125 IQ Average, Society Stats

Cool. That will make things interesting

If by they you mean (((they))) but I doubt it. This technology will be international and if one company is known to be unreliable people (at least those who can afford it) will just travel abroad to companies that have proven results.

Yes, I just rounded everything out to make the graph more presentable.

Both are true. But having more eggs does give women more chances to get pregnant whereas right now if they fail to get pregnant with the handful of eggs they produce naturally then they simply can't have kids (they won't be making any more eggs past a certain age, somewhere in their 30s usually)

Remember reading somewhere some comity deemed doing this "unethical". Or perhaps that was simply for genetic engineering in-general. Not sure

Attached: 1547658195444.png (582x660, 162K)

The most unethical countries will inherent the future then.

Wouldn't say that. The changing political atmosphere will eventually change opinion

In China the political atmosphere is completely top down, they would have no problem making embryo selection for IQ a free social service since the economic gain alone would be more than enough for the social service to pay for itself & much more.

>higher mean household income
Do people with slightly higher iq than average actually create more wealth for themselves and by proxy the wider society or are they just more adept at extracting wealth with their intelligence advantage from the stupider masses?

Obviously the geniuses create and innovate but your garbage will still need to be collected and the bottom tier will be doing that, whether the bottom tier is 80iq or 120 I'm not sure it matters.

Except mass immigration from shitholes will prevent such a homogeneous population from forming.

To your question I'd say both. They would extract more wealth while simultaneously creating more, I'd lean towards the side of them creating more than extracting but who knows.
In regard to what will happen to low IQ jobs, I think they will all be automated by machines. And what happens to worthless low IQ people? My guess is they will all just be put on generous welfare and live life as a leach since it is less of headache then trying to find them a job, it may not even be that expensive given the kind of economic progress that geniuses beyond our imagination may be capable of.

Is natural selection unethical?

I agree, this is where China has the practical lead. But homogeneous European countries will undoubtedly become more anti-immigration in the future & if they use this tech then they can at least stay at par with China (although they'd always be at a population disadvantage with far more geniuses being born in China just as a consequence).

>implying that it won't be discredited/smeared/covered-up

The Personality Assessment System tells you more than Myers-Briggs. IQ tells you more than SATs. Racial genetics are a proven fact in every single measure. All of this shit got buried despite being in the public record for over 40 years.

China still can't innovate well. They can master stolen ideas but nothing original. Think of how many literal geniuses they must have in their 1billion yet still they can't invent shit. There is a case to be made that this maybe is our next step in our evolution this might be what really starts to elevate our species it will be very controversial though. Could over many years of selection let's say 300 years the upper threshold for IQ increase? How would someone with an IQ of 230 think. Is that even possible?

So no niggers in the future then?

1. It doesn't matter if you are discredited/smeared/covered-up because even if this business (Embryo Selection for IQ) is banned in Western countries it will undoubtedly be legal in some Asian countries (think Singapore/China) so you can just travel abroad to do business.
2. IQ strongly correlate with SAT scores, although technically you're right.
3. Racial IQ differences are a fact, but my question is whether you would be okay with reducing that gap via embryo selection even for non-white Americans? Did you know that regardless of race people with higher IQs are more likely to support free speech? Not to mention high IQ people regardless of race make more money, commit far less crime, have more stable marriages, are healthier, etc. I think you would agree that the greatest tension between races is genetic not cultural (although there is that element as well). If we remove the genetic gap (in terms of IQ) or even improve it I think you would find other races more tolerable to be around. Now you might think I'm advocating for multi-culturalism but I am not, personally I think this technology should be made free in 3rd world countries (instead of giving food aid) and the new generation in those countries would fix their own countries and have no reason to need to immigrate to white countries. The world would be far more stable in the future I imagine, no more mass migration.

Nogs would actually become civilized (at least in countries where they allowed us to implement the technology). Mass migration would end because now they would be smart enough to develop their own countries.

I think you give people too much credit. Much of what you say can happen, but it can be made not to happen quite easily.

Improving nigger iq wont remove melanin from their skin. But i guess feral negroes wont be there anymore.

>but your garbage will still need to be collected and the bottom tier will be doing that, whether the bottom tier is 80iq or 120 I'm not sure it matters.
A 120 IQ garbage collector is better and more efficient than an 80 IQ one. Again, society improves.

China doesn't need to innovate in this area (mostly). The only thing they need to do right now is to extract genomic data from their population to get better polygenic scores, no innovation needed. Whenever PGD is invented China will just steal it and then they will have everything they need.
To give you an idea of how insane IQ can be pushed let me explain the science. There are 10000 SNPs (collection of genes) associated with IQ. If we were to genetically edit an embryo to have all good genes for IQ then the upper limit of IQ would be about 1000. Forget 230, what the fuck does a 1000 IQ person think, it's not even a meme, it's actually possible. The technology for this is still a ways off (CRISPR makes errors & we haven't locked down every SNP associated with intelligence) but wouldn't it be interesting to know how smart this person would be within 1 year of being born?

Could actually solve a lot of problems. Everyone would also wake up to the JQ. If done right it could be a comfy future. I would not dispute this technology being available to all I would ensure it is cheap so as you don't get super rich people doing their duper rich thing. If this works we could also select other desired traits making people fitter, stronger, faster, improved immune systems, better visions and hearing etc. Literal Eutopia if gotten right.

There nothing more natural that choosing a rape victim

Can they select for height and athleticism too? I've got a 135 IQ and my life is still shit because I'm short and athletically retarded, would never want to have a son and put him through the same shit existence

Attached: IMG_2161.jpg (843x843, 467K)

This won't even begin to be possible for at least 15 years at the absolutely earliest, so it's a long term idea.

>I've got a 135 IQ and my life is still shit because I'm short and athletically retarded, would never want to have a son and put him through the same shit existence
WOAH HOLD ON THERE YOU FUCKING

N

A

Z

I

debate.org/opinions/is-genetic-engineering-ethical

See how many people agree how fucking evil you are? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU WANTING TO GENETIC ENGINEER YOUR CHILD TO A BETTER LIFE YOU DISGUSTING PIGGHGGG!!!!!!!!!

Wow that's astonishing. Imagine the things that could be done in science, art and music. Good god can you imagine the autism though. Maybe there is a way to deselect autism out of higher IQ people so people actually socialise. It's a fascinating prospect no doubt.

Your idea is actually in the works right now. The company I mentioned earlier, Genomic Prediction, will use polygenic scores to filter out embryos likely to be obese, weak, unhealthy, blind, deaf, and any disease you could imagine. Not to mention there are some very interesting rare genes we could make normal, such as the gene that 1% of Americans have which allows them to only need 5 hours of sleep without any detrimental health or cognitive consequences. That one gene edit alone would add years to the time we spend awake during our life.

It's great you brought that up because as of last year we can now predict someone's adult height using polygenic scores with accuracy down to a few centimeters. So yes, you could pick an embryo and know what its exact height will be before it grows up.

Can't we just genocide all the dumb african niggers instead?

I assume you're joking but in-case you aren't, here's a better question then asking whether the kid would want to be genetically engineered -> If you could choose your genetic makeup before you were born would you? Most would probably say yes because there are many possible benefits. Now given that, you can assume with great certainty when your child grows up they would probably answer that question the same way. Wouldn't it be best just to give them the best genetic makeup possible so they wouldn't have to ask that question with regret about their parents having left their DNA up to random chance?

As IQ goes us risk for autism does increase. However, we can detect the SNPs responsible for autism so I'm sure you could increase IQ and also filter out risk for autism (although it would become very expensive at some point and parents might just settle for an IQ in the lower 100s)

Yeah there seems to be a knock on effect in my mind right now thinking about all the things that could be done. A big one would be improving on genes that could effect age and health. More specifically I know age is a build up of error or fraying of the cells for want of a better term if that could be improved upon in the same way we could increase UQ. We know extended life is possible as you can see it in nature (immortal jellyfish).

WE"RE ALL THE SAME. GO FUCK YOURSELF RACIST

what if you can't scale intelligence WITHOUT autism- and in the far-future neurotypicals are the outcasts and losers?

>won't address this
At all

Everything starts off expensive. If you have a kid with an IQ of 400 just buy him an crispr kit or whatever it would be in the future and he could do it for you. I mean we would be retards compared to them these ideas are from our minds. Imagine that kid looking at this situation and what he could discover about the genome and how he would be able to innovate. Multiply that across the populous and everyone could be an inventor. You would have some random bloke down your street streaming himself inventing teleportation or some shit whilst your experimenting with zero point energy in your shed. It's an exaggeration but you get my gist. Really cool to ponder on.

Our best bet right now for using this technology to extend life is to reduce cancer & alzheimer's risk. Unfortunately we have a major dilemma, it is the case that cancer risk correlates inversely with alzheimer's risk, so if you decrease one you increase the other. Personally I'd rather increase the alzheimer's risk to decrease the cancer risk (since a brain tumor is basically incurable) and just hope they find a cure for alzheimer's before I get it.

nigger confirmed.

I guess spergs will spread across the universe, hopefully they are benevolent sperg overlords who give us a Utopia.

The rise of the autistic master race kek. Imagine how bad the ocd would be though they might not be able to function. We should be able to deselect it though.

Ya, my most optimistic hope is that these kids with IQs in the 100s will be born at least 25 years before I am expected to die so that they can stop me from dying. After that my vision of the future becomes exponentially utopian.

Attached: IMG_2258.jpg (1250x1250, 259K)

I think somewhere down the line stems cells cures everything from cancer to growing back limbs. If you can synthesise unspecialised stem cells and then find a way to program them maybe take the desired cells and then duplicate them in the petri dish and insert these new specialised cells back. Hypothetically anything and everything is possible biologically. Though it's a long way off.

Imagine the wisdom you would possess at the age of 999. I tend to not get to caught up about death as I believe its all the same consciousness experienceing itself just at different times individually but at the same time collectively. At some point in the future we will be those 100s IQ kids. I wonder if having an IQ that high would affect how you experience time in anyway.

the elite will never allow it, they have the high iq genes and they wish to maintain their monopoly on it

free genetic engineering for cognitive genes for all is the closest to communism we will get and the international capitalist and aristocratic class will never allow it

Communists should back eugenics and genetic engineering 100% but they never do because they are too thoroughly spooked by 19th century tabula rasa bs and sociological constructivism so we're probably doomed

I know this is a bit of a tangent but I think before these kids reach the age of 999 they will have set a technological singularity in motion and at some point I doubt we'd still recognize them as human.

I think there comes a point of no return like how they fucked up giving us the Internet. People would just buy something similar to crispr and do that shit themselves. Go to some back alley lab in Brazil or something.

I guess that's possible but from an economic standpoint there is every reason to want to use the tech. For example, insurance companies would actually save money by paying for people to use this tech free of charge because they wouldn't have to payout their healthcare bills that come from genetic diseases (savings calculated by Hank Greely). Not to mention a generally smarter population just would be more economically productive with more high-end talent contributing to innovation and business.

>humanity's next evolutionary step will be forged in the back allies of Rio by huezilian biology students editing genes for intelligence under the cover of darkness from the cognitive elite using what amounts to the equivalent of a wiki how to for high iq genetic profiles
lol thanks for laff bong I needed it

>Gwern
Isn't that the guy who wrote a voluminous treatise on My Little Pony?

Me on the right

Attached: 1490319902793.jpg (600x836, 79K)

Damn would it be possible to increase the frequency bandwidth of say the eyes or hearing? We might not recognise them but we would be their fathers and they would stand on the shoulders of all the great men who have paved the way for them.

desu all i think we'll get out of this is a brave new world style arrangement (assuming we are not already there anyway), but I'm the external pessimist

400 years in the future who knows look back 200 years see where we were then.

He's done a lot of weird stuff but he's also very smart. If you look at his embryo selection essay much of it's way beyond me. What I do understand fascinates me.

>>Bright
>>As low as 75
>>As high as 150

Attached: qvp111aae -- 670 -- cbw111lgs'.gif (200x200, 2.69M)

An optimistic take is that they are able to take us along for the ride with their singularity tech. A pessimistic take (which is just slightly less optimistic) is that they let us enjoy utopia but aren't capable of dragging us to their level.

What happens in terms of child sexuality in your +2 SD society?

Bright (for the left curve) is only the area between the black bars which is IQ 110 - 125

I have no idea, I have my own moral stances but they would have their own as well. I hope high IQ correlates with decent morality, I'm not sure what would happen to morals in general.

Have you read JF's book the revolutionary phenotype? I haven't for the record but from I gather he basically argues that if we allows computers to select genes that alter our DNA eventually the machines will select for humans that show 'love' towards the machine. Something like that, I'm sure there's someone here that can explain it better.

Attached: r7qxhhteir421.jpg (613x514, 43K)

This is really a moot point because by the time anyone born now becomes adults we will have Computer to Brain interface technology.

>1000 IQ person
That's theoretical work by Hsu. We don't understand these polygenic traits well and we can't predict the upper limit of intelligence.

That may be a problem in the very distant future but for now we don't have sentient machines, we choose the phenotype we want.

Good people are more important than intelligent people.

I'm pessimistic about that coming to pass any-time soon. Especially with Moore's law expected to stall in the very near future,

The thing is, if we already allow this to happen now it's going to be the norm when we eventually do have such machines.

>A 120 IQ garbage collector is better and more efficient than an 80 IQ one.
That's incorrect.

IQ predicts how quickly you will learn a simple task but does not predict how well you will perform it once you've learned it.

it isn't expected to stop retard

>125 iq
>Average
Learn how IQ works, then pick one. 100 is average by definition

Steven would agree with you. He himself has said at the 100s to 1000 range IQ ceases to have recognizable meaning to us. But even if the limit is 200 (highly doubt that), there is major room for societal improvement.

The only thing you can do is to make sure the concern is not forgotten so that it is dealt with safely in the future.

That's correct.

It's relative to the modern day curve, otherwise I would just be drawing two exactly same curves on top of each-other and I promise that would bore you.

>But even if the limit is 200
I would lean toward 200. At 150, the brain is a phenomenally potent instrument for its size.

they exactly import gorillions of niggers and arabs for this reason. to increase the average IQ

tl;dr: op sucks donkey cock

Tell me, how many nano-meters small are our current smallest transistors? And then ask yourself at what point can we not make them any smaller? The answer will hit you in the face within 10 years unless they deliberately slow down computer speed advancements, and even that wouldn't prologue its death much.

Either way we are just speculating. No-one knows.

The concern will be irrelevant because that practise is going to be ingrained into society was too much to be able to stop it. We will use AI technology for everything including finding new favorable genes.

>we are just speculating
It's also very fanciful speculation given that Watson has just been given the Galileo treatment.

There is an entire area of philosophy that deals with this (its name escapes me) which wants to ensure that AI doesn't escape pandora's box and that it can only let bits out at a time and then has its memory wiped. Possible narrow AI solution?

It’s amoral not immoral

Yea it's hard to tell what AI will be and if we can contrain it. I haven't read JF's book so I don't exactly know what all his arguments are just from what I heard from his livestreams.

> be 130
> already have 2 kids which are smart
If this gets into the market soon, i would consider getting 1 additoonal child, selected from a bunch of embryos to get a highly gifted kid. Not that I need it but just for the fun

China's has effectively just banned it and they're the country predicted to have the least ethical objection.

Attached: 6567575344555.jpg (782x810, 146K)

And why? the 125 IQ elites don't want the extra competition for limited prestigious positions.