Am I wrong? Am I wrong?

[Bork]

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.

[tame_deuces]

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

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[slimjim646]

[ 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.

[madnak]

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

[slimjim646]

[ 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?

[Duke]

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.

[AWoodside]

[ 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.

[drzen]

So the smart people never did any harm? WTF?

[Duke]

[ 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.