Biological Engineering

[knot]

Once we have mastered the technology, doesn't it become an ethical imperative to create all humans with 300+ IQ, and to make sure no one has genetic dispositions for things like psychopathology? Maybe we could even locate the neurological basis for all the cognitive biases and just get rid of them.

Seems to me this would solve all the world's problems

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Do you think policies enforcing this could be implemented? Most people seem to simply equate eugenics (in any form) to evil Nazism.

Once we have mastered the technology, doesn't it become an ethical imperative to create all humans with 300+ IQ

Only if humans with a 300+ IQ are more ethical.

and to make sure no one has genetic dispositions for things like psychopathology?

Considering that psychopaths are generally less ethical than neurotypical humans, preventing it would be a moral imperative. However, there are many other ethical issues that take precedence over eliminating a small, unethical portion of the human population.

Maybe we could even locate the neurological basis for all the cognitive biases and just get rid of them.

If we eliminated built in assumptions, then each and every person would require an education on the subject of ethics in order for them to verify it. That seems like an undesirable waste of resources. Just teaching rule consequentialism to the general populace and offering the full ethical explanation to intellectuals would likely be just as stable with the added benefit of not requiring the extra costs for giving everyone a full education on the subject of ethics.

[knot]

Do you think policies enforcing this could be implemented?

On second thought, it should probably be voluntary first

Most people seem to simply equate eugenics (in any form) to evil Nazism.

Yes, that's true. People see slippery slopes everywhere (I'm sometimes guilty myself!). Mate selection is also basically a form of eugenics already. The irony with the Nazis is that they wanted to wipe out an ethnic group that has higher average IQ than anyone else on the planet

Only if humans with a 300+ IQ are more ethical.

As far as I can tell, high IQ is associated with better outcomes in all the aspects we would consider good, but I have to look into it more and see what happens if there modifiers like psychopathology.

If we eliminated built in assumptions, then each and every person would require an education on the subject of ethics in order for them to verify it. That seems like an undesirable waste of resources. Just teaching rule consequentialism to the general populace and offering the full ethical explanation to intellectuals would likely be just as stable with the added benefit of not requiring the extra costs for giving everyone a full education on the subject of ethics.

I'm mostly referring to things like confirmation bias, tribalism, the Dunning-Kruger effect, dualism, etc. All the cognitive biases that have held humans back for thousands of years and still take many years of education to push back against. It's probably not possible to isolate them though

[brimstoneSalad]

As far as I can tell, high IQ is associated with better outcomes in all the aspects we would consider good, but I have to look into it more and see what happens if there modifiers like psychopathology.

IQ has quickly diminishing returns. IQ over genius is pretty much not useful. After that point, creativity seems to become more important.

There may be another threshold of very high IQ that becomes more useful again, but I'm not aware of any.

I'm mostly referring to things like confirmation bias, tribalism, the Dunning-Kruger effect, dualism, etc. All the cognitive biases that have held humans back for thousands of years and still take many years of education to push back against. It's probably not possible to isolate them though

Correct, these are emergent properties of mind. They have to be educated away, they can not be engineered out of us.

[knot]

What do you think about IQ dysgenics? I've read that the year 1850 was some kind of turning point for the selection pressure on IQ, and after that genotypic IQ has slowly been declining. Is this something to be worried about, or maybe it's a good thing? I recall some biologist who stated that high intelligence had historically speaking always been some kind of lethal disease in terms of species survival

[brimstoneSalad]

What do you think about IQ dysgenics?

Low IQ is strongly correlated to a number of social ills. I'd say it's a bad thing.

There are diminishing returns to higher IQs over 140 or so, but there are very strong returns from 100 to 115, and some still substantial returns from 115 to 130.

Is this something to be worried about

Yes.

I recall some biologist who stated that high intelligence had historically speaking always been some kind of lethal disease in terms of species survival

No idea what that was about.
Much higher IQ is often correlated with mental illness and depression, but these are treatable, and less of a problem than the social issues associated with low IQ.
Probably somewhere over 115 to 130 would be ideal for the majority of society.

[knot]

Yes.

Ok, so we've basically engineered societies that produce dumber and dumber people. I'm kinda worried that with the left having a stranglehold on the social sciences the biological issues will not be addressed seriously, and things might end disasterously. Hopefully we can come up with some technology to enhance general intelligence before that

[brimstoneSalad]

Hopefully we can come up with some technology to enhance general intelligence before that

You're talking Flowers for Algernon stuff?
This seems unlikely. Intelligence is probably too complex to be improved chemically, and deals with largely structural connections and function.
It might be possible to superficially augment with implants, but little more effectively than any efficient human-computer interface: fast math, but still a stupid user.

[knot]

Hopefully we can come up with some technology to enhance general intelligence before that

You're talking Flowers for Algernon stuff?
This seems unlikely. Intelligence is probably too complex to be improved chemically, and deals with largely structural connections and function.
It might be possible to superficially augment with implants, but little more effectively than any efficient human-computer interface: fast math, but still a stupid user.

Hmm, so basically the technological alterations are not feasible. What about AI? Maybe human IQ doesn't matter in a hypothetical society that's entirely run by self-improving machines

Seems like we don't have that much time to find solutions



Not sure what measures that could be taken to slow things down. Maybe a 2-child policy and more child support for women with demanding careers

[Red]

This reminds me of that Korn song "Evolution".
Sorry, I have a shitty understanding of what this thread is even about, but what I think it's about is if human intelligence is decreasing as we go on, and if genetical (not sure if that's a word) and biological engineering will fix it up. I'l throw my 2 cents cause why not.
Now I'm not sure if IQ tests say anything about your actual intelligence, (not to brag, IQ of 126 coughcough), but judging by the statistics, people are probably getting stupider. Now, if I were to put on my earnest and modesty cap, I'll admit I'm not the smartest person around, despite having an above average IQ. Y'know Stephen Hawking once said:
"I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers."
Anyway, I'm an idiot, and I can admit that. But it's nothing really to be ashamed of. We're all ignorant, so don't feel as though you're the only moron on the planet. (don't go thinking as though this is some acceptance shit or whatever). I think Socrates was correct when he said that true wisdom is admitting you're ignorant, which is something to live by (I also noticed that brimstone stole my thunder in the flat earth topic ) Admission is the first step in recovery.

Anything, I don't think this post did anything, so whatevs