Juns

- IQ is mainly genetic, and while environmental factors are important, they only allow one to reach their genetic IQ potential. - We currently live in a world where intelligence is not being selected for, as we do not have harsh Darwinian conditions where the less intelligent are unable to spread their genes. Instead, we live in a post-industrial, wealthy world, specifically in developed countries, where more intelligent people tend to have fewer children, while less intelligent people have more children. They are not punished by the environment for doing so because of welfare and the general ease of survival in post-industrial developed countries. - Genetic IQ is decreasing in developed countries, and the Flynn effect only accounts for the environmental maximization of genetic IQ potential. - A possible solution to this would be a state where comprehensive intelligence tests are administered to all people. Those who have a low G factor, or whatever metric is used, would be sterilized. This state would provide abundant welfare for sterilized individuals if they need it, ensuring they have fulfilling lives. The only thing that would be prevented is the passing on of less intelligent genes into the gene pool of the country. - Embryo selection technology and other such technologies might also be utilized. - These policies could lead to an increase in the intelligence of the country over time, resulting in better lives for everyone due to more innovation, improved infrastructure, and a stronger economy, all driven by more intelligent individuals working for and running it. - Some possible flaws of this model that I have considered include the accuracy of the intelligence testing, trust in the state to wield such power, civil and human rights concerns, and the challenge of ensuring that intelligent people continue to have children to maintain a stable population. - I believe that this model could work and could lead to an amazing society if implemented correctly and if my assumptions are accurate. I understand that people have differing views, but I think this would be a great plan for a country to try out, exploring new territory and moving away from the mainstream in pursuit of the global maxima. - improvements and random thoughts: - evidence for IQ being mainly genetic in developed countries - ethical concerns - i think it would be a net good considering the alternative is a decrease in IQ overtime leading to a worse society and possibly the collapse of civilisatoin - accuracy of intelligence testing - state power - In constitution - agreed upon by everyone? - comprehensive system with checks and balances to make sure that the sterilisation is done to the right people in a humane and proper way. - people with lower intelligences should not be judged and should be treated in the best possible way just like everyone else. its just that we dont want them to influence the gene pool. similar like we would treat someone with a communicable disease. - would selecting for intelligence lead to possible negative effects and unforeseen consequences? - what about empathy, creativity and emotional intelligence. - darwinian selection wasnt really selcting for those things.... - assumption regarding intelligence leading to a better society - I think this is a valid assumption but i guess i could back it up more

It's interesting how the devil is seen as handsome in the modern world, whereas in the past, the devil was seen as ugly and hideous. there's also a sexual nature to the devil now. The movie "the which" is a good example.

But intelligence will be needed to do that right? and the reason why we haven't been able to do that by now is because of our lack of intelligence and knowledge.

"I was thinking of somehow creating a separate state after gathering an online movement of like-minded people who believe in the foundational principles of this type of society. I guess you could then buy land and make a state. I know this is all just fantasy in some sense and would be hard to implement, but I think this would be the best way to do it, as the people would willingly want to live in that state. Then, you could keep on increasing the intelligence of the society over time through eugenics. Over time, this society will become dominant due to its advanced tech, just like how the British were able to conquer the world (btw, I'm not saying that this society should do that). At that point, other societies might realize that this model is better than theirs, and they may then adopt it, and that way the cultural meme would spread." "I think that if this is done properly, in a stage yellow kind of way, where people, as I said earlier, form their own state because they like these ideas, then it could provide a solution to the problems I mentioned above. If it doesn't work, then, like in that simulation video I sent, the person who headed out into unknown territory will die, and others will know to not follow suit. But until now, the territory hasn't been properly explored, and it's definitely possible that the path to the global maximum is in that direction."

who is setting the tasks?

@Leo Gura I think that is where we are headed. I actually do naively think we are headed to a utopian world where AI will magically solve all our problems. " Education only accounts for maximizing genetic potential. It is extremely important in underdeveloped countries, as their potential IQ is likely much higher than what tests show due to lack of education, nutrition, etc. However, one can ask why they are in those conditions in the first place. Of course, many factors contribute to the development of a country, but intelligence is at the top. An example of what I mean by genetic potential is height. You are born with a genetic potential when it comes to your height. If you have good nutrition and max out environmental factors, you will reach that potential. However, you can’t magically go beyond that. You can feed Japanese people all the food in the world, but that won’t make them the same height as the Dutch on average. The Korean peninsula is a good example of this. North Koreans are, on average, much shorter than South Koreans because of nutrition."

@Leo Gura Less intelligent people have more children, and more intelligent people have fewer. From my limited knowledge and research, I have come to the conclusion that IQ scores have been increasing mainly due to the Flynn effect, while the g factor is actually declining. I could be wrong about this, of course, but this is my "intuition" after the research I did. Genetic engineering could definitely be a potential solution, and I mentioned it before in my first post. This would also be considered eugenics. Of course, as you said, it would differ due to the lack of sterilization. In that society, the people who don't accept gene editing—which will most likely be stage blue religious people—would be the only ones left behind. Yeah, I guess this is a valid solution. However, this is not something that we have right now. Or do we? I have heard that some people are doing it—CRISPR?

@Leo Gura I agree. It is a huge problem, and that's why eugenics is seen as immoral by most people. It makes sense to see it as immoral for most people since it won't work most of the time because of the problems you mentioned. However, what is the solution to the lack of selection for intelligence in the modern world? Should we just let society collapse slowly and then allow for harsh Darwinian conditions to bring us back to where we were before? I think that if this is done properly, in a stage yellow kind of way, where people, as I said earlier, form their own state because they like these ideas, then it could provide a solution to the problems I mentioned above. If it doesn't work, then, like in that simulation video I sent, the person who headed out into unknown territory will die, and others will know to not follow suit. But until now, the territory hasn't been properly explored, and it's definitely possible that the path to the global maximum is in that direction.

you could have a society that voluntarily does this in theory. they could all agree on the laws and agree upon them being enforced. This ideology doesn't involve a strong sense of identity, culture and nationalism. You could argue that that being of high intelligence could act as an identity I guess. we all live in societies with top down governmental control in many aspects of our lives. "People are put in prison for crimes, and you do have authority over other people's bodies in specific circumstances. However, since we humans don't want to live like animals, we have laws and change them to try and live in an optimal way where the restrictions and rules placed upon society maximize well-being and freedom." "as I said above, laws and restrictions are agreed upon and created in human societies to maximise well being and freedom and other important things. Once you realise that society is slowly becoming less intelligent and that bad traits are increasing in the genepool you will also realise that this will decrease well being and freedom as the high complexity, advanced society you live in starts to collapse. Then your cherished freedoms start to decrease and your wellbeing too. that's why laws are updated and I believe that this would be a possible update for a new way of running society now that there is no strong natural selection for intelligence."

@Leo Gura I understand that it could backfire and not work out but as I have said before what are other solutions for solving the problems of dysgenics and the decreasing intelligence of society. I think we need a society to try this out to see if it works. I like the analogy of local and global maxima used in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p11-oggW1E&pp=ygUqbGliZXJhbHMgdnMgY29uc2V2aWF0ZSBjb21wdXRlciBzaW11bGF0aW9u. I see this idea as an attempt to find the global maximum by going in a different direction. " Yes, of course, intelligence is multifaceted. However, there is a g factor (general intelligence), and many tests and metrics can be used to try and get a close approximation of it. I know these measures aren't 100% perfect, and I myself don't know too much about all the possible ways of testing for intelligence, but this is something that must be looked into, as dysgenics and the societal decrease in intelligence are serious problems that need to be addressed. I agree that there are many other important traits needed for a society to flourish, such as conscientiousness, EQ, etc. But, to be frank, intelligence is the main thing that's needed. These other traits are also important and should be looked into too, but I used cognitive intelligence as the example above because it is the most important. Cognitive development is closely linked to intelligence, too, I would say. To move up the stages in Spiral Dynamics, you, of course, need changes in emotions and psychology, but you also need to be cognitively intelligent to properly understand the different stages (yellow). If you want to be scientifically minded and rational (orange), intelligence plays a crucial role. Of course, high IQ/intelligence doesn't necessarily mean good morals or wisdom; however, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition for a prosperous society. Low intelligence people singing "Kumbaya" won't build a great, prosperous society, even though they may be morally great people. Both are needed, but I think intelligence is much more important, as humans are generally moral by nature, and more intelligent societies tend to be more prosocial. " I don't think that selecting for intelligence will necessarily make people think in the same way. General intelligence is exactly that—general—and can be used for many things. I can kind of see what you mean in the sense that you may root out creativity and other forms of intelligence, like physical, etc., but these can also be looked into and selected for if they are useful. The main point is that something needs to be done and that not doing anything is leading to negative consequences, so this could be a solution. A society of really intelligent people should be able to automate basic manual work as much as possible and what ever is left could be done by the lower end of the spectrum of this society. there are many intelligent people around the world who do basic manual labour because of various circumstances while relatively low intelligent people sometimes get cushy white collar jobs for various reasons too. I think a society that has more intelligence will have more of a capacity to solve problems in general and I don't think that this is a huge problem to solve. I was thinking of somehow creating a separate state after gathering an online movement of like-minded people who believe in the foundational principles of this type of society. I guess you could then buy land and make a state. I know this is all just fantasy in some sense and would be hard to implement, but I think this would be the best way to do it, as the people would willingly want to live in that state. Then, you could keep on increasing the intelligence of the society over time through eugenics. Over time, this society will become dominant due to its advanced tech, just like how the British were able to conquer the world (btw, I'm not saying that this society should do that). At that point, other societies might realize that this model is better than theirs, and they may then adopt it, and that way the cultural meme would spread.

@The Crocodile Fascism is a specific term. top down government control is needed in some things where it will lead to more wellbeing and those other things that I mentioned earlier.

come on man. Why do you have to engage with me in this type of way. I'm not trying to act smarter than you in anyway. I put critique in the title of this post for a reason. I want different views to see if this idea makes sense or not. I am well aware that I am very ignorant and lack intelligence in many ways.

as I said above, laws and restrictions are agreed upon and created in human societies to maximise well being and freedom and other important things. Once you realise that society is slowly becoming less intelligent and that bad traits are increasing in the genepool you will also realise that this will decrease well being and freedom as the high complexity, advanced society you live in starts to collapse. Then your cherished freedoms start to decrease and your wellbeing too. that's why laws are updated and I believe that this would be a possible update for a new way of running society now that there is no strong natural selection for intelligence. One example of a severe disability could be someone with severe intellectual and learning disabilities, such that they cannot take care of themselves. Their intelligence and understanding of the world may be that of a child. If they are likely to pass that on to their children, it could lead to suffering for the child and create a lot of strain on those who have to care for them. In my ideal society this disabled person would be given full state support. much more than is given in most developed countries never mind underdeveloped countries. they just wouldn't be able to have children. they could adopt if they were capable of taking care of the children. By the way, I haven't fully bought into this idea, so your asking me these questions is exactly what I want in order to see if it makes sense or not. I know what you mean but, Yeah, it's your descion. society makes rules. If all society decided tomorrow that they wanted to follow through with my idea here it would happen. A criminal is someone who commits a crime. A crime is something that is decided upon by society. in some countries you could be put in jail for things that you think are totally fine. naturalistic fallacy. my point is that you were talking about how you don't have the right to impose things on others Having children is literly imposing life itself on someone. you are also subjecting them to your opinions and views on reality and making them live with you for at least until adulthood. I'm not saying I think this I was just using it as an example. again the ground rules are created by humans. many societies think that torture and murder and restricting reproductive rights is fine. they probable won't be as successful as ones don't torture and all the others but these laws in some sense are arbitrary and subject to change based on the needs of the time. I would easily be killed by a tiger, lion, and a number of other animals in close combat without tools. smart humans build tech and infrastructure to be safe from those animals. those animals are now in zoos(not saying I agree with the way animals are treated in zoos but you get my point). those IQ people would have access to comprehensive state welfare and would have the ability to adopt if they could take care of the children. since this is just one state they can always leave and live elsewhere if they want to have children. But I doubt they would have a better life elsewhere anyway. What did you think I meant by advanced civilisations, ha ha? RTFM:

I didn't say that it depends entirely on IQ. please elaborate. how do you know what they are if you cant measure them? As I said, having moral, hardworking, and friendly people is great, but advanced civilizations require high intelligence to create and run. You can't get that from low-intelligence people, no matter how good-natured they are. I guess that is a possibility in some sense, but what is your solution to dysgenics and declining intelligence? I think we need a society to try this out to see if it works. I like the analogy of local and global maxima used in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p11-oggW1E&pp=ygUqbGliZXJhbHMgdnMgY29uc2V2aWF0ZSBjb21wdXRlciBzaW11bGF0aW9u. I see this idea as an attempt to find the global maximum by going in a different direction. Please explain why this would be the case? why exactly would they be dysfunctional and egomaniacs? l don't particularly like elon musk but I'd say he's much more useful for building a prosperous society than most other people. to use the analogy of tech, hardware(genes) is much more important than software(ideology and beliefs). the software can change much easier than the hardware. I could be wrong about this though.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from here, but it's not that simple. Would you be fine with someone with severe disabilities having children and then causing those children to live lives of immense suffering? What makes you think you even have the right to bring someone into the world and have children in the first place if you want to follow that line of thinking? People are put in prison for crimes, and you do have authority over other people's bodies in specific circumstances. However, since we humans don't want to live like animals, we have laws and change them to try and live in an optimal way where the restrictions and rules placed upon society maximize well-being and freedom.

@Leo Gura oh, I see. could you let me know your opinions on this?

It's beyond the green idea that any mention of eugenics is immoral. It's beyond the blind acceptance or rejection of racism by blue. I feel as if it is a higher-level ideology that recognizes why others may view it as problematic from their spiral stages, but it is needed due to the net good it would have on society. maybe I'm wrong about it being yellow though.

I'd like to think—and forgive me if this sounds pretentious—that this vision of a eugenic state is Stage Yellow and not Blue/Red

By the way, I come from an underdeveloped country myself, and my parents—especially my mother—would score poorly on a written IQ test due to their lack of formal education and other environmental factors. However, their genes are in me, and I am much closer to my genetic IQ potential due to education and environmental factors being somewhat optimized. That said, I would never delude myself into thinking that with better nutrition and better education, my IQ would jump to genius level. I can look at my family, my own IQ test scores, and my general achievements to roughly understand what my potential was.

I was just confused as to why he would lie. people who lie usually do it for some personal gain. in this case, it would be so easy to find out if he was actually saying the truth or not, so it confused me as to why he would risk his reputation.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I did say this in my original post: "Genetic IQ is decreasing in developed countries, and the Flynn effect only accounts for the environmental maximization of genetic IQ potential." Education only accounts for maximizing genetic potential. It is extremely important in underdeveloped countries, as their potential IQ is likely much higher than what tests show due to lack of education, nutrition, etc. However, one can ask why they are in those conditions in the first place. Of course, many factors contribute to the development of a country, but intelligence is at the top. An example of what I mean by genetic potential is height. You are born with a genetic potential when it comes to your height. If you have good nutrition and max out environmental factors, you will reach that potential. However, you can’t magically go beyond that. You can feed Japanese people all the food in the world, but that won’t make them the same height as the Dutch on average. The Korean peninsula is a good example of this. North Koreans are, on average, much shorter than South Koreans because of nutrition. Top-down approaches are important, but it's sometimes a cop-out for considering the actual causes of a problem. Do you agree that humans are animals? Do you believe that evolution and natural selection are a thing? Do you not believe that humans developed intelligence because the more intelligent survived and the less intelligent died? What do you think will happen to a society where the more intelligent have fewer children and less intelligent people have more? I’m pretty sure that you have an intuitive understanding of what I mean about genetic intelligence.

I am sympathetic to the race realist view (by the way, I'm not white). It doesn't mean that one is irrationally prejudiced against others who look different, as one cannot know for certain the qualities of an individual using averages. Also, the fact that it is associated with stage red/blue people, who are just ignorantly racist, is not a valid reason for not considering my main points. Yes, of course, intelligence is multifaceted. However, there is a g factor (general intelligence), and many tests and metrics can be used to try and get a close approximation of it. I know these measures aren't 100% perfect, and I myself don't know too much about all the possible ways of testing for intelligence, but this is something that must be looked into, as dysgenics and the societal decrease in intelligence are serious problems that need to be addressed. I agree that there are many other important traits needed for a society to flourish, such as conscientiousness, EQ, etc. But, to be frank, intelligence is the main thing that's needed. These other traits are also important and should be looked into too, but I used cognitive intelligence as the example above because it is the most important. Cognitive development is closely linked to intelligence, too, I would say. To move up the stages in Spiral Dynamics, you, of course, need changes in emotions and psychology, but you also need to be cognitively intelligent to properly understand the different stages (yellow). If you want to be scientifically minded and rational (orange), intelligence plays a crucial role. Of course, high IQ/intelligence doesn't necessarily mean good morals or wisdom; however, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition for a prosperous society. Low intelligence people singing "Kumbaya" won't build a great, prosperous society, even though they may be morally great people. Both are needed, but I think intelligence is much more important, as humans are generally moral by nature, and more intelligent societies tend to be more prosocial. You not seeing merit in this topic is a valid opinion. However, what is your solution to decreasing intelligence and dysgenics?

I'm not advocating for it. this is just something I've thought about. advocating would be if i was sure about it and wanted to promote it and convince others. I know that eugenics is controversial but that doesn't mean you should just ignore it and not take it seriously. I'm aware of the history of it's implementation at a surface level and I know that much harm has been done in the name of it. Eugenics is quite a broad term and it can be used for by people who differing ideas on what constitutes good genes. Please be very specific as to why it's pretty messed up.