Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tom Sawyer · 03-04-2003, 09:05 AM

James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA has just made an interesting point in this article:

Stupidity Should Be Cured

Basically, he says that low intelligence is a genetic disorder and molecular biologists should work towards eliminating it.

I find myself agreeing with him. If we can figure out what makes people smart, wouldn't parents having a new child be obligated to make sure that the child is as intelligent as they can, in order to give that child as many opportunities in life as possible? The same way that people advocate reading to young children and buying them toys that are intellectually stimulating, wouldn't giving them an injection in the womb to maximize their brain power (assuming that this procedure is proven to be safe) be the kind of thing that is expected of good parents?

I am somewhat uncomfortable with the concept of gentically modifying children, but it seems to me that intelligence is one area where it should be seen as socially acceptable and desirable.

Ronin · 03-04-2003, 09:07 AM

Check your spelling and then submit yourself to your local stormtrooper for prompt destruction.

Mageth · 03-04-2003, 10:03 AM

James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA...

Give credit where credit is due. Watson and Crick unravelled DNA's structure. Friedrich Meischer discovered DNA, some 80 years before Watson and Crick's work.

avalanche:ix · 03-04-2003, 11:36 AM

absolutely, i agree. that's why i'm a transhumanist. ofcourse, i'd go further and give them additional useful organs like, gills, some sort of pollution filter, increased muscle efficiency and other such things.

as for people who disagree, (edited by moderator to delete insulting language) go live on some deserted island where you don't have to deal with technology.

Mageth · 03-04-2003, 11:49 AM

as for people who disagree, (edited by moderator to delete quote of insulting language), go live on some deserted island where you don't have to deal with technology.

Perhaps genetically modifying children to eliminate intolerant, elitist attitudes such as this would be socially acceptable and desirable, as well.

davidH · 03-04-2003, 11:49 AM

It's not quite as simple as that.

It's often stated that the DNA is what makes us who we are - the environment we live in plays a massive part. Simply altering the genetic code for more intelligence - only gives the person more potential for becoming more intelligent.

But in anycase there are a lot of people of lesser intelligence that are completely content and are a lot happier than a lot of people of higher intelligence.

I would not like everyone to be of higher intelligence, the world could become a dull place - less laughs and stupidity going on!

Nah, leave things the way they are - mixed gives you the best of both sides. There's nothing in being of lower intelligence that makes the world a worse place -it's your outlook on life that determines this.

In anycase, it is science fiction - we are no-where near that stage and in all likely hood will not be in our lifetimes.

avalanche:ix · 03-04-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Perhaps genetically modifying children to eliminate intolerant, elitist attitudes such as this would be socially acceptable and desirable, as well.

look, i'm not the one being intolerant. if people don't want to genetically engineer themselves, fine by me. i just have a problem with the intolerant fucks who go around trying to get genetic engineering and other similar practices banned because *they* happen to think it's wrong.

but if you want to become obsolete because you have problems with technology, that's fine by me.

avalanche:ix · 03-04-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

But in anycase there are a lot of people of lesser intelligence that are completely content and are a lot happier than a lot of people of higher intelligence.

they're also often completely incapable of surviving without supervision. besides, what kind of argument is that?! "oh, stupid people are often happier than smart people, so i want my kids to be stupid".

you give them the best tools they could possibly have. besides, if you can enhance intelligence through genetic engineering, i'm sure you can enhance emotional stability too, at least at one point down the road. nope, doesn't fly that particular argument.

Quote:

I would not like everyone to be of higher intelligence, the world could become a dull place - less laughs and stupidity going on!

so because you don't want it nobody can?

[quote]Nah, leave things the way they are - mixed gives you the best of both sides.[ /quote]

you mean like down syndrome and sociopaths?

Quote:

There's nothing in being of lower intelligence that makes the world a worse place -it's your outlook on life that determines this.

what makes you think stupidity doesn't allow fucked up outlooks to propogate?

Quote:

In anycase, it is science fiction - we are no-where near that stage and in all likely hood will not be in our lifetimes.

okay, this is just blatantly wrong. i don't know how long you expect to live, but it can't be particularly long if you think this is that way off. hell, if the current scientific and technological progress keeps up, in twenty years we'll have nanites, quantum computers, sentient a.i, some reaaaaly advanced cybernetics and the ability to grant ourselves immortality through genetic tampering.

if you think this won't happen within our lifetime, you're out of touch with the developments. just another typical uninformed doomsayer.

christ-on-a-stick · 03-04-2003, 12:19 PM

If you please,

For purposes of this discussion -

Define "intelligence" precisely and explicitly.
Define "stupidity" precisely and explicitly.

(LOL Ronin.

)

Mageth · 03-04-2003, 12:25 PM

look, i'm not the one being intolerant.

That's hard to tell, with comments like "fuck you, go live on a deserted island" and "intolerant fucks" in your posts.

if people don't want to genetically engineer themselves, fine by me. i just have a problem with the intolerant fucks who go around trying to get genetic engineering and other similar practices banned because *they* happen to think it's wrong.

but if you want to become obsolete because you have problems with technology, that's fine by me.

FYI, I happen to be generally in favor of genetic engineering, cloning research, stem cell research, etc., and strongly disagree with the (religious) moral arguments against them. That doesn't mean that there aren't serious ethical questions that should be raised and discussed in all of these areas, and in technological advances in general (including the ethical questions raised by the potential of genetically enhancing intelligence). We should not make use of technology just because we can without seriously considering the potential consequences of applying the technology.

We need to discuss these ethical issues rationally and tolerantly. Labeling those who question the morals/ethics of such technology as "intolerant fucks" and recommending they move to a deserted island is not going to help in any way. Indeed, it only serves to harm any rational arguments you might wish to make in favor of such technological advances.

03-04-2003, 09:05 AM	#1
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	Should stupidity be cured? James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA has just made an interesting point in this article: Stupidity Should Be Cured Basically, he says that low intelligence is a genetic disorder and molecular biologists should work towards eliminating it. I find myself agreeing with him. If we can figure out what makes people smart, wouldn't parents having a new child be obligated to make sure that the child is as intelligent as they can, in order to give that child as many opportunities in life as possible? The same way that people advocate reading to young children and buying them toys that are intellectually stimulating, wouldn't giving them an injection in the womb to maximize their brain power (assuming that this procedure is proven to be safe) be the kind of thing that is expected of good parents? I am somewhat uncomfortable with the concept of gentically modifying children, but it seems to me that intelligence is one area where it should be seen as socially acceptable and desirable.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-04-2003, 09:07 AM	#2
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	Check your spelling and then submit yourself to your local stormtrooper for prompt destruction.

03-04-2003, 10:03 AM	#3
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA... Give credit where credit is due. Watson and Crick unravelled DNA's structure. Friedrich Meischer discovered DNA, some 80 years before Watson and Crick's work.

03-04-2003, 11:36 AM	#4
avalanche:ix Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Sin Capital, earth: (Amsterdam) Posts: 104	absolutely, i agree. that's why i'm a transhumanist. ofcourse, i'd go further and give them additional useful organs like, gills, some sort of pollution filter, increased muscle efficiency and other such things. as for people who disagree, (edited by moderator to delete insulting language) go live on some deserted island where you don't have to deal with technology.

03-04-2003, 11:49 AM	#5
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	as for people who disagree, (edited by moderator to delete quote of insulting language), go live on some deserted island where you don't have to deal with technology. Perhaps genetically modifying children to eliminate intolerant, elitist attitudes such as this would be socially acceptable and desirable, as well.

03-04-2003, 11:49 AM	#6
davidH Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: N.Ireland Posts: 527	It's not quite as simple as that. It's often stated that the DNA is what makes us who we are - the environment we live in plays a massive part. Simply altering the genetic code for more intelligence - only gives the person more potential for becoming more intelligent. But in anycase there are a lot of people of lesser intelligence that are completely content and are a lot happier than a lot of people of higher intelligence. I would not like everyone to be of higher intelligence, the world could become a dull place - less laughs and stupidity going on! Nah, leave things the way they are - mixed gives you the best of both sides. There's nothing in being of lower intelligence that makes the world a worse place -it's your outlook on life that determines this. In anycase, it is science fiction - we are no-where near that stage and in all likely hood will not be in our lifetimes.

03-04-2003, 12:19 PM	#9
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	If you please, For purposes of this discussion - Define "intelligence" precisely and explicitly. Define "stupidity" precisely and explicitly. (LOL Ronin. )

03-04-2003, 12:25 PM	#10
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	look, i'm not the one being intolerant. That's hard to tell, with comments like "fuck you, go live on a deserted island" and "intolerant fucks" in your posts. if people don't want to genetically engineer themselves, fine by me. i just have a problem with the intolerant fucks who go around trying to get genetic engineering and other similar practices banned because they happen to think it's wrong. but if you want to become obsolete because you have problems with technology, that's fine by me. FYI, I happen to be generally in favor of genetic engineering, cloning research, stem cell research, etc., and strongly disagree with the (religious) moral arguments against them. That doesn't mean that there aren't serious ethical questions that should be raised and discussed in all of these areas, and in technological advances in general (including the ethical questions raised by the potential of genetically enhancing intelligence). We should not make use of technology just because we can without seriously considering the potential consequences of applying the technology. We need to discuss these ethical issues rationally and tolerantly. Labeling those who question the morals/ethics of such technology as "intolerant fucks" and recommending they move to a deserted island is not going to help in any way. Indeed, it only serves to harm any rational arguments you might wish to make in favor of such technological advances.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.