Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

arachnivore OP t1_j4oz7fp wrote

Reply to comment by RedErin in Singularity Mods removed this post about Nick Bostrom defending eugenics by arachnivore

>do you think it would be good if it were possible that parents use genetic engineering to protect their baby from harmful genetic diseases?

That's not Eugenics! Though it walks a thin line if you start considering any variation to be a "disease". Should we get rid of all forms of neurodivergence? Is dark skin a disease?

>Eugenics: the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.

Eugenics is specifically about breading a race of people. It's about eliminating "undesirable traits" (historically: being black or jewish or gay or any other variation of the human condition that isn't straight and white). It necessarily implies an authority who defines what is or isn't "desirable" for other people (the "race").

The fact that you and Nick Bostrom and aparently every other person on this sub can't be bothered to understand the not so subtle difference between curing diseases and breading a fucking UBERMENCH indicates to me the dire need for such a conversation instead of letting the mods shut it down.

0

SoylentRox t1_j4p45bv wrote

>historically: being black or jewish or gay or any other variation of the human condition that isn't straight and white)

So this is actually false. The disreputable - as in, they are collected from data but are no longer discussed in polite academic company - studies on race and intelligence pretty much all found asians were smarter. Not white people. And for white people groups, subgroups of jewish people were the smartest.

I had a professor of human genetics who was aware of these studies, and his theory was that it was the western languages that gave westerners such overwhelming success for a period of time. It's the "operating system" not the hardware. And our large success with llms seems to suggest this is in fact correct, the hardware doesn't even need to be human!

So actually, no. In his opinion, the ubermensch was a kid from whichever asian subgroup has the highest IQ, with rich parents and growing up in a blue state in the USA... This was the "most successful" combination currently possible.

Also you gotta get real here. These differences are small. Every human is essentially mentally retarded compared to AI, both at tasks existing models are designed to do, and what they will soon be able to do.

2

arachnivore OP t1_j4p6jg6 wrote

I don't have the energy to even respond to your bullshit parade of long debunked junk "science". You so confidently proclaim, with zero evidence, a littany of ignorant "facts".

You want to see a magic trick?

I can tell the future!

You're going to produce some "scientific" evidence for your racist bullshit that was rejected from publications NOT because it was riddled with flaws but because the powers that be don't want to acknowledge that melanin makes people dumb. Those papers are going to rely on a metric called "heritance" which you're going to conflate with "genetics" even though wealth has a high "heritance" measure and nobody has been able to find the gene that makes money shoot out of peoples' buttholes!

How did I do?

1

SoylentRox t1_j4p75zv wrote

I don't care enough about the subject to know how much was correct and embarrassing vs unscientific. I was explaining that the modern version of it - often pushed by old white scientists - usually finds Asians the smartest and women more intelligent on average but with a tighter distribution. (This got the president of Harvard cancelled for mentioning this knowledge aloud). This makes your understanding of it incorrect.

3

arachnivore OP t1_j4p7yu0 wrote

>I don't care enough about the subject to know how much was correct and embarrassing vs unscientific.

Yeah, no fucking shit. Yet you still spout it with supreme confidence and claim that I'm the one who's incorrect. Go figure...

1

SoylentRox t1_j4p82rr wrote

I am confident I know what the numerous studies all said. I don't and you don't have sufficient evidence to disprove them or to prove the null hypothesis. (That intelligence isn't heritable)

2

arachnivore OP t1_j4pd17f wrote

You haven’t provided a shred of evidence for me to disprove. You’re the one making the claim that “studies all said” something. Which studies? Link ‘‘em and I’ll be happy to knock them down.

1

SoylentRox t1_j4qwvnx wrote

>Which studies? Link ‘‘em and I’ll be happy to knock them down.

You are not a rational actor and can't be trusted. You believe without evidence that everyone is equal because that's 'woke'. If it turns out that everyone is not equal you would not be able to accept the possibility and would have to start seeking false explanations.

1

arachnivore OP t1_j4u7c9b wrote

Don't tell me what I believe. Provide proof of your claims or GTFO.

2

SoylentRox t1_j4u7hln wrote

Go read the fucking original material instead of making bullshit claims because it makes your dick hard to imagine someone losing their career from something they said over 20 years ago.

1

RedErin t1_j4ozjao wrote

if it were available via govt subsidies, would it be ethical for parents to increase their child’s empathy or intelligence

1

arachnivore OP t1_j4p1lal wrote

I think that's a very good question and I think a smart person would realize that such ideas tread into problematic territory. I would hope that people working in the field would be very aware of the problematic history of eugenics and would understand complicated terrain they tread.

Nick Bostrom seems to believe that exercising caution in the exploration of such powerful technology is getting in the way of important science. He seems to think that scientists shouldn't be burdened with such silly things like how their work might negatively impact society or how they might be able to communicate their ideas without using racial slurs or whatever.

1

RedErin t1_j4qaclj wrote

I was definitely shocked to read that email. But I found his apology acceptable. And yeah, I'm probably biased, cause I've enjoyed a lot of his work.

Jennifer Doudna (creator of CRISPR) wrote a book about the subject of genetic engineering and while she does caution against misuse of the tech, she thinks much more good can come of it.

2

arachnivore OP t1_j4oztbz wrote

That's a good question! Don't let the mods catch you asking it! Apparently it's not ok to discuss this shit on r/singularity

According to Nick Bostrom, the inability to spout racist bullshit in academic circles without repercussions is preventing such discussions... somehow...

−2

sumane12 t1_j4pfswb wrote

>The fact that you and Nick Bostrom and aparently every other person on this sub can't be bothered to understand the not so subtle difference between curing diseases and breading a fucking UBERMENCH indicates to me the dire need for such a conversation instead of letting the mods shut it down.

FUCKING YES!!!

1