I know. It's just the idea of a governemnt making decisions regarding my IQ gives me the heebiejeebies. Let's pray it'll stay hypothetical for many many many years. If only because when everyone has a high IQ, what would the fun of a TV quiz be?
Naj
Another factor to consider, is whether, or not 'intelligence' is a benefit to an individual, or society.
The happiest people you are ever likely to meet, are the mentally 'challenged' (hate that term!).
Only if their lack of mental agility is rubbed in their faces do they become somewhat morose about life; generally they are 'up', and 'giggly' all the time.
Whereas, the more one understands about the social problems inflicting our planet, and the more capable one is of seeing the degree to which these problems are ingrained in the fabric of our lives, the less one is able to offhandly enjoy 'indulgence', and vacuous pleasure.
Who then, has the best outlook?
interesting point... Of course, with all due respect to these people, the fact that they are not capable or not interested in the problems facing our world does not make said problems go away...
Does for them!
What else matters, in that scenario?
Well, expanding your scenario a bit, you agree with me these people need help in order to continue to exist, right?
So who would feed them if everybody was like them? I'm sure the entire planet would be deliriously happy for a couple of months or even a year, but I fear that there won't be anybody left after that ;-)
Of course, the scenario does have that 'carefree'going for it ;-)
Sounds better to me, than the way it's probably going to end!
The State has no right to modify the brains of individuals, but it also has no right to prohibit individuals from enhancing their own intelligence or the intelligence of their children if it can be done safely with drugs or genetic engineering.
IMO, the State prefers not to have too many intelligent citizens running around to question its policies. A few scientists and engineers are needed to improve weapons systems and technology, but most citizens need only be smart enough to do their jobs and vote as they are told.
I don;t feel parents have the right to raise the IQ of their children without their consent. The children are the ones that have to live with the new IQ for the rest of their lives!
Otherwise, I'm firmly in favor of the adage that everyone is master over his own body. So if someone wants to enhance their IQ by any other means than education, it's up to them.
najmelliw, by your standards, parents would have to get the consent of a child before it was even conceived if intelligence could be raised through genetic engineering!
My guess is that even with "smart pills," brains would have to be modified fairly early in the growth process to in order to make any significant change in intelligence, long before they are old enough to decide anything for themselves. Children are inflicted with genetic and drug-induced handicaps without their consent, so why should parents have to ask before making them smarter?
How can someone consent to having their IQ raised if they are too stupid to understand the ramifications?
I know I'm a bit extreme where things like this are concerned, but I have seen (not that it happened to me, but close friends, mind you) what good willing parents can do to their children.
Let's say said procedures become 99,99% relaible. That still means 1 in the 10.000 babies that will not be helped by said engineering. Instead, it'll be debilitated. It would then be forced to lead the rest of his/her life that way because of a decision the parents made before he was concented.
And even in the best possible case, it still looks as parents changing their kids themselves according to their wishes how the perfect child should look/be. Without the kids consent.
The same thing can be said about the state then, as a mother hen trying to help their subjects without thier consent.
And kidss cannot dispose of their parents the way adults can, if necessary, dispose of the state...
Naj
As far as stupidity goes, one can wait until the child reaches a certasin age before asking if (s)he consents...
Hi BoGoWo,
Are you going to the Transhumanist Conference?
http://transhumanism.org/tv/2004/
first i'v heard of it, to be honest; i will look into it - right up my alley, it would seem!
Thanks for the link.
If you do attend, tell us about it. I'd like to know if it turns out to be a 'Raelian' thing.
limbodog wrote:If we were all really smart, who would serve us french fries?
The liberal arts majors. Duh.
rufio wrote:limbodog wrote:If we were all really smart, who would serve us french fries?
The liberal arts majors. Duh.
So you're saying it could be done, but it wouldn't change anything.
Hmm... And sanitation would fall under? What category? Philosophy students? I know there are people out there who believe philosophers sprout only garbage anyway...
the dimensionality of intelligence
One of the difficulties here is that intelligence exists in a "N-space" where N>>1 (i.e., it cannot be measured by one number, because intelligence has many facets).
Simple example: my older brother has two boys. The first, by traditional measures, is a genius (reading before 3-yrs-old, etc), the second is not. However, the first is NOT clever with people (i.e., "emotional intelligence"). The second is.
Unfortunately, the people developing intelligence tests (whether consciously or unconsciously) naturally impose a bias on which facets of intelligence are "important", and typically the facets that they choose are those facets that they (personally) excel in. The result (can be) a positive-feedback situation in which the definition of intelligence converges on something like a computer -- in spite of the fact that we know computers to be less intelligent than cucumbers.
