Tom Sawyer

Christ-on-a-stick

That's a good point, as well as what davidH said about the genetic factor only giving the potential for intelligence, rather than actual intelligence.

Dictionary.com gives a definition of intelligence as: "The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.", which sounds like a pretty good starting place to me. Some people are better able than others to process data and to be able to use that data in a meaningful way (meaningful can have broad definition depending on the situation).

I don't know how much of a role genetics plays in this, but it does have at least some effect. Maximizing that potential can only bring positive consequences, regardless of how much of that potential actually gets used in life. If that technology exists, a good parent should feel obligated to use it on their children and make sure that they at least have the potential to be smarter, with all the benefits that would bring.

And davidH, don't worry, no matter how smart people are, we'll never stop doing stupid things.

christ-on-a-stick

Hi Tom, I am in agreement that the above definition is a good starting point. But in my mind, that's just the tip of the iceberg; after establishing that very broad definitition is where it gets complicated.

Some people have an extraordinary capacity to acquire particular types of knowledge but are seemingly hopeless in other areas. Some people are "generally" good at acquiring and applying all sorts of knowledge but not exceptional in any particular area. Still others don't seem to have much capacity for any kind of what we traditionally think of as knowledge, but have innate and remarkable artistic ability whether in music or drawing or writing.

Any (or all) of these people might be considered intelligent by one standard and stupid by another. Some may even be considered "stupid" by *MOST* standards and yet still possess some special talent or ability.

DavidH wrote, I generally agree with this.

Also, there is the problem of conflating intelligence with education (or rather, mistaking ignorance or lack of education for stupidity).

As for "curing ignorance" and "promoting education", I'm all for it.

avalanche:ix

i have a very vibrant personality.




ethics do not and should not come into play when technology is concerned. ethics are a completely subjective out-of-date concept that bears no relevance on reality whatsoever. like i said, if you don't like the consequence of the application of technology, go live on a desert island where you don't have to deal with it. but technology will not be held back because you or anyone else don't like the results.




irrelevant. the technology will arrive regardless. i do not seek to convince the ignorant masses. if they wish to fight against it, let them. they will be destroyed by the technological singularity anyway.

lunachick

Exactly.

Also; what makes you think enhanced intelligence doesn't allow fucked up outlooks to propogate?

lunachick

Personally, if they can do this, then they can sort out the genes for such things as addiction first, IMHO.

avalanche:ix

addiction, good.

lunachick

Huh?

Paul2

If stupidity is "cured," who will pump my gas? Seriously though.

Sarpedon

Your own lazy ass, paul. Someone earlier complained about elitism. I would like to point out that there is an elite, and the only way to get rid of it is to make everyone equal. If it is possible to make everyone smart, wonderful! That would go a long way to eliminating elitism.

Mageth

Someone earlier complained about elitism. I would like to point out that there is an elite, and the only way to get rid of it is to make everyone equal. If it is possible to make everyone smart, wonderful! That would go a long way to eliminating elitism.

Umm, the "elitism" I alluded to was in regards to avalanche:ix's comment that expressed his elitist attitude that his opinion on this issue is right and anyone who disagrees with him can "go live on some deserted island where you don't have to deal with technology," and had nothing to do with comparative intelligence.