Inborn intelligence, and implications.

Right now, there's a taboo in our society on mentioning inborn differences of intelligence and how well it means an individual might lead their lives.  Between individuals, it's less of an issue, as differences between individuals is accepted as a fact of life.  Differences between races are more of a taboo, and even so much as admitting it in passing could get you fired, or your career destroyed.

What would happen if our society ever admitted that intelligence was one of the most reliable indicators of future performance?  What would it mean?

Would they start channeling more educational rescources toward the smart kids in order to raise overall human acheivement?  Or would they start channeling more rescources toward the less intelligent kids to even the playing field? Would they prevent dumber people from having kids, by only giving reproduction liscences to the smartest of people? 

And what kind of changes would have to happen to cause a scenario to come about?

Being intelligent doesn't indicate performance so much as being smarter than everyone else does.  Successful people earn their positions by knowing what other people don't, and selling that expertise in one way or another.

If the less intelligent people are raised in education to make them 'equal', the advantage of intelligence is markedly reduced.  Except for scientific research and the like, there's no real advantage to having a bunch of intellectuals around.

>>2
We'd get a lot more done with a bunch of intellectuals around, and there'd be fewer riots and less crime, because people could see beyond "Tomorrow I'm gonna score me some crack!"

Most of the problems of society oculd be solved with a little more intelligence.

Perhaps not most, but definitely a large number.

>>3
Of course, when people start thinking "Man, I'm smart enough to run this place.  Why the hell am I still cleaning toilets", you'll just end up with a bunch of dirty toilets.  Smart people don't stay in dead-end jobs for long.  You'll end up with a bunch of managers and noone to do the actual work.

>>1,>>3,>>4,>>5

No,No,No,No.

Because, as >>2 pointed out, intelligence is relative.

Since there is no social benefit to having 100% of the labor force involved in rocket science, we will instead always select those most suited for the job. Those left behind will find other  pursuits. Hypothetically, toilets will always get scrubbed. All you'll do is create a massive lack of satisfaction in your work force.

Unless you posit that a high enough level of intelligence automatically eradicates the need for labor (e.g., robots and sturdy AI).

All in all, I would also like to register my objection to the whole idea because of how much it compels people to be alienated from their basic freedoms.

>>1

Hey buddy! Are you aware that this idea isn't new? Nope! Other people have thought of selectively breeding human beings in the manner which we do to lower order animals like sheep, to increase the occurence of traits the selecters desire. In sheep, human beings bred traits like a docile nature and the ability to do nothing but whimper in the face of imminent slaughter (but of course no one would ever do anything so deranged as try and use eugenics to commit genocide against humans, that's silly!). I think your plan to take the future of the human race out of the hands of Nature (I mean, look at how stupid and weak we are now! Nature is so ineffectual!), and put it in the hands of a few human individuals is a neat idea! Let's look at the history of this idea together, O.K.?! =)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

And then, when you're all done, go and read Stephen Jay Gould's the Mismeasure of Man. Oopsy! It looks like there's a long history of people *lying* and *cheating* to make their experimental results fit their race-preferencing stereotypes! But don't worry... nothing like that could *ever* happen again, because we've got the best intentions, and we don't have any stereotypes; all of our opinions about smelly brown people and lazy black people are based upon hard empirical data!

tl;dr? if humans are stupid, why would you want to put the future of humanity in the hands of humanity any more than you have to?

>>7

Nigger: SI unit of measure denoting the average difference in laziness, immorality, and violence between a black man, and a white man with not one drop of Negroid blood in his veins. "Och, mein leibchen! Hans took nearly 45 minutes to get off his arsh and take out the rubbish? Mein Gott, that is nearly .2 niggers!" is taken to mean that the subject is almost 1/5th as lazy as a nigger, who would have taken about 4 hours to take the trash out. Also see; decanigger, micronigger.

Spic: SI unit of measure denoting the security of an item at risk of theft. "Fort Knox is a multi-megaSpic institution" is taken to mean that it would take an army of several million wetbacks to breach the security of and rob Fort Knox. Also see; millispic (usually used for measuring the strength of a wallet chain).

>>7
Doesn't mean it's not the future.  When humanity becomes useless for it's muscle(with robots ETC), intelligence will be the one sole thing of value a person can posess.

Do we make work for all the supid peole when robots become the main laborforce?  Or do we just give them food and shelter, a life ETC... for free because it's so easy to do? 

I bet you'll answer yes; this is the best situation.  But take a look at the worst...

>>9

Of course, you're right! Just because every time something has happened one way in the past doesn't mean that that's the way it'll happen in the future! 'cause we're all so much smarter and friendlier and more charitable now! I mean, the fact that the same silly racist ideologies keep popping up year after year is irrelevant; this isn't the "bad old days" where black men get lynched without a trial for being in the same neighborhood that a rape occured in, this is the happy new days where nothing like that ever happens!

I totally agree with you that we should go ahead forthwith with your well-thought out plan! Nothing could possibly go wrong with creating an organization powerful enough to guide human evolution! That silly old wive's tale about "power corrupting" is nonsense; just because that's the way it tended to work out in the past doesn't mean that's the way it'll work out in the future! You know what I say? Power is a gas! So let's all march in happy lock-step into a Brave New World!

>>7 >>9

Captain, I'm recording multiple megajews of obnoxious sarcasm. Our readings are off the charts!

>>11

Retard. :P

Everyone knows its megakikes.

Look at Japan, their IQ is on average about ten points higher than the rest of the world, and yet the toilets still get scrubbed.  They are the most advanced industrial country in the world, they were able to come from absolute desolation to economic powerhouse in 40 years (though now their stubbornness is killing them).  Most everyone saves money, people know about science ETC ETC ETC. 

Extra intelligence won't turn everyone into intellectuals.  It'll just make everyone less likely to make bad decisions, and more likely to make it through life without any major drama.

>>9
And when computers become smarter than humans...

Who needs evolution when you can build the next master race.

>>14
We won't build a master race.  Remember the Matrix?  Our computers will never be smart for prescisely that reason.  We'll give them algorithms they can use to do day to day jobs, but we won't give them any logic ability.  That way we can maintain our superiority, and ensure our survival.

That way we can maintain our superiority, and ensure our survival.

Until technology makes it cheap to produce them and some businesses figure out it'd give them an advantage to have a non-sleeping workforce.

>>16
Did you read what I said?  I said we'd have robots, but that they wouldn't be smart enough to rebel.

GAAAH!

>>17
Yeah? Let's see, I'm a businessman. I have one million dollars.

Now, I can split it between ten people who work 40 hour a week, eleven months a year. Or I can spend it on ten machines that don't have families, don't need to sleep, and probably could be arsed about vacation. Extra bonus: I don't need to worry about work conditions as much.

And I'm not the only businessman who thinks this way. There are lots like me. We all want machines to replace those expensive engineers, not just the grunt workers. Tada! Free economy at work, there's the demand, and here come my wonderful machines in the next courier truck!

You seem to think humanity works as a collective. We don't. And when the tech is there, someone will begin making and using AI brighter than you and I. It'll probably be the military first, but it'll spread.

>>18
what he is saying is that it is impossible to make a machine smarter than humans. not that humans won't try to

>>19
Yeah? And why is it impossible?

We already have computers with human-level intelligence; they walk around and call themselves human. Impossible my ass.

Lazy bums, the whole lot of ya, with all that AI crap...
I don't give a damn if an android can do calculus better and faster than me. If it can't make mistakes, aside from faults in the programming we put into it, then it ain't alive. And if it ain't alive, I don't care to ask it to wipe my friggin' ass.
You can all bite me! Let the world be turned into nothin' but robots, alla ya, fahhhhhh...! >:O

>>20
I would like to know more about these computers with human-level intelligence that you speak of.

>>22
Look in a mirror, idiot.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLAMFV

>>6

Spend four years in the military and realize you're the smartest person there.  It's not pretty.

>>25
Makes ya question your own intelligence don't it?

>>26
METAPHYSICAL PARADOX

Go read Mein Kampf all ye neo-nazis.