More than 30,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the war began
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live ... rcna141090
HighlyIrregular II wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 12:58 pm
Unpopular opinion: pour a ton of money into genetic research to make people smarter, share the technology with the world, wait a generation, then we could stop spending so much money and killing so many people because even if another country takes over it won't be so bad.
To what extent does the illusion of knowledge contaminate the direction of science?
Do you recall the sperm bank that was claiming to be comprised of nothing but Nobel Prize winners (or that was the marketing pitch?)
https://www.thecut.com/2019/08/what-eve ... -bank.html
It turns out the only "Nobel Prize winner" person who ultimately contributed was William Shockley who was taking credit for work that wasn't even his, and justification for taking credit that he based it on--as his "original idea" which justified whatever final patent used for the transistor design--was based on another person's 1930's patent, which rendered him a BS'er even by his own standards of taking credit. (A similar argument is made about the DNA molecule model design, which departed from the direction it was taking, which otherwise would never have happened had Watson and Crick never snuck a peak at the crystalline structure photos that they should have been privy to since they were on that team.)
According to this his Nobel Prize was revoked (though he's still mentioned as co-patent when searching his name)
https://www.pbs.org/transistor/backgrou ... atbat.html
The sperm bank was a sham even still, and it's kind of like looking at the usual goobers that are probably still virgins despite having been responsible for fathering upwards of 100 children, can really do a "number" on genetic diversity.
Consider that any person that might possess a great deal of potential with intelligence, cannot outpace the frequency of the usual degenerates, such as this criminal who used ill-gotten money to surrogate 21 children.
Kristina and Galip Ozturk
https://www.businessinsider.com/family- ... %20be%20OK.
Turkish businessman sentenced to 8 years for illegal drug purchase, possession
https://agenda.ge/en/news/2023/829#gsc.tab=0
I think I was reading something about him before, and it was a lot of weird junk that might have gotten buried in the internet (the guy had enough money to get some stuff removed, and it seems like the drug possession charges were just one thing that was used to get him arrested.) I think he did some shady dealings with his busing company, and gradually moved onto holdings of other business, but it's similar to wondering how billionaires like Roman Abromavich got so wealthy when they were alleged to just be selling rubber duckies, etc. . . which doesn't translate too easily into major huge fucking oil company. . . Which of course was more political sleaze with the likes of Putin who just takes and gives to those who are stooges.
Some argue that surrogacy is for pathological narcissists, much like the serial sperm donors. I can only see someone like Elon Musk using such technology and judging from his outlook with his children, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to release the beast as it were.
The William Shockley guy was a eugenicist that had a lot of traits that would be harmful to society, though he was considered legendary as well as infamous for being a key founder of Silicon Valley (though his reputation is similar to Jack Welch, Steven Jobs, etc.)
Perhaps any number of people considered to gain a reputation are a byproduct of events that cause them to gravitate towards perceived accomplishments, were more a phenomenon of epigenetics and reward of their ego.
However, it is interesting to wonder about (though according to this next link, it sort of takes on a dystopian Ayn Rand approach, with some hints at the world of Gattaca.)
Can selective breeding maximize human intelligence without major complications?
https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com ... plications
https://www.scmp.com/article/732421/gen ... demics-say
The bigger factor is in ensuring our society and culture doesn't fuck itself up, as surely, if it was run by the best and smartest (judging from whatever criteria of societal accomplishments) it seems that something is really "missing the mark."
I think what I'm getting at is, that assuming people try to focus exclusively on a "utopian society" it's incredibly easy to not understand the emotional development of those involved. If Ted Kaczynski was brilliant, if he was left in an incubator from birth and as a result developed a dysfunctional amygdala, whose saying that trying to force a society to "augment" some perceived benefits, doesn't seriously disrupt how people adapt and develop, because the collateral of those traits are not properly prepared for?
