International competition will eventually force the US to change rules like this.
When everyone in China lives till 200 years old and they all have IQs of 130+, the FDA will be pushed aside.
When everyone in China lives till 200 years old and they all have IQs of 130+, the FDA will be pushed aside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_biomedical_com...
It just means your pharma companies can get away with higher profit margins.
On top of that the largest outside of the US is China and there is very little trust of data coming from there in the Western World.
I'm pretty sure if the project had succeeded that the Chinese government would have had no moral qualms about gene-engineering a population with an IQ of 130+ and the US would be permanently behind in every field forever after.
The US is already a key brain-drain destination for Chinese elites, why would that change?
Anyone cares to shed a tear for IQ 85/90 people that have to navigate increasingly complex world?
Look at the amount of legal documents, EULA’s, software, and complex corporate structures that an average Joe has to deal with today vs 50 years ago. How long u till average person can no longer cope?
The impact of a population in an organised, technologically advanced society being one standard deviation of intelligence higher than a strategic rival population … would be immense.
Even if just temporarily boosting intelligence, something like a militarised Flowers for Algernon scenario is pretty terrifying.
Mass enhancement of the general population would have far reaching consequences.
Maybe the observation that countries with the best education tend to be authoritarian is not because "dictators are good at educating people" but other way around - because it's a natural selection and if a highly educated country tries to transition to democracy, it either ruins democracy, or education, or country itself.
Any model of governance mainly solves the problem of "how to satisfy interests of the stakeholders - i.e. the elite - without ruining things"; there are many ways to ruin things (even elite itself can bring about it's own downfall), but the one everyone fears most is when people get too angry. Democracy is a good way to shift responsibility back to people itself, thus defusing this threat. But it requires people being sufficiently dumb to bite it.
On what basis are you making this claim?
This is a huge statement that seems wrong to me. Democracy works best when the population are engaged and hard to manipulate.
Also the "observation that countries with the best education are authoritarian" seems wrong to me too. The data I see has the top 10 entirely filled with democracies, with Singapore as the first nondemocracy coming in at 11th place. Check the economist democracy index, the correlation between democracy and education is imperfect but strong.
And those are arguments based on data. There are also arguments based on logic. Authoritarianism and education are fundamentally opposed, because authoritarians hate the teaching of things that disagree with their own specific viewpoint and suppress it.
Been there done that, it’s called Russia.
I don’t agree with your worldview, but if I was presented with the choice is between dumb, fake democracy and clever competent dictatorship, I might as well choose the latter. At least trains will run on time.