John Grigg wrote:
> >
> Eliezer wrote:
> Leaving aside the pre-Singularity/FDA issues (i.e: no way), let's not
> forget that this alleged divide between rich and poor is primarily a
> Luddite memetic plot. A trick like this does not make the rich richer, it makes the rich's children more intelligent. Is this bad for the poor? I think emphatically NOT. It's stupid people with power that are the
> threat.
> (end)
>
> I have to disagree with you on this one! Higher intelligence will tend to make the rich richer. Look at our present-day society, those with higher then normal I.Q.'s do tend to do better financially. Of course(and this has already been argued on the
list), there are various forms of intelligence(or "abilities") which assist one in gaining financial and social success.
Just because the therapy will be expensive initially does not mean it
will remain such. Given that the patent on such a process will only last
20 years from the date of application, and given that it will take
likely 5-10 years for the FDA to approve such a procedure, then this
means that the rich only have a 10-15 year head start, at best. Likely
such procedures will be in such high demand that the unitary cost will
drop rather rapidly despite patent protections (and who doubts that some
nations will refuse to recognise the validity of such an important
patent?).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:26 MDT