Thread 16807220

Why isn't more research being put into increasing existing human IQ in living persons/fetuses?

The explosive AI investment we are currently seeing would imply that there's a high amount of potential value to be created by an increase in access to intelligence. Wouldn't just altering the genes of existing people/their offspring be good, if not as mythical as the vague "AGI" these silicon valley types are looking for? I don't know enough about neuroscience/genetics research but I am curious if anyone on this board who has more knowledge would be willing to share their understanding and personal opinions on the subject. Also if you have any recommended reading on the topic that you could put in the thread for those interested, that would be greatly appreciated.

>>16807220 (OP)
>altering genes
you unethical motherfucker

generally speaking, every new generation has higher IQ than the previous ones, so we are moving forward that way. however, IQ is not the same as intelligence. sure, it measures something, but not general intelligence.

i see other path: optimization of our cognitive toolset. in the sense that we can turn any layman into a scientist with a phd. sure, higher education is constructed such way that technically any person can participate in it. however, they can be expelled, or not understand deeply what they are studying. and i don't see every second person having a phd. so optimization of education is surely a way of increasing general intelligence of humans

that's cruel.

>>16807533
>>16807517
Sincerely asking, why is it unethical? I am not advocating the mandated IQ-infusions into unwilling test subjects or anything. But if we COULD make the average joe into a genius-level researcher, wouldn't that be desirable as an outcome?

>>16807534
because it is fucking playing god

it isn't "unethical", but morally ambiguous. some will say otherwise, that it is unethical, others - that it is ethical. gene modification is a lot similar to selective breeding. and that is a lot similar to fucking nazis and their ideology.

>But if we COULD make the average joe into a genius-level researche
and who will have access to such technology? average joes? no, rich people will have access to such technologies. and it will make the gap between the poor and the rich even more bigger. and "if we could" isn't a real argument. we could go kill all the bad guys out there, me and you

>>16807544
I guess I just don't see the difference between that and pharmaceuticals, all modern medicine, eyeglasses, hell even education and civilization themselves. We already self-modify every other aspect of our being and environment. As for the idea of it only being available to richfags, yes that may happen but I can't see why it wouldn't become widely available? If the research and methodology become published and information spreads, there will be a massive market incentive for someone somewhere to try it. The idea that only the rich get the benefits of increased knowledge is frankly just untrue at a base level.

>>16807544
>because it is fucking playing god
Cry me a river, abrahamic.

>>16807545
If someplace like China developed the technology, it's likely they would roll it out to the masses. If developed in the west? It's possible it would filter down to the masses, eventually, but the rich would have it first.

Because retards think it’s eugenics

>>16807220 (OP)
Because it will be used to make people dumber and subservient. Perhaps it has been done.

The mass populace regards this as unethical due to religious, political views. However as we push into this more technocratic, authoritarian world, we will see more and more people see the true potential value in "unethical" sciences. We will see a propagation of more pragmatic science, like in China, where you can do this science without being "cancelled" (and they're currently doing trials of these bio-hacking sciences in Russia and China)

>>16809758
>>16809739
Is it even theoretically possible? Or only in fetuses/developing minds.

Isn't IQ mostly bullshit anyway?

>>16807220 (OP)
because there is no need for that
at least from the POV of people who can achieve what you're saying

>>16810921
It's not hard science, of course it's BS.

>you have to change the DNA drastically
>increases risks of genetic diseases / unwanted side effects drastically
>you end up with a lot of cripples that you're then stuck with
Even in a totalitarian regime it'd pose a considerable political risk to synthesize humans and dispose of them regularly, when they turn out "bad". That's why nobody is willing to take the risk. It's also not necessary, since improving the living conditions of the population or immigration increases the value of the human capital in a much cost-effective way.

>>16807220 (OP)
You can increase IQ far more by making sure a kid and fed as a child and that you read a book to them before they go to sleep.

Its actually sad how easy it would be to live in a more intelligent world, its bare minimum.

>>16812015
>You can increase IQ far more by making sure a kid and fed as a child and that you read a book to them before they go to sleep.
Literacy should be strictly controlled. No one needs more midwits.

>>16807220 (OP)
because satanist jews hide that tech for themselves. Isn't it obvious?

>>16807534
No because there's nothing inherently valuable about high IQ. Nature produces a bell curve because that's what's best for human society. A small amount of retards, a bunch of average joes, and a small amount of intellectuals. Too many intellectuals and you get chaos and war, too many average joes and you get stagnation, too many retards and you get a collapse.

>>16807220 (OP)
Because politicians are gay and almost every developed country has laws that prevent people from engaging in germline gene editing, another note for me is the fact that we have so much untapped human potential, there are lots of people who wish to become scientists, but their developing countries don't have the resources/ the interest to develop labs and institutions to exploit their talent, and when you do, instead of acting as a unifying force, you act as a competitor, if the u.s. and china shared their scientific findings with one another, that would accelerate scientific progress, but instead of doing that, both countries try to gatekeep and monopolize scientific progress and knowledge as much as possible

>>16807534
It wouldn't be for those who were born before gene editing to make people smarter became mainstream, I think that's the only reason why politicians
oppose it, a race of super-humans could drive humans who would be now like apes, into extinction or subservience, humans would be used as zoo animals

>>16813494
Why would more intellectuals lead to chaos or war?, if the average person was more intelligent, being "smart" for our standards would mean being a midwit in this imaged future, your conception is just profoundly anti intellectual and anti scientific I don't see why I should even try to engage with it, wars are for retards and midwits

A Chinese doctor/researcher tried to modify human DNA to give babies immunity to HIV, of all things. He was crucified for this, did prison time.