Future of human genetic engineering, class divides, and race divides

[ApostateAbe]

Regardless of current popular beliefs, we are on course for a sharp clash with reality. As much we may believe that intelligence has nothing to do with genetics, the science is plain, and psychologists who specialize in intelligence are nearly unanimous on the point that intelligence variations among humans really are mostly genetic. And, further, it is agreed that intelligence is a strong causal force in academic and economic success. This means: Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime, but breed a man to fish and so will his children.

Breeding for quality, however, is slow and outmoded. It is the dawn of the age of genetic engineering. It has already proved to be a valuable technology for agriculture, but what happens when the technology is applied to the human stock? There are excessive hysterics over the genetic engineering of livestock, but hysterics over human genetic engineering have some good points. The genes for intelligence have not yet been discovered, as their discoveries require sample sizes of analyzed genes and IQ scores in the tens of thousands, but those genes will be fully catalogued in a short matter of time (the human genome was sequenced only 12 years ago), which will open the door for genetic engineering of intelligence.

Human genetic engineering has been criminally outlawed in much of the world, but the research cannot be stopped, just as you cannot stop a journal from publishing what it takes to synthesize an addictive drug. And it takes only one rogue nation to pick up this research and apply it to (1) enhance the intelligence of their aristocratic class, (2) enhance the intelligence of their scientific and engineering classes, and (3) sell their genetic engineering services to rich foreigners. "Only two hundred thousand US dollars for each extra IQ point of your child, guaranteed. You want a smart kid? How about dazzlingly brilliant? You want Mensa? Mensa is for losers. How about Mega Society?" For anyone rich and realistic, it is a difficult offer to refuse.

This will add an extra dimension to existing class conflicts anywhere in the world. The rich already tend to have high IQs, but this will increase the IQ gap further. Only a few of the rich will have their children intellectually enhanced, but the genes of those children will mix with the remainder of the upper class, as the upper class has always tended to mate within their own class.

This will apply not only to the class IQ gap but to the race IQ gap. Denialism about the racial IQ gap is driven by the moralistic fallacy (ought = is), but the denialism will look ridiculous with full genetic research and genetic engineering. And the racial IQ gap will be widened further, NOT because genes for intelligence have any connection to genes for skin color, but because the rich are mainly white, Asian and Jewish, those races are much more likely to have genetically engineered children, and they will breed mainly with their own respective race. The genes for brilliant IQs will trickle more into the races of existing high IQs and trickle less into the lower-IQ races. This and the common recognition of genetic racial differences in IQ will further inflame racial tensions. Blacks will see whites as Frankenstein's monsters with the genes for evil madness, and whites will revert to the pre-MLK belief that blacks are genetically unfit and deserving of their poverty.

So, how do we prepare? Not with current laws. I propose that we (1) legalize genetic engineering of humans, and (2) subsidize genetic engineering for the lower classes.

The upper classes will pay full price for genetically-engineered children, but the children of the poor lowest-IQ parents will be given brilliance at the expense of taxpayers. Further, charities employing pro-bono genetic engineers and technicians will provide genetic enhancements at low cost for the taxpayers and poor clients. There will still be a class divide (such children will not remain in the lower classes) but not as much of a race divide.

Being more hopeful, it may be the only way to completely eliminate the race divide.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

1.) Genetic Engineering is legal in humans.
2.) What exactly is intelligence? And how do you accurately measure it without racial or socioeconomic bias? What traits would you select for? As our current "brilliant" crop the get into he top schools are selected not on genetic ability, but on years of training and support and complete conformity to others who push them and can afford to pay for tutors etc. Many of the top students are not wanted by employers because they don't know how to think strategically and are void of the ability to constructively dissent.

 

[dismal]

I think if humnas get good at genetic engineering the first priority will be hotness.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Who said intelligence has nothing to do with genetics? The perceived and even wished for connection between the social construct of race and intelligence has historically again and again been shown as bogus, but genetics and race are not the same thing.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Nice Squirrel, I found an overview of the laws against genetic engineering here:

http://www.dnapolicy.org/policy.international.php?action=showall

No law to criminalize it in the USA (good to know) but a law to prevent the federal funding of it.

Intelligence is best measured by IQ. The SAT is not an IQ test but is still highly g-loaded (to use psychometric terminology), which means it has a strong relationship to IQ, and almost all college admissions offices place considerable weight on it. Employers most certainly care about academic accomplishment, as it is strongly predictive of productivity, regardless of what you may have read in popular business news or whatever. Any typical employer would be a fool not place greater weight on an applicant with a master's degree instead of high school diploma. I know from my own job about who tends to be productive and who doesn't, who gets laid off and who doesn't.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I think if humnas get good at genetic engineering the first priority will be hotness.

Indubitably my dear boy. Indubitably.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Nice Squirrel, I found an overview of the laws against genetic engineering here:

http://www.dnapolicy.org/policy.international.php?action=showall

No law to criminalize it in the USA (good to know) but a law to prevent the federal funding of it.

Intelligence is best measured by IQ. The SAT is not an IQ test but is still highly g-loaded (to use psychometric terminology), which means it has a strong relationship to IQ, and almost all college admissions offices place considerable weight on it. Employers most certainly care about academic accomplishment, as it is strongly predictive of productivity, regardless of what you may have read in popular business news or whatever. Any typical employer would be a fool not place greater weight on an applicant with a master's degree instead of high school diploma. I know from my own job about who tends to be productive and who doesn't, who gets laid off and who doesn't.

In your own words, what is IQ and what is g?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm highly skeptical of any selection of IQ measures as I see success in individuals (in my profession) as more of a measure of personality and social/environmental surroundings rather than arbitrary measures of intelligence.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Who said intelligence has nothing to do with genetics? The perceived and even wished for connection between the social construct of race and intelligence has historically again and again been shown as bogus, but genetics and race are not the same thing.

Both race and intelligence are targets of popular denialism, but both are biological, as the evidence has become absolutely resistant to informed denial. The biology of race is popularly disputed but not disputed among evolutionary biologists, as it is established by genetics (though they may say "ethnicity" or "geographic ancestry" instead of "race"). And the biology of intelligence is popularly disputed but not disputed among psychologists, as it is established with strong IQ correlations in studies of heritability. The genetic explanation of the racial IQ gap is disputed among the relevant researchers, but not as much as you may expect. Arthur Jensen is the scientific figure most credited with defending the genetic explanation of the racial IQ gap. In 2006, he was awarded the first lifetime achievement award by the International Society for Intelligence Research, the only professional academic society for psychologists who specialize in intelligence (not that this makes Jensen's views correct).

 

[Jayjay]

I think the same thing that makes breeding time-consuming also makes testing results of genetic engineering time-consuming: you might identify a gene for intelligence, but only way to validate the hypothesis and ensure there aren't unwanted side effects is to apply it and wait until the kids grow up so you can test them. Plus, you'd have a harder time finding people who'd want their kids to be experimental.... even rich people might want their kids to be smarter than average, rich people themselves also have a very high opinion of their own intelligence, so I don't see them flocking to experimental genetic treatments that may or may not increase intelligence.

I think the process will start with identifying and replacing genes associated with hereditary diseases. When that becomes commonplace, those wo can afford it will look into positive improvements. But it will take a relatively long time still.

 

[ksen]

Denialism about the racial IQ gap is driven by the moralistic fallacy (ought = is), but the denialism will look ridiculous with full genetic research and genetic engineering.

I agree that something is looking ridiculous.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Who said intelligence has nothing to do with genetics? The perceived and even wished for connection between the social construct of race and intelligence has historically again and again been shown as bogus, but genetics and race are not the same thing.

Both race and intelligence are targets of popular denialism, but both are biological, as the evidence has become absolutely resistant to informed denial. The biology of race is popularly disputed but not disputed among evolutionary biologists, as it is established by genetics (though they may say "ethnicity" or "geographic ancestry" instead of "race"). And the biology of intelligence is popularly disputed but not disputed among psychologists, as it is established with strong IQ correlations in studies of heritability. The genetic explanation of the racial IQ gap is disputed among the relevant researchers, but not as much as you may expect. Arthur Jensen is the scientific figure most credited with defending the genetic explanation of the racial IQ gap. In 2006, he was awarded the first lifetime achievement award by the International Society for Intelligence Research, the only professional academic society for psychologists who specialize in intelligence (not that this makes Jensen's views correct).

Which is to say what?

What is race?
What is IQ?

(BTW, anyone who is on the  Pioneer Fund payroll will be treated as suspect as a source)

 

[ApostateAbe]

Nice Squirrel, I found an overview of the laws against genetic engineering here:

http://www.dnapolicy.org/policy.international.php?action=showall

No law to criminalize it in the USA (good to know) but a law to prevent the federal funding of it.

Intelligence is best measured by IQ. The SAT is not an IQ test but is still highly g-loaded (to use psychometric terminology), which means it has a strong relationship to IQ, and almost all college admissions offices place considerable weight on it. Employers most certainly care about academic accomplishment, as it is strongly predictive of productivity, regardless of what you may have read in popular business news or whatever. Any typical employer would be a fool not place greater weight on an applicant with a master's degree instead of high school diploma. I know from my own job about who tends to be productive and who doesn't, who gets laid off and who doesn't.

In your own words, what is IQ and what is g?

g is the starting point. "g" stands for "general intelligence", and it is the common statistical factor of many types of intelligence tests. People who score highly on some types of tests likewise tend to score highly on other types of tests, converse is true for low scorers, which means a correlation among tests. The higher the g-loading of a test, the more likely the score of the test is to match the percentiles of other tests taken by the same testee. IQ tests, then, are designed to maximize the g-loading, in part by controlling for age, holding IQ constant with age, though raw intelligence increases up until about age 28 and decreases after that.

 

[ksen]

So much to say with so few links to evidence to back it up.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In your own words, what is IQ and what is g?

g is the starting point. "g" stands for "general intelligence", and it is the common statistical factor of many types of intelligence tests. People who score highly on some types of tests likewise tend to score highly on other types of tests, converse is true for low scorers, which means a correlation among tests. The higher the g-loading of a test, the more likely the score of the test is to match the percentiles of other tests taken by the same testee. IQ tests, then, are designed to maximize the g-loading, in part by controlling for age, holding IQ constant with age, though raw intelligence increases up until about age 28 and decreases after that.

So tests agree with each other and the tests are loaded with g.

Is that it?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What are the characteristics of race? Have these characteristics held constant over the years spent studying race? What changes, if any, have occurred and why?
What are the characteristics of g? Have these characteristics held constant over the years spent studying g? What changes, if any, have occurred and why?

- - - Updated - - -

BTW

Race: The Power of an Illusion

 

[ApostateAbe]

Both race and intelligence are targets of popular denialism, but both are biological, as the evidence has become absolutely resistant to informed denial. The biology of race is popularly disputed but not disputed among evolutionary biologists, as it is established by genetics (though they may say "ethnicity" or "geographic ancestry" instead of "race"). And the biology of intelligence is popularly disputed but not disputed among psychologists, as it is established with strong IQ correlations in studies of heritability. The genetic explanation of the racial IQ gap is disputed among the relevant researchers, but not as much as you may expect. Arthur Jensen is the scientific figure most credited with defending the genetic explanation of the racial IQ gap. In 2006, he was awarded the first lifetime achievement award by the International Society for Intelligence Research, the only professional academic society for psychologists who specialize in intelligence (not that this makes Jensen's views correct).

Which is to say what?

What is race?
What is IQ?

(BTW, anyone who is on the  Pioneer Fund payroll will be treated as suspect as a source)

I am not paid by the Pioneer Fund, so I will use my own words (not that you should trust me). A "race" is a subset of a species with a tendency of a common geographic ancestry. Members of a race tend to have genetic frequencies more in common with members of their own race and less in common with members of other races. The concept of race is an essential component of evolutionarily theory, as evolutionary divergence and speciation would be impossible without it. I use the words "tend" and "frequencies" to distinguish it from how race is conceptualized among ideologues. There are no discrete absolute boundaries among the races, but it is all spectral, as breeds of dogs.

 

[ApostateAbe]

So much to say with so few links to evidence to back it up.

I don't mean to deprive you of sources. If you want to look up a source for what I am saying, then specify, and I will be happy to provide a source.

 

[ksen]

So much to say with so few links to evidence to back it up.

I don't mean to deprive you of sources. If you want to look up a source for what I am saying, then specify, and I will be happy to provide a source.

Ok, let's start with this one:

Regardless of current popular beliefs, we are on course for a sharp clash with reality. As much we may believe that intelligence has nothing to do with genetics, the science is plain, and psychologists who specialize in intelligence are nearly unanimous on the point that intelligence variations among humans really are mostly genetic.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Which is to say what?

What is race?
What is IQ?

(BTW, anyone who is on the  Pioneer Fund payroll will be treated as suspect as a source)

I am not paid by the Pioneer Fund, so I will use my own words (not that you should trust me). A "race" is a subset of a species with a tendency of a common geographic ancestry. Members of a race tend to have genetic frequencies more in common with members of their own race and less in common with members of other races. The concept of race is an essential component of evolutionarily theory, as evolutionary divergence and speciation would be impossible without it. I use the words "tend" and "frequencies" to distinguish it from how race is conceptualized among ideologues. There are no discrete absolute boundaries among the races, but it is all spectral, as breeds of dogs.

Your teachers did tell you back in grade school that you aren't suppose to use a word in the definition of the word, right?