Freethought & Rationalism Archive

elwoodblues · 09-28-2002, 09:30 AM

Reading through an <a href="http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/020927/72/337su.html" target="_blank">article</a> on yahoo about 'hits and misses' in technology prediction. One quote jumped out at me.

Quote:

Mr. Thurow says higher IQs and more beautiful children will be among the benefits of biotech advances. "For the first time in history, people will be able to change themselves," he says.

*goes and cries in the corner*

sweep · 09-28-2002, 09:34 AM

I wonder who funds mr thurow, and whether that is his own personal standard opinion

elwoodblues · 09-28-2002, 09:46 AM

I think it was simply more a telling slip of the tongue (both that it was said AND that it was printed) than anything intentional.

sweep · 09-28-2002, 10:07 AM

care to explain that bluesy?

elwoodblues · 09-28-2002, 10:54 AM

As much a fan as I am of science, it can sometimes get tunnel-vision pretty badly. In this instance, he was disregarding the idea that someone might train themselves to be smarter, through education or other sorts of discipline. Or that people might just take better care of their appearance to become more beautiful. I sometimes wonder about the effects of acquiring beauty and intelligence without working much to get it...

sweep · 09-28-2002, 11:14 AM

oh yeah, I see. What an asshole. Him, I mean. Training does account for a lot, genetics, only a little, hence the phenotype. As for beauty, the difference is less clear cut. One can be born ugly as mush, and never be able to do anything about it, unless...

The main downfall of this kind of technology is a striving for homogeneity of appearance/intellect, governed by mass marketting. Lets learn from micheal jackson, and see what he has to teach about falsehood, and television abstractions.

without variations in beauty/intelligence where are the standards? Who says or gets the say in what is better in terms of bettering our talents/appearance. All big business.

as far as I am concerned, difference is great. Ugly and ignorant people.. you rock- but stay outta my way, alright?

Jesse · 09-28-2002, 01:00 PM

In context, I think "people will be able to change themselves" probably just means "able to change their genes." Although the quote still wouldn't make perfect sense, since you can't "change" the genes of an adult, any changes made must be to the initial fertilized egg. I don't know what else he could mean by "biotechnology"--brain implants??

elwoodblues · 09-28-2002, 01:11 PM

Quote:

I don't know what else he could mean by "biotechnology"--brain implants??

That's probably what he was driving at, but the context of the article did NOT make that explicit.

Jesse · 09-28-2002, 02:07 PM

That might be the article-writer's fault though, not Thurow's. Anyway, isn't Lester Thurow an economist?

elwoodblues · 09-28-2002, 02:20 PM

Apparently so. I don't know what the hell they wanted scientific 'prediction' or opinion from him for.

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

09-28-2002, 09:34 AM	#2
sweep Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: sugar factory Posts: 873	I wonder who funds mr thurow, and whether that is his own personal standard opinion

09-28-2002, 09:46 AM	#3
elwoodblues Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Dunmanifestin, Discworld Posts: 4,836	I think it was simply more a telling slip of the tongue (both that it was said AND that it was printed) than anything intentional.

09-28-2002, 10:07 AM	#4
sweep Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: sugar factory Posts: 873	care to explain that bluesy?

09-28-2002, 10:54 AM	#5
elwoodblues Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Dunmanifestin, Discworld Posts: 4,836	As much a fan as I am of science, it can sometimes get tunnel-vision pretty badly. In this instance, he was disregarding the idea that someone might train themselves to be smarter, through education or other sorts of discipline. Or that people might just take better care of their appearance to become more beautiful. I sometimes wonder about the effects of acquiring beauty and intelligence without working much to get it...

09-28-2002, 11:14 AM	#6
sweep Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: sugar factory Posts: 873	oh yeah, I see. What an asshole. Him, I mean. Training does account for a lot, genetics, only a little, hence the phenotype. As for beauty, the difference is less clear cut. One can be born ugly as mush, and never be able to do anything about it, unless... The main downfall of this kind of technology is a striving for homogeneity of appearance/intellect, governed by mass marketting. Lets learn from micheal jackson, and see what he has to teach about falsehood, and television abstractions. without variations in beauty/intelligence where are the standards? Who says or gets the say in what is better in terms of bettering our talents/appearance. All big business. as far as I am concerned, difference is great. Ugly and ignorant people.. you rock- but stay outta my way, alright?

09-28-2002, 01:00 PM	#7
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	In context, I think "people will be able to change themselves" probably just means "able to change their genes." Although the quote still wouldn't make perfect sense, since you can't "change" the genes of an adult, any changes made must be to the initial fertilized egg. I don't know what else he could mean by "biotechnology"--brain implants??

09-28-2002, 02:07 PM	#9
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	That might be the article-writer's fault though, not Thurow's. Anyway, isn't Lester Thurow an economist?

09-28-2002, 02:20 PM	#10
elwoodblues Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Dunmanifestin, Discworld Posts: 4,836	Apparently so. I don't know what the hell they wanted scientific 'prediction' or opinion from him for.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.