America has one political party — The Plutocracy Party

[superstition]

I am interested in what you hope to achieve by breeding humans to be smarter. For what purpose? To build bigger and better weapons to wipe out humanity? I am unaware of any link between higher intelligence and increased morality (witness the predation of bankers on the rest of society).

If you don't think intelligence = morality then you should look up serial killers and feral children. Also, before romanticizing unintelligent animals consider what male house cats tend to do to the kittens sired by other males.

You're confusing the fact that some people are intelligent enough to be predatory with being intelligent enough to endeavor to be beneficial. Morality is a muddy word for intelligence. Morality without intelligence cannot exist. Even mumbo-jumbo religion tries to explain the world. It is pre-scientific intelligence.

Crooks will exploit religion just as they will exploit science. That's beside the point. Having a higher percentage of the population be intelligent enough to see through such scheming is obviously better for making it harder to accomplish.

Carlin: "I'll tell you what the owners don't want. They don't want an intelligent population capable of critical thinking." (So they'll figure out how much they're being exploited.)

 

[bshole]

If you don't think intelligence = morality then you should look up serial killers and feral children. Also, before romanticizing unintelligent animals consider what male house cats tend to do to the kittens sired by other males.

You're confusing the fact that some people are intelligent enough to be predatory with being intelligent enough to endeavor to be beneficial. Morality is a muddy word for intelligence. Morality without intelligence cannot exist. Even mumbo-jumbo religion tries to explain the world. It is pre-scientific intelligence.

Crooks will exploit religion just as they will exploit science. That's beside the point. Having a higher percentage of the population be intelligent enough to see through such scheming is obviously better for making it harder to accomplish.

Carlin: "I'll tell you what the owners don't want. They don't want an intelligent population capable of critical thinking." (So they'll figure out how much they're being exploited.)

Until I see data supporting your argument, I can't make that leap of faith. I believe that if you bred the most moral humans you would end up with a better society and world than if you bred the most intelligent. I am not speaking of religious morals but secular humanist morals.

Who would want a race of hyper intelligent sociopaths? We should want more humans with moral aspirations than more humans who are better at achieving their aspirations (which may be amoral).

http://review.chicagobooth.edu/behavioral-science/2016/article/morality-more-important-intelligence

I’s more important to be moral than it is to be likable or smart, according to research by Chicago Booth postdoctoral researcher Justin F. Landy, Lancaster University’s Jared Piazza, and University of Pennsylvania’s Geoffrey P. Goodwin.

Moral character “is perhaps the only kind of trait that is unambiguously positive,” says Landy. And a person’s morality, or lack thereof, can color how people think about other qualities such as friendliness and intelligence.

In an experiment, the researchers asked participants to imagine acquaintances who were either moral or not. When asked, participants said they preferred the moral people to be sociable and competent—but they preferred the immoral people to be the opposite. After all, a competent and social but immoral person would have an easier time carrying out their sinister goals, the researchers say.

“Morality predicts the nature of another person’s goals, whereas competence and sociability both predict the likelihood that a person will accomplish their goals,” the researchers write.

 

[superstition]

Morality is a muddy word for intelligence. The data (examples) I already gave you should get you on the right track. Take serial killers, for instance.

They have frontal lobes that do not function correctly. This is a severely negative impact on their intelligence. The frontal lobes are where our morality comes from. Despite this, they tend to be able to do things like conspiracy well enough to manage to kill people without getting caught.

Your mistake is not viewing the entirety of the brain's intelligence. Cherry-picking just certain areas does not rebut my argument. As for feral children, I suggest watching how Helen Keller behaved before she was educated. Ask yourself where all her lovely natural morality was.

I have also pointed people to Williams Syndrome. Yes, they have no sociopathy but the cost is far too great.

"Race of super-humans" is also hyperbolic because, at least initially, the idea is to not waste the existing genetic material we have.

 

[agent00f]

There are conditions that are obvious:

enough sleep
enough nutrition
enough genetic potential
enough education to meet said potential
low enough stress level

etc.

Similarly to the logic below, this is undeniably more complex than all but the most accomplished can achieve so there's no reason to believe these requisites are adequate. Consider the example of IAS mentioned.

That's clearly a fallacy.

"If anesthetic were to work dentists would have been using it in the 7th century!"

Reality is that humanity learns. Your static conception of humanity is completely fallacious.

Likewise, the point is that it requires methodology of greater sophistication than stating the obvious.

 

[superstition]

Similarly to the logic below, this is undeniably more complex than all but the most accomplished can achieve so there's no reason to believe these requisites are adequate. Consider the example of IAS mentioned.

Likewise, the point is that it requires methodology of greater sophistication than stating the obvious.

I assume there is a fallacy — "If it's more difficult to achieve then it can't be done."

I never said my list is all there is. Obviously, it wasn't. But, it also did rebut the broadness of your argument:

the conditions for creative discovery aren't terribly obvious

Many conditions are obvious as my list showed. In fact, if all the obvious ones are met then that is likely to be enough to let intelligent people do their thing.

Mysticism is not a rebuttal.

There is also a difference between arguing that it's not well-known what the most optimal conditions are versus arguing that it's not known what a general range of acceptable conditions are. Optimal is always more difficult to discern than adequate.

 

[raildogg]

Humanity is destined for destruction. That is a foregone conclusion. Whether humanity ceases to exit now or 1,000 years from now is completely irrelevant on the cosmic scale.

That being said I did not mean to imply that destroying humanity is something I would want.

I am interested in what you hope to achieve by breeding humans to be smarter. For what purpose? To build bigger and better weapons to wipe out humanity? I am unaware of any link between higher intelligence and increased morality (witness the predation of bankers on the rest of society). IF you were going to breed humans (which I am against) it would seem more prudent to breed overly tolerant humans than overly intelligent humans. The biggest threat to humanity is probably the fear of the other resulting in nuclear/biological annihilation.

At least someone sees that just because there is someone of higher intellect, it doesn't mean that he is a good person. In fact, the simpler people of this planet cause the least damage to it.

Who causes more destruction to the planet?

The highly educated, sophisticated, full of them self urban elite or a villager in some remote part?

bshole, yes, we humans are tribal as ever despite our exterior polishing.

 

[agent00f]

I assume there is a fallacy — "If it's more difficult to achieve then it can't be done."

I never said my list is all there is. Obviously, it wasn't. But, it also did rebut the broadness of your argument:


Many conditions are obvious as my list showed. In fact, if all the obvious ones are met then that is likely to be enough to let intelligent people do their thing.

Mysticism is not a rebuttal.

There is also a difference between arguing that it's not well-known what the most optimal conditions are versus arguing that it's not known what a general range of acceptable conditions are. Optimal is always more difficult to discern than adequate.

The point there is that you're proclaiming to something the best & brightest pros at Princeton's own Institute for Advanced Study have only failed at. Their mission is literally just that, and decades of wide eyed optimism have produced practically nothing of note. That is a long list of their mistaken notions worth learning from.

The fallacy here is the belief you'll succeed despite far less forethought & preparation for whatever reason; namely renewed optimistic self-confidence.