[Soma]

China continues on its path, for better or worse, towards global dominance:

Quote:

At BGI Shenzhen, scientists have collected DNA samples from 2,000 of the world’s smartest people and are sequencing their entire genomes in an attempt to identify the alleles which determine human intelligence. Apparently they’re not far from finding them, and when they do, embryo screening will allow parents to pick their brightest zygote and potentially bump up every generation's intelligence by five to 15 IQ points. Within a couple of generations, competing with the Chinese on an intellectual level will be like challenging [RVF celebrity] Lena Dunham to a getting-naked-on-TV contest.

Quote:

What does that mean in human language?
Any given couple could potentially have several eggs fertilized in the lab with the dad’s sperm and the mom’s eggs. Then you can test multiple embryos and analyze which one’s going to be the smartest. That kid would belong to that couple as if they had it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple would be able to produce if they had 100 kids. It’s not genetic engineering or adding new genes, it’s the genes that couples already have.

Story.

[Pacesetter20]

Nice scary propeganda story. If as good as advertised, there is no reason to believe they would be able to keep it for themselves.

[Tex Pro]

Only a matter of time until someone tried it. This idea is straight out of the movie Gattaca.

I remember reading about the Chinese embarking on a quest to find the genes involved in intelligence. It figures the reason they want to find these genes is to engage in genetic engineering.

[Soma]

(03-16-2013 07:30 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

Nice scary propeganda story. If as good as advertised, there is no reason to believe they would be able to keep it for themselves.

Straw man argument: The article indicates that they are nearing completion of the research stage, and nowhere does it say they are trying to "keep it for themselves." The West is ideologically opposed to doing such things whereas China has no such qualms. It's not a question of technological capability.

[Lemmo]

Good stuff. Too late for us but hopefully only a few more generations of people with shitty genes.

[storm]

On the surface it sounds very promising. One can only hope that it actually is.

[Belgrano]

Interesting article, thanks for the link soma.
I´ve always been supportive of transhumanist ideas, so it´s nice to see that someone is willing to allow the necessary research. Unfortunately it´s still a taboo in Europe and I guess also the States, there´s often the thought of Nazi Germany´s eugenic program lingering in people´s minds. The Chinese however have a different set of values and ethics, and not the worst one in my opinion. From the article:

Quote:

Why not?
We have ideological biases that say, “Well, this could be troubling, we shouldn’t be meddling with nature, we shouldn’t be meddling with God.” I just attended a debate in New York a few weeks ago about whether or not we should outlaw genetic engineering in babies and the audience was pretty split. In China, 95 percent of an audience would say, “Obviously you should make babies genetically healthier, happier, and brighter!” There’s a big cultural difference.

Having just returned from a month-long trip to China I´m pretty sure 95% is an underestimation. If we don´t catch up in time this would just be another development where the Chinese outperform us. Well, at least we are fading away from history in a virtuous way. Others would say complacent and self-righteous...

[Pacesetter20]

(03-16-2013 07:47 AM)Soma Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 07:30 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

Nice scary propeganda story. If as good as advertised, there is no reason to believe they would be able to keep it for themselves.

Straw man argument: The article indicates that they are nearing completion of the research stage, and nowhere does it say they are trying to "keep it for themselves." The West is ideologically opposed to doing such things whereas China has no such qualms. It's not a question of technological capability.

Assuming that intelligence (IQ) is the end all be all for a sucessful populace/nation. For all you know, this will produce a nation of hyperintelligent, lazy, weakling, socially awkward nerds.

Plus the sheer cost of implementing this on a national scale (to have any sizeable/noticable impact) would bankrupt any country, particularly the largest one on the planet.

I just dont see how this is going to help China any more than any other nation.

[clever alias]

china already has more engineers and scientists than they know what to do with. the best and brightest chinese go to the west

[Zebra_Cakes]

If anything, this will become a procedure for the wealthiest individuals to ensure that their offspring are superior. I don't think this will result in much change.

[le prince perdu]

I don't think it is that simple to create geniuses

- Imagination is the most important pillar of a genius brain; we do not know where Imagination come from and as far as I know there is no proof that it is passed on genetically.
- The I.Q of the human brain cannot be improved so dramaticaly in such a short amount of time. Children of bright people will probably be bright, but there is no proof that their brain raw power will be a step higher than their parents.
Enstein's kids had Enstein has a teacher, possessed his genes but did not come up with anything a step higher.

I like the idea, it could revolutionize the world but we don't know enough about human ingenuity And usually working with the unknown ends up as a failure.

[Kitsune]

Jewish communities have inadvertently done this for centuries, hence their comparatively high-IQ's per person.

But don't say this on an HBD forum, because they get mightily upset.

[zwyjibo]

Eugenics was alive and well in the US until the end of WWII when the public came to know the full extent of what the Nazis had done in their camps. Buck v. Bell is the seminal US Supreme Court case on the issue, which approved of mandatory sterilization for the mentally disabled on the premise that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." These kinds of practices were completely eliminated by the early to mid 1970s (some rural areas took longer than others), but Buck v. Bell has never been directly overturned.

(03-16-2013 08:18 AM)Celtic_Austrian Wrote:  

Interesting article, thanks for the link soma.
I´ve always been supportive of transhumanist ideas, so it´s nice to see that someone is willing to allow the necessary research. Unfortunately it´s still a taboo in Europe and I guess also the States, there´s often the thought of Nazi Germany´s eugenic program lingering in people´s minds. The Chinese however have a different set of values and ethics, and not the worst one in my opinion. From the article:

Quote:

Why not?
We have ideological biases that say, “Well, this could be troubling, we shouldn’t be meddling with nature, we shouldn’t be meddling with God.” I just attended a debate in New York a few weeks ago about whether or not we should outlaw genetic engineering in babies and the audience was pretty split. In China, 95 percent of an audience would say, “Obviously you should make babies genetically healthier, happier, and brighter!” There’s a big cultural difference.

Having just returned from a month-long trip to China I´m pretty sure 95% is an underestimation. If we don´t catch up in time this would just be another development where the Chinese outperform us. Well, at least we are fading away from history in a virtuous way. Others would say complacent and self-righteous...

[zwyjibo]

Lack of genetic diversity creates a lot of problems, though. Jewish communities, especially from Ashkenazi backgrounds, are much more likely to have problems with Crohn's Disease and Tay-Sachs.

(03-16-2013 10:16 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  

Jewish communities have inadvertently done this for centuries, hence their comparatively high-IQ's per person.

But don't say this on an HBD forum, because they get mightily upset.

[Menace]

Man forget IQ, can we engineer people to have gills? I know wings are probably impractical, but gills seem doable.

[polymath]

(03-16-2013 10:41 AM)Menace Wrote:  

Man forget IQ, can we engineer people to have gills? I know wings are probably impractical, but gills seem doable.

I think we can all agree that gills would be sick.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

It would be nice to finally have China develop a superior new tech and other nations rip it off for a change*

* = discounting gunpowder and papyrus, of course

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(03-16-2013 10:45 AM)polymath Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 10:41 AM)Menace Wrote:  

Man forget IQ, can we engineer people to have gills? I know wings are probably impractical, but gills seem doable.

I think we can all agree that gills would be sick.

Naaah.... you'd still get crushed by water pressure, so additional evolutions would be needed too.

[Menace]

(03-16-2013 11:02 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 10:45 AM)polymath Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 10:41 AM)Menace Wrote:  

Man forget IQ, can we engineer people to have gills? I know wings are probably impractical, but gills seem doable.

I think we can all agree that gills would be sick.

Naaah.... you'd still get crushed by water pressure, so additional evolutions would be needed too.

I don't wanna dive down 2 miles, I just want to go down 100 feet. No special pressure equipment needed for that.

[Samseau]

(03-16-2013 10:41 AM)Menace Wrote:  

Man forget IQ, can we engineer people to have gills? I know wings are probably impractical, but gills seem doable.

Think of all the underwater farming, and underwater communities that would result!

[scorpion]

People saying this wouldn't be that big of a deal don't understand the importance of IQ/general intelligence factor (g) for determining life outcomes. There is literally no better way to predict a person's relative success or failure in life than by measuring their IQ. Individually, of course, there is always variation - but over the entire population, the correlation is remarkably clear. A high IQ massively lowers a person's risks for things like going to jail, having children out of wedlock and becoming addicted to drugs.

A nation that could raise its average IQ score by a standard deviation would benefit immeasurably simply by having much fewer fuckups walking around demanding an outsized share of society's resources (i.e. prison spending, welfare, drugs, preventable health problems, etc...)

[Samseau]

Nah Scorp, you know why that's all bullshit?

Because today's economy is a zero sum game. If everyone had an IQ of 130, then the competition for jobs would just be that much more intense. Guys competing for McDonald's jobs by seeing who can flip over the most McPatties after building their own Patty flipping machines.

The reason high IQ guys live better lives is because their intelligence allows them to be of greater use to the dumber masses.

[OkStudies]

(03-16-2013 02:09 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

People saying this wouldn't be that big of a deal don't understand the importance of IQ/general intelligence factor (g) for determining life outcomes. There is literally no better way to predict a person's relative success or failure in life than by measuring their IQ. Individually, of course, there is always variation - but over the entire population, the correlation is remarkably clear. A high IQ massively lowers a person's risks for things like going to jail, having children out of wedlock and becoming addicted to drugs.

A nation that could raise its average IQ score by a standard deviation would benefit immeasurably simply by having much fewer fuckups walking around demanding an outsized share of society's resources (i.e. prison spending, welfare, drugs, preventable health problems, etc...)

My brother (and myself) is a college graduate (economics) and has a high IQ. Fucked up in every single way from your examples (jail, child out of wedlock, drugs etc).

Everything is not set in stone. You have to take into account free-will, personal choices, values, beliefs, etc.

Actually the best predictor of success is not IQ but willpower and persistence.

http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/11/secret...giving-up/

[MrXY]

Eugenics is the future

[le prince perdu]

(03-16-2013 03:31 PM)OkStudies Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 02:09 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

People saying this wouldn't be that big of a deal don't understand the importance of IQ/general intelligence factor (g) for determining life outcomes. There is literally no better way to predict a person's relative success or failure in life than by measuring their IQ. Individually, of course, there is always variation - but over the entire population, the correlation is remarkably clear. A high IQ massively lowers a person's risks for things like going to jail, having children out of wedlock and becoming addicted to drugs.

A nation that could raise its average IQ score by a standard deviation would benefit immeasurably simply by having much fewer fuckups walking around demanding an outsized share of society's resources (i.e. prison spending, welfare, drugs, preventable health problems, etc...)

My brother (and myself) is a college graduate (economics) and has a high IQ. Fucked up in every single way from your examples (jail, child out of wedlock, drugs etc).

Everything is not set in stone. You have to take into account free-will, personal choices, values, beliefs, etc.

Actually the best predictor of success is not IQ but willpower and persistence.

http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/11/secret...giving-up/

I totally agree with you

Willpower,persistence and organized effort are better predictors of a person's success than his I.Q.