From: Gary Miller (garymiller@starband.net)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 16:41:36 MST
Ander sandberg said:
>> That IQ is heritable doesn't mean you can get the benefits of
>> intelligence to reproduce across generations easily.
We're not really talking about inheriting IQ as from father to son but
cloning it.
If intelligence is anyway contributed to by recessive genes it would be
diluted in
A statistical study where it would not appear every generation. Or
maybe genius is a
mutation in which case cloning would be the only way to reproduce it.
Also when both parents highly intelligent they tend to be both be
employed and spoil
the children with material things but don't necessarily have the time
out of their busy
schedule to devote to empasizing their education especially if little
Johny is getting
A's and is still only using half his potential.
>> Sure. It would likely help most of them most of the time. There is
also
>> a very real risk of them running into the usual problems gifted
children
>> have with overambitious parents trying to foist destiny on them, in
>> this case not just "make mommy happy" but "save humanity!".
Psychological counselors would provide guidance and ensure that children
were not pushed
to the point that they had high amounts of stress.
>> But look at the big names in history (selected by the importance of
their
>> contributions) and try to see how many of them had enriched
upbringings.
>> You will see that most of them had entirely ordinary upbringings of
the
>> time - Pasteur, Newton, Einstein, Edison and so on. There might be a
larger
>> incidence of enriched upbringings than in the population at large,
but if
>> you do the math you will see that increasing the number of good
upbringings
>> of people with good genes with 20 does not produce a large number of
geniuses:
Exactly my point what would these individual have produced if they had
been given
the best training and every advantage? How many more geniuses get
buried in the
school system told they're poor students like Einstein and Edison were,
and never
realize their true potential. For every Einstein and Edison we realized
we may have
thrown 10 away!
>> Assume one genius per 100 million people (this could be regarded as a
definition
>> of a genius): P(genius) = 10^-8. Assume normally one in a thousand
gets a really
>> good upbringing: P(upbringing)=10^-3. Assume a good upbringing
increases the
>> likeliehood of being a genius a hundredfold.
I agree with with your math at this point. This shows how rare the
probability would be
to have a genious reach his/her maximum potential naturally.
Since we are taking a genetic copy though and giving it good upbringing
and optimal environment.
I say that the probability that the genius will exceed the capabilities
of the
original person from which the DNA was donated is 100%.
>> Maybe they will explain to the project leaders that the whole idea of
>> the singularity is bunk?
I doubt this would happen but even if they felt that way it does not
matter so long
As they contributed their genius to mankind.
>> The problem with real transformative genius is that it is creative
and
>> produces something entirely unexpected. While I approve of nurturing
it,
>> I don't think it can be nurtured with a specific goal in mind. If you
by
>> singularity mean "general human progress" then I might regard the aim
of
>> your project as valid (even if I disagree on the means), but it may
>> very well be that these children advance it by becoming great
writers,
>> theologicians or revolutionaries.
I agree that we can not anticipate what these individuals would choose
to contribute. We can
only hope that they are disruptive technologies and that they would
significantly advance us forward.
With an education that emphasized technology and sciences though would
be nudging them in the right direction.
>> You have never heard of Kantian ethics, have you?
While ethics are all well and good. They don't do a lot for us if every
madman on the block can engineer a doomsday virus or when millions are
dieing from disease and starvation. We are not dooming the children to
miserable live on the contrary they will have the best life has to
offer. If this violates some tenet of transhumanism but helps our
planet to survive, I will gladly accept that transgression.
>> The myth of the lone genius as the necessary and sufficient condition
of
>> progress is popular. But it isn't very true, and policies based on it
>> can waste much effort and resources on infinitesimal gains.
How can you place a price on five Einsteins or five Teslas? The
knowledge of math, computer
science, biotech, and physics it will take to solve the worlds most
pressing problems disease,
cheap energy, and protecting ourselves from terrorists may be beyond our
capability without them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST