>I expect that human genetic engineering, both therapeutic and “vanity” applications, will become an unfathomably profitable industry in the coming decades.
The most important application, by far, dwarfing both therapeutic and vanity, is improvements to intelligence.
I’ve heard this argument before (and probably made this argument at some point too), and it seems to boil down to thinking that people would agree with me if they would just be a bit smarter and/or more informed.
But I don’t think this is true at all. If it was then smart people would agree, but they don’t.
There is another line of thinking (often seen in science fiction) that suggests all problems are solvable if only you are smart enough. But they are not, some problems simply don’t have a reachable satisfactory solution. There is a reason these science fiction stories often come with a ‘benevolent’ dictator to impose the smart fix on everyone, because taking away free will is the only way to solve some of the hardest problems.
I think there is a strong argument for emotional intelligence, worldliness, and empathy though.
Why not?
>I’ve heard this argument before (and probably made this argument at some point too), and it seems to boil down to thinking that people would agree with me if they would just be a bit smarter and/or more informed.
I don't want the next generation to agree with me. I want them to be on the next level.
>I think there is a strong argument for emotional intelligence, worldliness, and empathy though.
If you have a society of monkeys, no matter how worldly, emotionally intelligent they are - they are not creating astrolabes to travel the oceans, they are not domesticating animals, they are not writing plays, they are not building huts, even.
Similarly, if you create a society of humans with a higher average intelligence, we will likewise experience a phase shift and access new wonders of culture and science that are simply inaccessible or extremely impractical right now. I cannot tell you what these wonders will be, but I am certain they exist.
And in my humble opinion, we have already started to hit a wall in terms of what areas of intellectual achievement are possible with our current 'hardware' limitations. There are already areas of math, of physics, of biology that maybe 10-20 people on the whole Earth are capable of working in. We struggle to come up with any satisfying macro economic theory with testable predictions. Religious thought has very obviously stalled as well.
Think about how much different the concept of IQ is if we don't have computers. With computers we just think of IQ as a type of clock speed of the brain. To get "smarter" people then we just need to do some kind of overclocking.
It seems likely to me we are confusing a model for reality. Even worse that in confusing that particular brain/computer model for reality we tend to confuse all models of reality for reality. Simulation theory on down.
Simple example: how many people in the USA understand that inflation / money printing / quantitative easing is a tax and should be avoided at the level it is used to finance the spending? Not many, for sure.
Btw intelligence is not only sheer analytical power, it is also emotional control, selintrospection, focus skill, collaboration and interpersonal skill.
Not hugely surprising to today-me, but I was still young enough that it was a bit disillusioning to see that people couldn't even see (or say out loud) that being more intelligent would help us all.