I was not aware of this - I stand corrected. — Devans99

Dang...I have never been believed so readily, thanks :smile: And sorry if all of my writing sounds as snarky as that line you quoted (I am sure much of it does :yikes:)

Here is a quick link just for third parties to know I wasn't just making it up...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

However, I think it is probably a transitory evolutionary phase that we are going through and genetic engineering will pull us out of this phase (of sub-optimal selection during reproduction). — Devans99

This seems reasonable, but I think there is one key point...the educated may CHOOSE to not have kids. The uneducated just have kids. There is rarely a decision making process. Uneducated people assume traditions are important. Educated know why they (traditions) are important or they dismiss them as mere tradition (I bring this up as having kids is the ultimate tradition). How many 13 year olds say they will never have kids? It requires a certain level of complex thought (not that that makes it right or anything).

genetic engineering will pull us out of this phase (of sub-optimal selection during reproduction). — Devans99

I like the idea of genetic engineering...but we would have to ban "natural" births to prevent the "negative" genes from being passed on, or, most likely, we would end up with 2 (or more) very different groups of humans (and not like our current idea of tall/short or smart/dumb - the smartest humans would see the dumbest in the way we currently see dolphins or chimps. Sure they are "smart", but not our kind of smart).

You are not coming over as snarky - getting to the truth of the matter is what's important.

..the educated may CHOOSE to not have kids — ZhouBoTong

If this continues to be the case, then it seems to fall to government to ensure the continued successful evolution of the species - a government sponsored program to produce genetically enhanced, super intelligent, offspring maybe required. That may sound quite like Brave New World, but then I did not find that book to be a completely dystopian view of the future.

I have not read 'Island', the utopian counterpart of Brave New World, but I understand it introduces the concept of mutual adoption clubs (MACs) - formed of fifteen to twenty-five couples. This is the type of approach that might be required in combination with genetic engineering. I believe the MAC approach would result in a lessor impingement of personal freedom - through the economies of scale applied to child rearing - than the traditional 2 parent family approach, so the better educated in society would be more attracted to it.

but we would have to ban "natural" births to prevent the "negative" genes from being passed — ZhouBoTong

Yes that might be a step too far. As you point out, the natural born community could get left behind by the genetically altered community. I think however, both the natural and genetic communities would speak the same language and I am only really advocating genetic engineering for increased intelligence, not extra limbs or anything like that. I think it would be an extension of situation we have today, people with IQs ranging from 50 to 250 all live in the same community, it is just there would be a concentration of genetically altered folks at the high end of the spectrum.

You are not coming over as snarky - getting to the truth of the matter is what's important. — Devans99

Fantastic. That is always my goal...but I often get so engaged with the argument that I forget I am talking to another human :grimace:.

That may sound quite like Brave New World, but then I did not find that book to be a completely dystopian view of the future. — Devans99

I agree. I often read or watch distopian fiction and actually think it is almost utopian, with one or two easily fixable problems. Most educated people would never accept the genetically engineered classes of Brave New World. It is hard enough to get people to accept genetic engineering. To say that we are going to intentionally create upper and lower classes using genetic engineering is obviously going to be a huge problem. Unless we engineered away any sense of morality, MANY of the smart people at the top would say the system is BS...but with some minor adjustment it could be a wonderful system (the "happy" drugs would be for those who CHOOSE to go through life that way...and then they can be assigned the "lower" jobs in society because they don't care as being happy is more important).

I have not read 'Island', the utopian counterpart of Brave New World — Devans99

Dang, I am not even sure if I have heard of that...I may have to check it out. I wasn't a huge fan of Brave New World, but it was interesting.

I believe the MAC approach would result in a lessor impingement of personal freedom - through the economies of scale applied to child rearing - than the traditional 2 parent family approach, so the better educated in society would be more attracted to it. — Devans99

Seems reasonable to me.

I think however, both the natural and genetic communities would speak the same language and I am only really advocating genetic engineering for increased intelligence, not extra limbs or anything like that. I think it would be an extension of situation we have today, people with IQs ranging from 50 to 250 all live in the same community, it is just there would be a concentration of genetically altered folks at the high end of the spectrum. — Devans99

If you haven't watched "Gattaca", it is right on track with what we are discussing (and compared to reading a book, less time consuming). I think like me, you will think the distopia has a good bit of utopia in it, but it also highlights some likely results (and potential problems) of different genetic classes. I am definitely with you that we should try :smile:

To say that we are going to intentionally create upper and lower classes using genetic engineering is obviously going to be a huge problem. Unless we engineered away any sense of morality, MANY of the smart people at the top would say the system is BS...but with some minor adjustment it could be a wonderful system (the "happy" drugs would be for those who CHOOSE to go through life that way...and then they can be assigned the "lower" jobs in society because they don't care as being happy is more important). — ZhouBoTong

Technological progress leads to the replacement of manual labour jobs by machines. Hopefully this trend will continue - we will become more and more a knowledge-based economy - and there would be more pressure on people to have intelligent, genetically engineered children. So a subclass of less gifted, natural people, might only be a transitory phase.

If you haven't watched "Gattaca"... — ZhouBoTong

Sounds interesting, I will probably take a look.