From: Alexander Sheppard (alexandersheppard@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 14:43:47 MST
>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:15:48 -0600
>From: "Brian Phillips" <deepbluehalo@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: Genetics and class stratification
>There is no fundamental and neccessary long-term (i.e. 50+ years)
>linkage between wealth and genemods. Sure, early adopters tend to
>have the financial means, but the technology cascades downwards.
As far as I can see, this presumes to know too much about the nature of gene
modification and societies in the future. I think it's concievable that the
human race will no longer even exist in 50 years, that we'll either have
destroyed ourselves in all out nuclear war, ecological disaster, or there
will be some sort of huge leap in technology that will render humans as we
know them obsolete. I'm not saying any of that is going to necessary happen,
but it could, I think. Furthermore, even if human society does stay around a
while longer, I don't see how we can know the nature of what is possible
with gene modification, looking twenty, fifty years down the line. We may
find that effective manipulation of traits with hundreds of different genes
coding for them is more difficult than we thought, or mabye easier. I mean,
we don't know any of this--if we did know it, we'd be there already. That's
why I said I'd spoken too soon--because there are really so many concievable
possibilities here.
>An IQ of 125 is about optimal, assuming you likable and diligent.
>IQ of 140 means you often have deeper "life of mind" and find
>the company of the bulk of the population annoying in the extreme.
No, I don't think that's true at all, actually. I know people who, if they
took IQ tests, would probably rate much higher than 140, but they are
normally quite sociable people. I find this is generally a myth about
intelligence which is promulgated in science fiction books and things, which
often seek to "mystify" intelligence. Knolwedge comes from study and
commitment, of course. There's nothing "mystical" about it.
>People like this (like me) tend to find highly specialized work that >may
>not involve interaction with normals or dulls, it's just annoying
I would question why you would think that talking to people who do not share
your particular interests about the world "annoying". And, if I am not
mistaken, on the whole most people who have this sort of mentality, in
reality are in the habit of talking about many topics they find "annoying"
people talking about all the time, and do not notice it, because noticing it
would not be in the interests of self-glorification.
>To a degree. High IQ people are more willing to ally with others,
>they think more to the long-term advantage, they have internal
>locus of control, so you might find that they desist if they are not
>penalized for doing so. If they are penalized.. well then the brights >can
>play THAT game well to.
This apparently assumes that "high IQ" people are completely motivated by
thier own "self interest", as if nothing besides the "advantage" of the
person in question was important. Indeed, I would question whether you have
made the assumption that "intelligence" is something that people pursue to
acquire social status, rather than because the knolwedge will help do things
which are important in themselves.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:21 MST