is likely far higher for several of these than it
>> is in reality). Then the total correlation would be just 0.4 -
>> far less, although still non-zero. This is the same effect that
>> makes the contribution of genetic IQ to the inheritance of social
>> class so minor compared to other inheritance factors (like
>> growing up in the right social networks etc).
>>
Public distaste for eugenics should not come into play here because we
are not promoting selectively breeding warriors or a master race but
rather
creating a brain trust to ensure the survival of the human race.
Although the
public currently has a distaste for cloning this will disappear over
time
as cloning gets more common place and they start to see healthy children
instead of clones.
Documented High correlation of IQ in MZA Twins (much higher than 0.8
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins
.html
>> The most unlikely assumptions are the later ones. Especially the
>> assumption that having around a small number of people that have
>> got a great upbringing (note that this can be awfully hard too -
>> what is the right upbringing for a child in the first place? If
>> one of them wants to become a fireman, priest or luddite, should
>> it be promoted or not?) and are likely to be smart will accelerate
>> progress. We already have *millions* of smart people with fairly good
>> upbringings, plenty of those the children of top IQ researchers and
>> scholars. 20 clones will be a drop in the ocean. While breakthroughs
>> are made by individual minds, they are so rare that they would not
>> correlate very strongly with any particular group (after all, how
>> many more Nobel laureates per capita are in Mensa than outside?).
Because we are suggesting that we provide what would could be called the
ideal
mental and social environment. I defined that as the children will get
to
interact and compete with others of their intelligence they will not
face
the boredom or negative social stigma associated with appearing to too
smart that they would face in normal schools. The teachers likewise be
chosen for their ability to motivate and teach gifted students. Common
sense tells me children raised in such an environment would make much
better
use of their learning and intellectual capacity than the same child in a
normal school environment.
The only remaining probability would be whether these children would
choose
to make a positive contribution to the singularity. Although this
should
not be coercive they should be exposed to ideas and concept of the
singularity
early in life. Asked to write a few papers of it as they are growing
up.
And provided with news and discussion about how it perhaps may affect
the
singularity. In this way we would hope to have their efforts
directed to the betterment of mankind if not the singularity itself.
Once out of school these children should compete for research grants in
their chosen fields.
We will also learn much from a social experiment of this magnitude.
Instead of 20 I would say
20 per year!
>> If you want to accelerate the singularity, isn't it
>> more cost-efficient to find ways of bringing extra
>> stimulation to the already existing kids that have
>> good potential but too little stimulation? Maybe
>> Sesame Street 2.0 is more powerful than the cloning vat.
This is too much of a shotgun approach. Of course we need better
schools,
better teachers, and better family environments but we are working
towards
that today. Too many schools lack truly accelerated programs for the
gifted
to help them reach their full potential. That is because with only one
genius
they are liable to become bored and labeled a troublemaker instead of
being
challenged and fostered. Even making computers available to every child
that needs
them is a challenge right now. When we put them in classrooms too often
they sit
unused because the teachers don't know how to use them to advance their
students.
I have watched my 5 year old in day-care. He goes to an accelerated
Montessori
Preschool program and is generally bored for most of the day. At home
he gets the
computer based instruction he calls fun and is completing programs
designed for
second graders. If he were provided with that kind of instruction all
day long
who knows what his potential could be. But even if one of use quit work
to home-school
him. His need for knowledge would quickly outpace our capability to
provide it. Instead
he will go into public school be bored to tears, and probably go to
Ritalin to make
him be able to not be bored! Our public school will not even give the
option of skipping a
grade. Because the kids get picked on and are often not emotionally
developed enough for
second grade.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST