Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

It is grossly immoral not to utilize cloning technology to replicate the world's most intelligent people.

The amount of suffering, death, and irreversible environmental damage that will occur because we refuse to artificially inflate the world's supply of universal geniuses is...immeasurable. And allowing it is grossly immoral.

Am I wrong? AM I WRONG?

http://www.kickingtotalass.com/Site%...merfucking.jpg

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

The world doesn't need more super intelligent people, it needs less stupid people. Am I wrong?

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

Maybe not, but I don't see any acceptable way to reduce the # of stupid people? Do you?

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

Unless you mean the exclusive source of new people is the cloning of geniuses there doesn't seem anything immoral about it providing there are no doomsday genetic problems with the process.

luckyme

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not, but I don't see any acceptable way to reduce the # of stupid people? Do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

spend money on education instead of war?

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is grossly immoral not to utilize cloning technology to replicate the world's most intelligent people.

The amount of suffering, death, and irreversible environmental damage that will occur because we refuse to artificially inflate the world's supply of universal geniuses is...immeasurable. And allowing it is grossly immoral.

Am I wrong? AM I WRONG?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're implying that geniuses are as intelligent and as fruitful in their ideas as they are based solely upon genetics.

Although I agree that there must be a genetic component to intelligence, how can we make sure that this clone turns out to be hugely productive as well?

How many resources would you be willing to devote to the upbringing and education of this "genetic genius"?

Do we even know how to raise a child to take advantage of all his/her natural ability?

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do we even know how to raise a child to take advantage of all his/her natural ability?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's about time we found out! And who better to practice on than 10,000 copies of Edward Witten (highest h-index of any living scientist.)

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

Others have already mentioned that the genetic effect may not, by itself, produce equally exceptional clones.

Aside from that - perhaps they'd consider it a nicer reward to be kept supplied with willing partners for doing it the old-fashioned way:) Is that MORE wrong?

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

There was a group that set up 30 years ago or more which took the semen of many of the most intelligent men of that time, and gave it to women who wanted to be mothers to see how it would impact their children. The result was kids that were super-smart, to the extent that they had memorized Chaucer before they were 10 years old. I can't give you any more information about it than that, I just remember seeing a documentary about it back in school.

What I can tell you though is that one of the boys had a news story covered about him in the last few years, and although he was still smart, he had completely rejected his mother for her dreams about what he had become and for what was expected of him because of who he was. He had evolved into a hippie who only longed to write music and study philosophy. This shows that you can be genetically a genius, but that doesn't always matter - you can still take a different path.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

Caesar,

There's this great thing called Google. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reposit...erminal_Choice

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The world doesn't need more super intelligent people, it needs less stupid people. Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're wrong.

Good to have more of the most intelligent because they are capable of stunning leaps but stupid people aren't a problem.

now if we could just get rid of short people ...

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]

now if we could just get rid of short people ...

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem, I'll kill myself in the morning. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

But yeah, seriously, I've often thought that I don't deserve to live only being 5'7". Other groups I consider unworthy of life: the ugly, the overweight, the depressed, the religious, the aesthetically unsophisticated, the elderly.

Also all Gentiles.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not, but I don't see any acceptable way to reduce the # of stupid people? Do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explosive devices in every copy of The Secret.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

now if we could just get rid of short people ...

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem, I'll kill myself in the morning. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

But yeah, seriously, I've often thought that I don't deserve to live only being 5'7". Other groups I consider unworthy of life: the ugly, the overweight, the depressed, the religious, the aesthetically unsophisticated, the elderly.

Also all Gentiles.

[/ QUOTE ]
At least the overweight are doing something about it.

chez

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is grossly immoral not to utilize cloning technology to replicate the world's most intelligent people.

The amount of suffering, death, and irreversible environmental damage that will occur because we refuse to artificially inflate the world's supply of universal geniuses is...immeasurable. And allowing it is grossly immoral.

Am I wrong? AM I WRONG?









Are you sure this isn't a gross oversimplification? More intelligent people mean more leaders when maybe we need fewer leaders and more followers (more worker bees).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it leaders not followers that make war?

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

I think that the cloning issue has a lot more to it than the potentially good things the resulting humans(?) might discover.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am I wrong? AM I WRONG?

http://www.kickingtotalass.com/Site%...merfucking.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

In before "No, you're just an [censored]."

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

I see the point you are making, but I don't think there is any objective truth in it - though I don't really think that about most moral viewpoints.

Besides, the AI guys are saying 30 years untill we get machines able to use far greater logical reasoning than humans and we'll download what the geniuses they figured out instead and let the computers do the rest instead of hoping brainiac carbon-copies (that word is sooo funny when used on clones) will be just as good.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

2 things.

Thing 1.The point about wether the clones would replecate the success of the original is irrelevant. The point is that it would raise that average intelligence accross the board, and that has to be +ev in terms of intelligent achievement, however you choose to measure it.

Thing 2. Wouldn't a dramatic increase in any type of people, be they more inteligent than average, less, or different in any other way from the norm, have repercussions in our society far greater than technological advances they may bring with them. I am talking of the way politics is conducted, and all other aspects of social interaction. If the curve was changed so the top 10% of the population all had an extremely above average IQ, how would that affect other aspects of life?

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]

At least the overweight are doing something about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right---I didn't really kill myself, and they're diligently filling their arteries with delicious, delicious fat.

An example to watch and follow!

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

Would these geniuses work on cloning me some hot obedient wives? If, yes then it's grossly immoral not to whip up some geniuses. Otherwise, meh.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

Forget the geniuses, we leave that to the AIs. Let's clone hotties.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

At least the overweight are doing something about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right---I didn't really kill myself, and they're diligently filling their arteries with delicious, delicious fat.

An example to watch and follow!

[/ QUOTE ]
win-win-win. You're happy their killing themselves, they're happy to be killing themselves and its delicious. Over to you to find such a brilliant solution to being short.

BTW I hope you realise this was a response to someone who wanted to get rid of the stupid people.

BTW2. This reminds me of the British health minister the genius Alan Johnson who recently declared fat people as being a problem as big as climate change - he observed they were a disaster for the economy. What the british economy desperately needs (he forgot to explain) is millions of 100 year old thin people.

chez

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is grossly immoral not to utilize cloning technology to replicate the world's most intelligent people.

The amount of suffering, death, and irreversible environmental damage that will occur because we refuse to artificially inflate the world's supply of universal geniuses is...immeasurable. And allowing it is grossly immoral.

Am I wrong? AM I WRONG?



[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say, you're probably wrong. I work in the dairy industry where cloning is already a reality, and thousands of genetically superior have been selected, gene banked and cloned.

The results have been less than expected. In general the genetic merit of animal is assumed to be equal to clone siblings, however the deviation of the actual performance compared to the total population of daiy cattle has yet to conform to the superior genotype of the animal.

With dairy cattle, where the performance pedigree's are measured with a high degree of precision across close to 100 genetically industry relevant traits for the past 80 years spanning 40+ generations of animals, for cloning not to show any signifigant deviation from the total population with highly heritable traits does not bode well for the human population that would use cloning to benefit human traits that have a near unknown heritability.

Now, if we were to follow the path dairy cattle have taken for the past 40 years to improving the total populations performance, that would be another story. What is this marvelous technology you ask? Simple, breeding by selection of heritable relevant traits, a lower inbred coefficent, and a lower generation interval. We could start a national database that regularly tests relevant performance, database the results and only breed people based on the above three criteria through artificial insemination (AI) and multiple ovulation embryo technology (MOET). The AI database would catalog and index the performance of male progeny and siblings according to relevant traits, while the the breeders would match the traits to the female population. Then we could use a MOET procedure to help lower deviation and generation interval by using a younger age. Then use the female population that ended up at the wrong side of the bell curve as recipients for the superior donors. Obviously, a sterilization program must be implemented on average and below average males.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

And equally obviously, that strategy isn't viable for humans. So, cloning may be our best bet.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And equally obviously, that strategy isn't viable for humans. So, cloning may be our best bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If I assume your argument against an improved and guided breeding program to progress the average performance of the human genotype is based purely on ethics and backlashes from many communities resulting from those ethics. Then cloning will raise strong equal negative emotions in the same majority of the population. Oddly enough, this is the same population that the program would benefit the most by improvement in specific areas that could help them understand why this program would answer the problem posed by this thread. "The amount of suffering, death, and irreversible environmental damage that will occur because we refuse to artificially inflate the world's supply of universal geniuses is...immeasurable"

Now, I pose the real questions. Can humanity survive without maximizing genetic merit from generation to generation? Can humanity even accept the pinciples to maximize their survival?

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

We're already selectively breeding to improve the gene pool. A small percentage of people already controls most of the money and power. Numbers mean less and less with technology.

Who cares if idiots breed a billion times faster? They have no power and their excessive breeding ensures that they never will.

It sucks, but it's what it is.

That's where that movie Idiocracy (haven't seen it, so I'm basing this on forum reviews and posts) seems to have gotten it wrong. Sure most people are going to be functionally retarded, but there will be a very small subset of people who basically run the show who are a lot smarter than they are.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is grossly immoral not to utilize cloning technology to replicate the world's most intelligent people.

The amount of suffering, death, and irreversible environmental damage that will occur because we refuse to artificially inflate the world's supply of universal geniuses is...immeasurable. And allowing it is grossly immoral.

Am I wrong? AM I WRONG?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're implying that geniuses are as intelligent and as fruitful in their ideas as they are based solely upon genetics.

Although I agree that there must be a genetic component to intelligence, how can we make sure that this clone turns out to be hugely productive as well?

How many resources would you be willing to devote to the upbringing and education of this "genetic genius"?

Do we even know how to raise a child to take advantage of all his/her natural ability?

[/ QUOTE ]

Make up a batch of Witten+Lisa Randall kids and I will take up to 6 of them tomorrow and devote the next two decades of my life to raising them. I'm 23, for what it's worth.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

So the smart people never did any harm? WTF?

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is grossly immoral not to utilize cloning technology to replicate the world's most intelligent people.

The amount of suffering, death, and irreversible environmental damage that will occur because we refuse to artificially inflate the world's supply of universal geniuses is...immeasurable. And allowing it is grossly immoral.

Am I wrong? AM I WRONG?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're implying that geniuses are as intelligent and as fruitful in their ideas as they are based solely upon genetics.

Although I agree that there must be a genetic component to intelligence, how can we make sure that this clone turns out to be hugely productive as well?

How many resources would you be willing to devote to the upbringing and education of this "genetic genius"?

Do we even know how to raise a child to take advantage of all his/her natural ability?

[/ QUOTE ]

Make up a batch of Witten+Lisa Randall kids and I will take up to 6 of them tomorrow and devote the next two decades of my life to raising them. I'm 23, for what it's worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll devote 5 years to raising them and then kinda back off and let them have at it. I don't think we have as much impact after that as we seem to think.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is grossly immoral not to utilize cloning technology to replicate the world's most intelligent people.

The amount of suffering, death, and irreversible environmental damage that will occur because we refuse to artificially inflate the world's supply of universal geniuses is...immeasurable. And allowing it is grossly immoral.

Am I wrong? AM I WRONG?



[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say, you're probably wrong. I work in the dairy industry where cloning is already a reality, and thousands of genetically superior have been selected, gene banked and cloned.

The results have been less than expected. In general the genetic merit of animal is assumed to be equal to clone siblings, however the deviation of the actual performance compared to the total population of daiy cattle has yet to conform to the superior genotype of the animal.

With dairy cattle, where the performance pedigree's are measured with a high degree of precision across close to 100 genetically industry relevant traits for the past 80 years spanning 40+ generations of animals, for cloning not to show any signifigant deviation from the total population with highly heritable traits does not bode well for the human population that would use cloning to benefit human traits that have a near unknown heritability.

Now, if we were to follow the path dairy cattle have taken for the past 40 years to improving the total populations performance, that would be another story. What is this marvelous technology you ask? Simple, breeding by selection of heritable relevant traits, a lower inbred coefficent, and a lower generation interval. We could start a national database that regularly tests relevant performance, database the results and only breed people based on the above three criteria through artificial insemination (AI) and multiple ovulation embryo technology (MOET). The AI database would catalog and index the performance of male progeny and siblings according to relevant traits, while the the breeders would match the traits to the female population. Then we could use a MOET procedure to help lower deviation and generation interval by using a younger age. Then use the female population that ended up at the wrong side of the bell curve as recipients for the superior donors. Obviously, a sterilization program must be implemented on average and below average males.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have anything to add here, but thx for sharing your experience/thoughts. Very interesting, I had no idea this much application of genetic engineering was already "in the trenches", so to speak. I like this too:

[ QUOTE ]
Can humanity survive without maximizing genetic merit from generation to generation? Can humanity even accept the pinciples to maximize their survival?


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
How so? If I assume your argument against an improved and guided breeding program to progress the average performance of the human genotype is based purely on ethics and backlashes from many communities resulting from those ethics. Then cloning will raise strong equal negative emotions in the same majority of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Positive eugenics will always be more acceptable than negative eugenics. And everyone would have to agree to the latter, which isn't the case with cloning. Cloning is consensual and doesn't require any sort of systematic control of society by an elite group determining standards of human worth.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]

With dairy cattle, where the performance pedigree's are measured with a high degree of precision across close to 100 genetically industry relevant traits for the past 80 years spanning 40+ generations of animals, for cloning not to show any signifigant deviation from the total population with highly heritable traits does not bode well for the human population that would use cloning to benefit human traits that have a near unknown heritability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call major BS here unless you can provide sources.

You may be referring to this: http://www.cababstractsplus.org/goog...No=20043088554 but it doesn't support what you're suggesting at all.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

Hey, quote the right person.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, quote the right person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop using threaded mode.

Re: Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

now if we could just get rid of short people ...

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem, I'll kill myself in the morning. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

But yeah, seriously, I've often thought that I don't deserve to live only being 5'7". Other groups I consider unworthy of life: the ugly, the overweight, the depressed, the religious, the aesthetically unsophisticated, the elderly.

Also all Gentiles.

[/ QUOTE ]

without overweight people there would be no John Goodman, and without Goodman then TBL as we know it wouldn't exist. And if it didn't exist, just as it is, then the world would indeed be immeasurably worse off.