Exactly. If there are adults running the show they'll have planned where to put the explosives, have aircraft standing by and know the schools key TSMC employees kids will go to.
EA correlates with IQ, and is the best we have in many cases
EA takes seconds to fill out on a form, so there are millions of genotyped samples and thus good GWASs
IQ is harder to obtain, and is controversial so nobody wants to fund it, so nowhere near as many samples
What matters most
Most work in human genetics is finding the cause of genetic disease (inherited and cancer)
In all western countries I can think of, they do prenatal screening tests, the results of which are used to kill the genetically less fit.
What is this if not government eugenics program that almost all scientists support? High 90% of people terminate down syndrome foetuses upon positive result.
In polls, most westerners are ok with termination to stop disease, just not ok with anything that looks like making super babies
Though of course, if you look at sperm donation stats I am sure the average chosen donor is above average IQ, height, attractiveness etc
I am a geneticist - nobody talks about selectively breeding human IQ because it gives you bad press, your uni may fire you and you will no longer get any grants.
But humans are just animals, and IQ is just a normally distributed polygenic trait... so ask them about whether it would be possible to say breed +5SD weight or wing size in fruit flies or mice length and they will say "of course"
The rapid turn around of generations via embryonic eggs is science fiction, but it's much closer to "geostationary sattelite" than "warp drive".
You can't take half the components of a Ferarri and half the components of a Ford pickup, mix them together and have a working car. The piston of one wouldn't fit in the cylinder of the other.
But you can mix the genomes of males and females of the same species.
Cars have very few components so the variation is eg swapping out this brand of muffler for another one - they must all fit together. Genetic variation is extremely small (modifying less than a billionth of the system) - and mostly independent of other variation.
Imagine a car with 10,000 tunable components, that can vary without breaking the machine (life is robust to variation)
There are 8 billion cars, almost completely stock. Some have a few parts well tuned, and are fast, some have a few parts detuned and are slow
The fastest cars have 500 components perfectly tuned and are 4 or 5 standard deviations faster
What I'm saying is we look at millions of cars tuning matched to speed. We use this to work out what the best tuning is, then we select for that, making a car that uses existing components, but the combination has never existed before naturally.
We KNOW we can rapidly selectively breed animals that vary enormously from the natural stock. Look at racehorses, dogs, milk production in cows, the giant extremely fast growing chickens we eat today that lay eggs at phenomenal rates etc etc
RNA != DNA
Still happens (and can cause cancer or mutations in future generations) but in DNA the rates are something like a handful per few billion.
Then they have to make it through repair and error detecting mechanisms.
Not as good as computers (you can move gigabyte files across the internet no problem) but far more accurate than almost anything graspable by humans
Yeah I deleted that maybe a minute after posting, because I didn't want to explain thee edge cases
Offspring regress to their population mean.
New schools in the USA
Yes 100% woukd be a wealth transfer. I think the current system has gone the other way, young people have to work many more years to transfer wealth to the old.
So.. we should aim to even it out a bit. Let's haggle on the percent and timelines
If that's the case then income tax is like the state siezing humans and taking rent from their labour.
When income taxes were introduced did they compensate the owners of human capital for reduced future income streams?
We can get freakish results via artificial selection, but yes we hit limits, eg greyhounds are only like 30% faster than wolves.
But look at corn vs teosinte, or milk yields per cow doubling in the last 50 years... or von Neumann in 1000 years from a hybrid of Middle easterners and Europeans...
I think we could make IQ tests that went further than the current highest scores ie reverse digit span tests, reaction times etc. If you can reliably get the same answers as someone with 160 IQ but faster... you're smarter than them
But yeah the real proof would be accomplishment, IQ is just the best measure we have for intelligence and the goal would be better output eg important original research etc
They are both used in the real world to evaluate legal ability (or potential) so such a drastic gain in ability between versions is worth knowing. I think it's almost certain he'd see improvement in his task using the latest version
You designed your cpu for a class, long after people had come up with the idea of a programmable computer, and determining what instructions are needed.
Every instruction that needs to be put in hardware adds complexity, so knowing that some operation can be achieved by another one is very valuable. Babbage's machine had memory, if statements and loops - quite an achievement to know these are needed to write algorithms without writing any.
Making a device programmable, rather than hardcoded is an amazing mental leap and also a massive jump in complexity. One that I believe you would only make if you had at least 2 programs you wanted to run
250 IQ is 10 standard deviations from mean IQ 100, SD=15
If we have 1000 offspring per generation via egg harvesting embryos, taking the top 1% (10) they should be 2.33 SD from the mean
With 80% heritability, response to selection per generation is 1.86 SD
Thus it will take 5.36 (6) generations of selective breeding to get 250IQ with 1000 offspring per generation
Or 6 * 20 weeks = 2.3 years
If egg/sperm are from +3 SD donors, it's 3.76 (4) generations, or 1.53 years
Please consider donating towards my volcano lair lab on Kickstarter
Oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM) is a thing. I am not sure if anyone has used it on foetal eggs, but it is likely possible.
You aren't restricted to the original stock you can introduce new sperm each generation
To scale it up, you could potentially encourage eggs to divide (like identical twins) then sequence one, and if its the one you want, keep splitting
I think these things are not too hard to solve, you just need time and money, and the will (and lack of ethical restraint)
With no ethics, and a big budget you could go very fast.
Females develop eggs after 20 weeks so you could make 1000 per generation, polygenically screen them all, pick the best and iterate.
In just over a year you have 3 generations and the pick of 1 in a billion (of descendants of your starting stock)
Of course it can. Thedesire for sexual novelty (reduced if children are produced, ie sense of responsibility) would benefit someone who is fertile who married someone infertile.
Somewhat jokingly, PMS is anger directed at a man who didn't impregnate her this month. Maybe that is evolutionarily beneficial
Criminality is heritable, so sex segregating prisoners is a pro eugenic policy. Please don't remove it and add to the foster care system now, and a worse society in the future
Sounds like a meat puppet from the 80s scifi book Neuromancer
If I ran the Liberal party, I would try and split the referendum into 2 questions. One that offers "constitutional respect" and one for the voice. Then people could vote yes:no and not be seen as not caring/being racist
You don't need to know how intelligence works, you just need to sequence enough people in genome wide association studies, build a polygenic score and then run it
Both are losses for the University Industrial Complex
- Prev
- Next
There's no difference between sterilization and death in the fossil record
More options
Context Copy link