The Singularity

[Terraoblivion]

You know, I could have sworn that a lot of people have presented economic arguments for why you're wrong and you've dismissed them out of hand, rather than either going to research it yourself or accepting that they probably know more about the topic than you. What you're actually saying is that you're right until others go ahead and comprehensively educates you on economics, biology, neurology, robotics and probably several other fields. No, that's not how it works. If people who know more about a topic than you explain why you're wrong in a way that is satisfactory to everyone except you, then it is your obligation to either prove that you're right or concede. And between me, RPGuru, Poison Fish and Warty Goblin, I believe we have a sufficient amount of more learned people than you, agreeing on all major points, which makes your argument wrong. Especially in light of you admitting that you know nothing about the topic, giving us little reason to believe that it is us who are outmatched, especially since there are two actual social scientists among us.

I'd also like a less condescending tone when you say that you're right until somebody manages to educate you on why you're wrong. Common courtesy and all that. Especially when you're the one saying that others need to educate you, which is to say that you're asking them to provide a service for you.

[RPGuru1331]

Excuse me, but average income (or quality of life) is entirely likely to go up in meaningful terms, because IQ increases the efficiency with which a wide variety of economic functions can be performed. Stock analysts tend to have higher IQ not because they picked that criterion out of a hat, but because candidates with higher IQ tend to pick better stocks. Successful artists and composers tend to have well-above average IQs, even if this kind of cognitive faculty is tough to measure, probably because G-factor feeds into spatial and auditory processing. Kids with higher IQ go further in education because they absorb and retain information more easily, and with less supervision

Uh, stock analysts pick worse stocks than chance, so it's more likely they used their intelligence to appear to know what they're doing. They're not any better at actually picking stocks for being smarter. Excellent way to try to say "THERE WILL TOTALLY BE MORE HIGHER POWER JOBS", though; pick the job that can literally be outperformed by an RNG, a chimpanzee, or a cute kitty (in descending order, if I recall correctly).

And again, this is wrong for a huge number of jobs. Being smarter won't make brick laying any faster. Further, you don't appear to get it - even if all of society was college graduates - i f the ENTIRE WORLD were that well educated - SOMEONE has to put up the buildings that the titans of industry want to work in. SOMEONE has to cook food, someone has to work a brick and mortar store (And you can't get your perishables from amazon), and a doctor isn't going to get anywhere without a nurse. A better educated populace would have other intangible benefits, and it very well may improve the economy, but not on the scale you dream to be the case.

Further, you're assuming the primary block on people's advancement in education is their intelligence. You don't really know jack about how the poor's schools operate, do you?

Excuse me, but if wealth levels were purely relative, wouldn't everybody else being paid less be equivalent to janitors being paid more?

Only if the cost of luxuries, rent, medical care and the like falls with it. This isn't a video game where a nerf to everyone else is an indirect buff (And it wouldn't even be there either in this regard, for a similar reason). And given that we're talking about the middle class losing income, it's not as likely as if the pay of the lower class had dropped (which tends to reduce the minimum cost of food)

I mean, this is a little like someone saying 200 years ago that "people will still have to go down the coal mines." Yeah, they do still have to, the difference being that nowadays, thanks to increased opportunity for social mobility and better automated machinery, coal miners get adequately compensated for the dangers involved and the job is less onerous to begin with.

Only if you assume the existence of the new machinery. You haven't given me any reason to do so here, nor have you proposed a mechanism for how this new machinery would appear, just more singulitarian fairy dust. I mean, over the course of two centuries, there very well may be, and i have good reason to suspect THAT will happen, but there's no good reason to think that what you're proposing will just automatically happen because people are smarter.

I don't recall that the health code made my house buy a dishwasher.

Is your house a restaurant y/n?

[Carry2]

You know, I could have sworn that a lot of people have presented economic arguments for why you're wrong and you've dismissed them out of hand, rather than either going to research it yourself or accepting that they probably know more about the topic than you...

RPGGuru tried to claim, for example, that the economic effects of genetics are insignificant compared to the effects of environment and education. I researched the subject and cited articles and links which indicated that this was probably false, that in fact embryonic screening could be economically justified even with today's technology, and that our knowledge of relevant genes is expanding rapidly, along with cost-reductions in associated technologies. I did not dismiss the argument out of hand, I countered it with specific evidence and logical extrapolation.

I am aware that there are potential harmful scenarios associated with GNR technologies, and I am in fact quite concerned with avoiding such scenarios. But I will not compromise on the subject of statements that are flat-out, provably, demonstrably wrong.

What you're actually saying is that you're right until others go ahead and comprehensively educates you on economics, biology, neurology, robotics and probably several other fields. No, that's not how it works...

Actually, in a certain sense, that is exactly the purpose of threads like this. We are here to discuss a subject- which is to say, exchange information, which is to say, educate eachother.

This is nothing but an elaborate, roundabout way of telling me to shut up. You're not presenting any specific factual argument or evidence, you're just thumping your chest on the basis of self-perceived seniority. This is not debate, this is primate dominance mechanics. That is condescension, and I do not have to put up with it.

[Poison_Fish]

Which means, assuming normal forces of market competition, that their costs will drop, which means that their prices will drop, which means more money in the hands of consumers, which means that consumer spending in other market sectors increases, which means that employment in those sectors rises. This is a trend that has been observed historically for several centuries.

No, it hasn't. First off, you have to assume a normal competitive market. This is an assumption that almost never holds true in reality, as most markets were never level playing fields, and government intervention has only gone in historically for the worst cases of abuse, active consumers are also pretty rare. The only driving force in your pretend model there is if one company lowers their prices while still within a profit range to win out over their competitors. The amount that this happens is rare due to the power of brand loyalty, other advertising, market control, and many other factors. Do any search on economics through google scholar and you'll find that nothing really fits this perfect system that most Econ 101 classes like to rail about. So it's best you not base your assumptions in something that almost never happens.

I mean, this is a little like someone saying 200 years ago that "people will still have to go down the coal mines." Yeah, they do still have to, the difference being that nowadays, thanks to increased opportunity for social mobility and better automated machinery, coal miners get adequately compensated for the dangers involved and the job is less onerous to begin with.

Do you know why? It has very little to do with magical market forces, nor does it have much to do with education for every single worker, I will ensure you that.

If others know more about the subject, the onus is on them to present the facts and logic that their expertise should furnish.

Shorter: "I don't want to actually back up large assumptions I make leaps to". Reversal burden of proof, bro-cookie. Stop doing it.

[RPGuru1331]

If others know more about the subject, the onus is on them to present the facts and logic that their expertise should furnish.

Strictly speaking, this doesn't actually remove the burden of proof from you if you're still making affirmative statements - and you are, by the truckload. That I'm not wasting my time giving you the extensive remedial education you'd need doesn't make you correct.

[Terraoblivion]

RPGGuru tried to claim, for example, that the economic effects of genetics are insignificant compared to the effects of environment and education. I researched the subject and cited articles and links which indicated that this was probably false, that in fact embryonic screening could be economically justified even with today's technology, and that our knowledge of relevant genes is expanding rapidly, along with cost-reductions in associated technologies. I did not dismiss the argument out of hand, I countered it with specific evidence and logical extrapolation.

Apart from the fact that half of it was pseudo-science and you seemed to not understand the other half, it has very little bearing on the absolute nonsense you've said about economics or the fact that you outright stated that you don't know economics. We have people here who do know basic economics and they've quite thoroughly explained why what you're saying about the topic makes no goddamn sense, something that you've refused to even pretend to take under consideration.

[warty goblin]

Mega-multiquote of doom incoming. Better lock up the kids and the more sensitive sorts lest they git themselves afrightened. Ya'll been warned now, ya'hear?

Which means, assuming normal forces of market competition, that their costs will drop, which means that their prices will drop, which means more money in the hands of consumers, which means that consumer spending in other market sectors increases, which means that employment in those sectors rises. This is a trend that has been observed historically for several centuries.

Again, the trend in the US for the last several decades has been exactly the opposite. Wages for most people have at best stagnated, and for large segments of the population have declined. The millionaires are doing pretty well though.

And if those other sectors are getting more efficient, they don't have to hire many more people. If at some point the efficiency increases over the whole economy accrue faster than the need to hire more employees to meet increased demand, you're looking at a very different picture. I'm not saying we've hit that point, only that such a point may very well exist.

If, for some strange reason, people stop spending their money, you could petition for government mandates to reduce working hours instead. If those mandates are absent, or if other social policies are required to break up market monopolies that fail to pass on savings or redistribute top earners' wealth more fairly, then by all means petition for those. But increases in efficiency per se are not your enemy here.

It's not that people don't spend their money, it's that they don't have very much of it to spend, because their jobs pay crap. You live on less than $20k a year, even as a single person, you'd better bet it isn't getting banked.

That's about my current income. Being a grad student this is very much a temporary state of affairs. I know people for whom it's a permanent condition. It's not a bad ballpark of my family's income when I was a kid either. When you're living on that, things getting cheaper doesn't mean you spend more money because you're already spending it all.

This is to say nothing of the public savings that should result from lower costs in healthcare (since fewer people would get sick), education and retraining (since people would learn faster with less supervision,) and policing (since predispositions toward violence, mental illness or sociopathy would be less common.)

I honestly have no idea what you are saying here.

Excuse me, but if wealth levels were purely relative, wouldn't everybody else being paid less be equivalent to janitors being paid more?

No. Just because more people are living at or below the poverty line doesn't mysteriously make them any less poor.

I mean, this is a little like someone saying 200 years ago that "people will still have to go down the coal mines." Yeah, they do still have to, the difference being that nowadays, thanks to increased opportunity for social mobility and better automated machinery, coal miners get adequately compensated for the dangers involved and the job is less onerous to begin with.

And would giving all coal miners a Bachelor's somehow make them mine faster? Or randomly bump up their wages because they took a class on Proust? I really doubt it.

I don't recall that the health code made my house buy a dishwasher.

Because your house probably doesn't contain an industrial kitchen that cooks for a hundred or more people a day. The rules change when you do something professionally.

But this is a non-argument that we've already visited. If others know more about the subject, the onus is on them to present the facts and logic that their expertise should furnish.

I think there's a reverse onus to not say stuff about topics one does not know about, and to pay attention when somebody who does have a clue what they're talking about points out one is wrong. I'm not an economist by training, but I'm a sufficiently good mathematician and data analyst that I can get a fair amount out of reading the occasional economics paper. And at least so far none of the one's I've read suggest anything like what you are arguing would happen.

I'm also a sufficiently good mathematician and data analyst not to confuse correlation and causation, and to understand the importance of paying attention to that sneaky bastard; multicolinearity*. It just so happens that IQ and higher earnings are both deeply correlated with economic background. Turns out for instance that the best predictor of somebody's economic future is how much money their parents earn.

*aka, none of your parameter estimates mean a damn thing. Have fun interpreting your model now, sucker!

Apart from the fact that half of it was pseudo-science and you seemed to not understand the other half, it has very little bearing on the absolute nonsense you've said about economics or the fact that you outright stated that you don't know economics. We have people here who do know basic economics and they've quite thoroughly explained why what you're saying about the topic makes no goddamn sense, something that you've refused to even pretend to take under consideration.

Or, basically, this.

[RPGuru1331]

RPGGuru tried to claim, for example, that the economic effects of genetics are insignificant compared to the effects of environment and education. I researched the subject and cited articles and links which indicated that this was probably false, that in fact embryonic screening could be economically justified even with today's technology, and that our knowledge of relevant genes is expanding rapidly, along with cost-reductions in associated technologies. I did not dismiss the argument out of hand, I countered it with specific evidence and logical extrapolation.

You cited Michio Kaku. He is overbroad and super optimistic about his actual field. I don't really care what his opinion is about economics. And don't pretend you actually did anything scholarly in this thread. You've NEVER linked to the peer reviewed sources to support what you've said. You've entirely relied on the news media, and you've only ever really cited opinion, and pretended these opinions matter. The fact that you can create 30 new assertions doesn't make those new assertions in a post useful predictors.

But I will not compromise on the subject of statements that are flat-out, provably, demonstrably wrong.

...which is why you used stock analysts to demonstrate your point about intelligence making you a better worker.

Actually, in a certain sense, that is exactly the purpose of threads like this. We are here to discuss a subject- which is to say, exchange information, which is to say, educate eachother.

A discussion is not an education, it's a discussion. You can try to play a semantic game, but the fact is that the sheer scope of what you need explained to you is outside the breadth of most discussion threads - all the moreso given that it's essentially a hostile education environment with you behaving as though you're actually the better educated one.

This is nothing but an elaborate, roundabout way of telling me to shut up.

And given the situation, that's all that's needed.

[Wardog]

Excuse me, but if wealth levels were purely relative, wouldn't everybody else being paid less be equivalent to janitors being paid more?

Only if the cost of luxuries, rent, medical care and the like falls with it. This isn't a video game where a nerf to everyone else is an indirect buff (And it wouldn't even be there either in this regard, for a similar reason). And given that we're talking about the middle class losing income, it's not as likely as if the pay of the lower class had dropped (which tends to reduce the minimum cost of food)

On top of that, surely real wealth is "how much stuff you have".

Money isn't wealth - it's just a measure of how much wealth you have (or are owed).

And while having proportionaly more stuff (and/or money) than - or, as in the janitor example, reducing the disparity with - everyone else can make some people feel better, it doesn't mean they are actually wealthier.

(Disclaimer: I'm not an economist).

[Lord Seth]

Increasing efficiency also decreases the number of employees a company requires to function. That means that companies can, for most jobs, get away with paying less. Which is pretty much what the US has seen in the last thirty or so years; a virtual freeze in actual income growth for most households.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the size of households has on average decreased. If so, household income freezing thus means individual people are being paid more.

[Carry2]

It's going to take me several days to reply to this thread properly, so for now I'm going to restrict myself to a few preliminary remarks.


Remark No. 1: RPGGuru and TerraOblivion- Calling my sources pseudoscience does not make them so. You will present specific, logical arguments and specific, factual data to buttress your positions, or I will block and ignore you. I have already expended entirely too much mental effort addressing your concerns (5 or 6 times over in some cases.) I will not stop posting, nor can I prevent you from doing so, but neither will you impinge any further on my thought processes unless you have some original information to contribute. That is a promise.

Remark No. 2: You do not get to pick and choose which experts I am supposed to listen to. The idea that genetics, nanotech and robotics will have major social impacts in the 21st century is something that the great majority of experts in these fields would agree with, even if the precise form of that impact is uncertain. This argument from authority is pointless, if not actively self-contradictory.

Remark No. 3: This whole debate over dishwashers and stock analysts is missing the broader point, which I really shouldn't even have to make. Take a look at the GDP breakdown by sector for the US: Over 80% of it comes from government and social services, manufacturing, IT, entertainment, and the financial sector. Maybe 15% of it is attributable to jobs that aren't dependent to some degree or another on intelligence.

Remark No. 4: I have already clearly explained the market mechanisms by which improved efficiency should translate to higher quality of life- if not in terms of material wealth, then in terms of greater leisure. If something is blocking those mechanisms, then you need to explain how those mechanisms are being blocked, and I would 100% support any political action needed to redress the situation, which would need doing anyway. But this does not alter my core argument: That GNR technologies have the potential for great social benefit, in more ways than one.

Remark No. 5: Saying "The future is uncertain, we can't predict where it will go" is another vacuous non-argument riddled with self-contradictions: If we have to stop thinking because the future is uncertain, then we have no more reason to fear doomsday scenarios associated with GNR than we have reason to hope for, say, life-extension. (Or, for that matter, reason to worry about the side-effects of CO2 emissions.) Extrapolating from the past towards the future, and weighing the probability of both good and bad scenarios, is all we have to go on.


To be blunt, I'm astonished that this point is so contentious. No-one, under ordinary circumstances, would dispute that it is better to be healthy than sick, better to be smart than dumb, and better to be kind than cruel. Given the essential certainty that genes contribute to health, intelligence and personality, I see no reason, if we proceed with caution, why gene tailoring should not work out as a major net positive.

.

[Poison_Fish]

Carry2, you should realize that making a demand of others on the threat of you jamming your ears shut isn't really much of a demand. But I'm going to stick to two things here, remarks 3 and 4.

Yes, you can claim that one uses their brain in the act of whatever labor one does in life. Congratulations, it's an obvious statement. But beyond that, you aren't getting any further in your statement. IQ does not measure job skills obtained. IQ does not measure success. IQ does not determine social mobility alone. In fact, there is quite a few specifics within IQ that you've been apt to ignore (Beyond 120, etc.), despite the faults of even using it to begin with. Trying to use a macroeconomics measure (one not even per capita at that) to make claims on intelligence beyond "some brain assembly required" (which could be said of any example economy in the first place) is just foolish. So, where are you trying to go with this?

As for remark 4, you've been handed evidence. It's called the reality of the past few decades. The problem is you keep going back to a make believe market and think it will work. Hell, you are even forgetting some economics 101 that should be in the pretend model that most singularitarians and plenty of others like to play with, that companies maximize profit. Efficiency does not mean new jobs. Especially in an environment where more wealth results in wealth condensation. That you don't understand the market mechanisms you are attempting to use to justify your claims shows a lot of bunk already.

[Carry2]

Yes, you can claim that one uses their brain in the act of whatever labor one does in life. Congratulations, it's an obvious statement. But beyond that, you aren't getting any further in your statement. IQ does not measure job skills obtained. IQ does not measure success. IQ does not determine social mobility alone...

I have never claimed this. I have merely claimed that genetic factors- including those that affect IQ- are significant contributors to social mobility, financial success, educational achievements, and other life outcomes. Please address my actual arguments, not a fictional nature-alone strawman.

I also specifically addressed the IQ 120+ point, in some detail.

As for remark 4, you've been handed evidence. It's called the reality of the past few decades...

Oh, yes, speaking of which...

[willpell]

Again, in the short term, I wouldn't disagree with your proposed restrictions on legal use. And I agree that there are very real risks involved in tampering with human genetics. But black market practitioners will not care about those risks, and a sufficiently desperate clientele will accept those risks for a shot at a better life for them or their kids. The category of what is legally permissible needs to keep reasonable pace with what is technically feasible and in commercial demand, or you will likely see worse health outcomes than under total deregulation.

If people want to relax, a certain proportion WILL buy drugs and booze. If people feel horny, a certain proportion WILL pay for sex. If people don't feel safe, a certain proportion WILL own guns. And if people fear their kids won't be able to compete in life, a certain proportion WILL select for advantageous genes. Even when it's dangerous.

We have to consider whether the social consequences of banning a service are worse than the social consequences of that service, whether the ban would actually reduce supply, whether money spent on enforcing the ban couldn't be more efficiently spent on treating the adverse side-effects of the service, whether regulating the industry couldn't reduce those risks to begin with, and whether that service is itself addressing a legitimate need.

I agree 100% with all of this. There is no point in restricting minor crimes while major ones are fully incorporated into the socioeconomic system of our society (which, among other things, have substantial influence over the processes of both writing laws and enforcing them). Any situation where we find ourselves in the position of not having any precedents to overturn, we should pretty much always use pragmatism rather than outdated sentimentality to decide how to proceed.

It wouldn't astound me if the first AI capable of passing the Turing Test came out of Wall Street instead of MIT- and was running a ponzi scheme.

Someone call Will Smith, we've got a prequel to "I Robot"...

* Seriously, this has got to be one of the dumbest ideas my species ever came up with.

There's some stiff competition there....

[Poison_Fish]

I have never claimed this. I have merely claimed that genetic factors- including those that affect IQ- are significant contributors to social mobility, financial success, educational achievements, and other life outcomes. Please address my actual arguments, not a fictional nature-alone strawman.

Oh, look, you are coming up with excuses for your pathetic attempt at linking macro-economics to intelligence. Again, that had no relevance. You are the one that brought it up. So, it's not a strawman when I am pointing out that you are in fact throwing in nothing important. Additionally, what was that about claims again and onus of proof? Oh right, you don't want to play by the same rules that you are imposing on others. Carry2, you are proving to be a hypocrite.

I also specifically addressed the IQ 120+ point, in some detail.

You mean the blank statement once again predicated on assumptions that there will always be jobs?

Oh, yes, speaking of which...

Oh, good, you managed to add a little bit of per capita in there. Do you remember when I referenced back to how you are running on pretend models? Because that still doesn't measure distribution over time, nor does it account for changes in cost of living, nor does it relate to the poverty line, which is also a faulty measure in the first place due to still using Orshansky's thresholds. But seeing as you are also the same sort of person who thinks there is enough money floating around for everyone to just get a tablet, it doesn't surprise me you are trying to stick your guns to GDP as a measure of "success". Numbers, they are not saying what you want them to say.

Also, saying "speaking of which" and then ignorantly linking to some semi-contextual statistics doesn't answer for your continued bunk on your failure of understanding how economies seem to work, much less the meaning behind the numbers.

Edit: Especially when I can just drop more data here as well. Census income inequality over 10 years.

[Carry2]

I agree 100% with all of this. There is no point in restricting minor crimes while major ones are fully incorporated into the socioeconomic system of our society (which, among other things, have substantial influence over the processes of both writing laws and enforcing them).

Thank you. (Like they say in the old country, "the big thieves hang the little ones".)

Someone call Will Smith, we've got a prequel to "I Robot"...

Next on CNN: The Three Laws meet the Rules of Acquisition. That should be interesting.

.

[warty goblin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the size of households has on average decreased. If so, household income freezing thus means individual people are being paid more.

Correct, although the growth is very, very small. Fortunately Carry2 saved me having to dredge around statistics:

speaking of which...

Those are not big numbers.

Remark No. 5: Saying "The future is uncertain, we can't predict where it will go" is another vacuous non-argument riddled with self-contradictions: If we have to stop thinking because the future is uncertain, then we have no more reason to fear doomsday scenarios associated with GNR than we have reason to hope for, say, life-extension. (Or, for that matter, reason to worry about the side-effects of CO2 emissions.) Extrapolating from the past towards the future, and weighing the probability of both good and bad scenarios, is all we have to go on.

Pointing out that such extrapolation is unlikely to be particularly good - particularly when you are arguing for some sort of sea-change in the social order, is hardly vacuous. It's called having some methodological honesty. Linear extrapolation* is dangerous at the best of times; if you think the relationship between your predictor variables and response is going to shift, it's downright hazardous.


*And it's frequently worse for non-linear models.

To be blunt, I'm astonished that this point is so contentious. No-one, under ordinary circumstances, would dispute that it is better to be healthy than sick, better to be smart than dumb, and better to be kind than cruel. Given the essential certainty that genes contribute to health, intelligence and personality, I see no reason, if we proceed with caution, why gene tailoring should not work out as a major net positive.

Did you read any of those? Because they do not say what you are claiming they say.

First the intelligence link:
The big take-away there is that genes only explain a large portion of variance for people with high socio-economic background. Which is to say that genetic variation doesn't really explain much of the variation for most children, because their parents aren't from the upper quantiles of the SES distribution**. For people of lower SES their environment is a much better explanatory variable than their genes. If you want to make most people smarter, this study suggests that spending $10,000 messing with their genes won't have as much of an effect as simply giving their parents the money.

**It's badly right-skewed. Also people lower on the SES scale tend to have more children, which would skew the distribution of children's parental incomes even further right.

I have no argument that many health problems are genetic. Moving on to personality:
As the authors of the research that article sources explicitly say, this is not a predictor of disease development. All it does is explain variation, which means there is a correlation. Correlation does not imply causation, particularly when the people doing the study say it doesn't. That link unfortunately doesn't show enough of the data for me to poke at it further, but it does not support concluding that monkeying with a person's genes will turn them into Mr. Well Adjusted.

I have never claimed this. I have merely claimed that genetic factors- including those that affect IQ- are significant contributors to social mobility, financial success, educational achievements, and other life outcomes. Please address my actual arguments, not a fictional nature-alone strawman.

I seem to recall you arguing that genetic selection for intelligence would result in a world where everybody was paid well and had marvelous job opportunities waiting just outside the window. That's going a bit farther than 'significant contributors'.

[Carry2]

Those are not big numbers.

You were claiming stagnation when the reality is, in fact, growth. Remind me again how this supports your position? (This is without getting into a larger debate about, e.g, faster growth in developing nations thanks to the flight of manufacturing jobs.)

Pointing out that such extrapolation is unlikely to be particularly good...

Then why are you so eager to posit that a genetic aristocracy will be the likely result of gene-tailoring? Why is that extrapolation any better?

The big take-away there is that genes only explain a large portion of variance for people with high socio-economic background...

The variation due to environment is only large for children, and reaches about 80% heritability in adults. We have been over this before, and it is has also been covered at length in the article I cited.

It's badly right-skewed...

In the same sense that climate change science is left-skewed, yes, I imagine it is. Reality has an awkward habit of not aligning perfectly along political faultlines.

I have no argument that many health problems are genetic. Moving on to personality...
I seem to recall you arguing that genetic selection for intelligence would result in a world where everybody was paid well...

I posited it as a scenario that requires genetic intervention to realise. I am not saying that other environmental inputs or political change would not be likewise required, nor did I exclude them, but genetic intervention is very likely to be a neccesary component.

.

[warty goblin]

You were claiming stagnation when the reality is, in fact, growth. Remind me again how this supports your position?

Most of those groups increased by maybe a couple thousand dollars in real income over twenty years or so. Some have decreases. Stagnation or minimal growth seems an accurate summation.

Then why are you so eager to posit that a genetic aristocracy will be the likely result of gene-tailoring? This doesn't lead anywhere interesting.

Pointing out that an expensive technology would only be available to the wealthy is hardly unsupported extrapolation. There's rather a lot of data that suggests this is a reasonable guess, insofar as rich people buy more expensive things than I do. If genetic alteration does have the effects you claim it does, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think about the potential positive feedback loops it creates.

The variation due to environment is only large for children, and reaches about 80% heritability in adults. We have been over this before, and it is has also been covered at length in the article I cited.

Which means that the correlation between genetics and intelligence accounts for about 80% of variation in intelligence in forty year olds. This does not mean that genetic factors cause 80% of the variation in IQ for adults.

The article itself points out that genetic variability will only become very important later in life among people of high SES background. If you're poor, you're still screwed, genes be damned.

In the same sense that climate change science is left-skewed, yes, I imagine it is. Reality has an awkward habit of not aligning perfectly along political faultlines.

Right or left skew in the distribution of data has nothing to do with political affiliation. As I explain to my Stat 101 students; skew is a measure of the location of the mean relative to the median. The mean is sensitive to outliers, which means it changes drastically based on fairly small numbers of extreme values.

For example: consider the mean and median of {-10, 0, 1}, {-1, 0, 1} and {-1, 0, 10}. All three toy datasets have median zero. The first has mean -3, and is skewed left. The second has mean zero, and is unskewed since the mean and median are equal. The third has mean 3 and is skewed right because the mean is to the right of the media on the number line.

Income is skewed right by the small number of people who make astronomical sums of money - most people earn well under the average. This is also why most lightbulbs burn out before they reach their average life expectancy.

I posited it as a scenario that requires genetic intervention to realise. I am not saying that other environmental inputs would not be likewise required, nor did I exclude them, but genetic intervention is very likely to be a neccesary component. I apologise if I failed to make this clear earlier, but I would have assumed this was obvious.

I in no way got that sense from what you were arguing.

[RPGuru1331]

It's going to take me several days to reply to this thread properly, so for now I'm going to restrict myself to a few preliminary remarks.


Remark No. 1: RPGGuru and TerraOblivion- Calling my sources pseudoscience does not make them so. You will present specific, logical arguments and specific, factual data to buttress your positions, or I will block and ignore you. I have already expended entirely too much mental effort addressing your concerns (5 or 6 times over in some cases.) I will not stop posting, nor can I prevent you from doing so, but neither will you impinge any further on my thought processes unless you have some original information to contribute. That is a promise.

Your sources aren't sources, let alone scientific ones. A news article about how the singularity is totes happening is not a meaningful source.

Also, given that you h aven't meaningfully responded to criticisms of your position, I'm struggling to figure out how your posts will change for not replying to me or Terraoblivion, or why I should be wounded that you are not listening to me because you'd rather insist you're the smarterest at everything.

Remark No. 2: You do not get to pick and choose which experts I am supposed to listen to. The idea that genetics, nanotech and robotics will have major social impacts in the 21st century is something that the great majority of experts in these fields would agree with, even if the precise form of that impact is uncertain. This argument from authority is pointless, if not actively self-contradictory.

That's not the statement you spent the majority of the time arguing for, to begin with, because you didn't merely suggest that robotics will remain relevant (Which is almost certainly true). You suggested broad, sweeping changes that aren't supported by the evidence.

Remark No. 3: This whole debate over dishwashers and stock analysts is missing the broader point, which I really shouldn't even have to make. Take a look at the GDP breakdown by sector for the US: Over 80% of it comes from government and social services, manufacturing, IT, entertainment, and the financial sector. Maybe 15% of it is attributable to jobs that aren't dependent to some degree or another on intelligence.

The USA is not the only country on the planet, and you didn't just propose national change. Further, not every government job primarily relies on intelligence. Sometimes it does, and civil servants do get a raw deal in having their capabilities recognized by the government, but just because some people are maintaining a library or teaching doesn't change that others are guards or sweeping up the place.

Manufacturing is mostly blue collar by volume of jobs maintained, so I don't see why you think that helps you. Entertainment comes down to things IQ doesn't really measure,a lthough it's certainly true people undersell various social intelligences. The financial sector, cynically, is full of other jobs like, well, stock analysts - that is, those who think they're smart, but who's system is outperformed by random chance. Social services vary considerably, so you're left with some - but not all - of it (like government work), and IT, which is currently in the middle of a bubble in the USA.

Remark No. 4: I have already clearly explained the market mechanisms by which improved efficiency should translate to higher quality of life- if not in terms of material wealth, then in terms of greater leisure. If something is blocking those mechanisms, then you need to explain how those mechanisms are being blocked, and I would 100% support any political action needed to redress the situation, which would need doing anyway. But this does not alter my core argument: That GNR technologies have the potential for great social benefit, in more ways than one.

Well, you asserted, and whinged that we should accept as fact that this true. I'm willing to concede it's possible, but you've never really noticed that I said it's impossible for a global increase in IQ to change anything - what I said is that it won't provide the singulitarian fairy dust you need to make your dreams come true, because the assertions you've made are really far reaching. If you want me to concede that an effect would be had, well, take it, SOMETHING is likely to happen - after all, 700 trillion got thrown out after it. But it doesn't mean everyone's real incomes -or leisure- will rise because you say so and because obviously being smarter means you don't have work harder.

Remark No. 5: Saying "The future is uncertain, we can't predict where it will go" is another vacuous non-argument riddled with self-contradictions: If we have to stop thinking because the future is uncertain, then we have no more reason to fear doomsday scenarios associated with GNR than we have reason to hope for, say, life-extension.

Calling your alleged ways of finding things 'useless predictors' isn't saying 'we can't predict anything'. Saying "We lack data to make useful predictions on these matters" is not also saying "And therefore no predictions are possible about everything forever".

(Or, for that matter, reason to worry about the side-effects of CO2 emissions.) Extrapolating from the past towards the future, and weighing the probability of both good and bad scenarios, is all we have to go on.

Hah, cute. Pretending you have data and evidence that supports your conclusions anywhere nearly as well as climate science is supported by the evidence. Try again, this time with an ignoramus.

To be blunt, I'm astonished that this point is so contentious. No-one, under ordinary circumstances, would dispute that it is better to be healthy than sick, better to be smart than dumb, and better to be kind than cruel. Given the essential certainty that genes contribute to health, intelligence and personality, I see no reason, if we proceed with caution, why gene tailoring should not work out as a major net positive.

'intelligence' is still basically voodoo by psychologists, and some of the smarter ones have realized it - You can keep up as many studies on this particular matter as you want, you don't even realize the core premise is under attack. And again, on this regard in general, the premise isn't that genetics never affects anything - it's that we are so far away from understanding the actual linkages that we won't see anything useful for this for centuries, if ever, because we may never understand genetics properly. There was another point made by someone else that it really is possible there will never be an easy linkage to be found at all, but even that was phrased as possibility, not absolute, if I recall correctly.

If you want to pretend what you said is as uncontroversial as "it's better for people to be healthy", well, you are free to maintain that illusion, but mostly, you stuck to things well outside generalities of health, like "700 trillion is totally how much it will cost to kit out every kid in the world with the best of genetic enhancements, and this is a MUCH better use of money than investing in normal education measures like, you know, better schools (or schools at all, for far too many)." That you're conflating those is... interesting, I guess, but says more about you than it does any of us.

[Carry2]

Most of those groups increased by maybe a couple thousand dollars in real income over twenty years or so. Some have decreases. Stagnation or minimal growth seems an accurate summation.

Hmm. I'll have to investigate this further.

Pointing out that an expensive technology would only be available to the wealthy is hardly unsupported extrapolation...

Neither is assuming the existence of a 1000-dollar gene-sequencer, which should be pretty affordable to the non-rich. (And the main difference between crude and advanced treatments would be information, which is essentially free.) I covered this on the last page of the thread.

The article itself points out that genetic variability will only become very important later in life among people of high SES background.

I don't see support for this in the article, given that the study in question was limited to variation among children. But this is beside the point- the contribution of genetics to IQ is beyond rational dispute, and improving environmental conditions makes it more important, not less so.

Right or left skew in the distribution of data has nothing to do with political affiliation...
Income is skewed right by the small number of people who make astronomical sums of money - most people earn well under the average.

Thank you for that enlightening explanation of the terminology. ...However, given that we were discussing a chart of median, and not average income, I would have thought that this effect was already accounted for.

I in no way got that sense from what you were arguing.

I apologise if I expressed myself poorly. But the fact remains: Genuine social equality is a pipe-dream as long as genetic factors contribute substantially to life-outcomes.

[Carry2]

Your sources aren't sources, let alone scientific ones. A news article about how the singularity is totes happening is not a meaningful source...

Excuse me, when IBM factually makes computer chips based on carbon nanotubes, that is not just idle fantasy. When the Blue Brain Project factually predicts neuron behaviour with 70%+ accuracy, that is not just idle fantasy. When it turns out that 4% of Danes were being born in test tubes years ago, that actually is 'totes happening'.

What you are producing is time-wasting effluvium.

...Manufacturing is mostly blue collar by volume of jobs maintained, so I don't see why you think that helps you. Entertainment comes down to things IQ doesn't really measure...

And yet, they still seem to correlate. And manufacturing does depend on a knowledge of engineering sciences. I don't see how 'the US is not every country' counts as an argument, because it is typical of developed nations. Who are we supposed to model ourselves after? Zimbabwe?

he financial sector, cynically, is full of other jobs like, well, stock analysts - that is, those who think they're smart, but who's system is outperformed by random chance...

A particularly choice piece of baseless nonsense, given that stock-trading algorithms do not simply roll dice in the background. I am well aware of the abuses of the financial sector, but there have been stock analysts who actually do, y'know, research of the relevant industries before putting money in, and they've been known to do a lot better than chance.

'intelligence' is still basically voodoo by psychologists...

...And, that tears it. Thank you and good night, RPGGuru, you are now being blocked.

[Terraoblivion]

Excuse me, when IBM factually makes computer chips based on carbon nanotubes, that is not just idle fantasy. When the Blue Brain Project factually predicts neuron behaviour with 70%+ accuracy, that is not just idle fantasy. When it turns out that 4% of Danes were being born in test tubes years ago, that actually is 'totes happening'.

What does any of this have to do with sapient AI, designer babies or Von Neumann swarms or anything really related to the singularity? Artificial insemination isn't even genetics, it's essentially just a technique to forcefully shove a sperm into an egg which is then inserted into the womb. No genetic engineering, no actual growth outside a human womb after the first few days at most. But really, the main point is that going "carbon nanotubes thus grey goo scenario" is kind of a big leap of logic, especially given since the only thing those two have in common is being really, really small.

Also, I'd like you to point us to where we said that no aspect of genetics, nanotechnology or robotis is important. It would be rather stupid to do given how genetically altered rice are already having a marked effect on Indian agriculture and most heavy industries in Japan have been robotized since the 80s. What we have said is that you take these things to drastically far conclusions that seem unlikely and have presented it as being imminent, despite people pointing out that we don't even know enough about the topic yet to give a reasonable estimate about whether those conclusions are even possible.

Oh, and the comment about intelligence being voodoo that RPGuru made? As far as I can tell the intention was to say that we don't know what intelligence is or how it works, we can only imperfectly measure the output. Kinda hard to improve on something you don't know what is, how operates or how to reliably measure after all.

[Carry2]

What does any of this have to do with sapient AI, designer babies or Von Neumann swarms or anything really related to the singularity? Artificial insemination isn't even genetics...

As I have repeatedly shown earlier in the thread, PGD/IVF procedures are already in commercial use, and many genes contributing to health, intelligence and personality are already being identified. And I have met with extraordinary resistance to the mildest possible extrapolation of these trends in a thread specifically dedicated to exploring those trends, on a board that specifically deals with highly speculative media.

What we have said is that you take these things to drastically far conclusions that seem unlikely and have presented it as being imminent...

If, by 'imminent', you mean at least '20 years away', and by 'conclusions' you mean 'hypothetical scenarios' (albeit ones I consider perfectly plausible.) I have already outlined this. Repeatedly. in excruciating detail. And because I do not wish to have my time wasted any further, this will be my last reply to you along these lines. The next time I have to dredge up old posts for your benefit, you will be on my ignore list.

.

[RPGuru1331]

Oh, and the comment about intelligence being voodoo that RPGuru made? As far as I can tell the intention was to say that we don't know what intelligence is or how it works, we can only imperfectly measure the output. Kinda hard to improve on something you don't know what is, how operates or how to reliably measure after all.

...and also that intelligence, as measured by psychologists, predominates on cultural markers of skills that are obviously still relevant when the cultural marker doesn't apply - we're generally not doing quite as bad as we were, but we still do quite a bit of ridiculousness - just not on the scale of insisting that "If you don't recognize a symphony, you are dumb, rather than ignorant of what music we consider important". Well, usually not on that scale.

As I have repeatedly shown earlier in the thread, PGD/IVF procedures are already in commercial use,

..And it ain't genetics, so it says nothing about what you want it to.

And yet, they still seem to correlate.

You... really are far behind on everything, aren't you? Repeat after me: "Correlation is not Causation, and a study finding a correlation is only grounds for a more probing study that will actually answer a relevant question." Ice cream sales are correlated to murder rates in the USA, after all.

Also, I've never seen jack to support doing the job of a manufacturing peon is easier when you're smarter. I've seen plenty that correlates economic success with intelligence (and more that correlates it with economic class at birth, and we have ample evidence that the upper class tilts the cultural markers sought after in 'Intelligence' tests), but never successfully doing your job as a blue collar person.

And manufacturing does depend on a knowledge of engineering sciences.

In tha at least one person in a manufacturing company needs to have a grasp of it? Sure, that's what the engineers are for. Are you familiar with the concept of specialization?

I don't see how 'the US is not every country' counts as an argument, because it is typical of developed nations. Who are we supposed to model ourselves after? Zimbabwe?

It's not about modelling after anyone - those places exist, and they tend to do things that your economy uses greatly. Just because you don't follow how, for instance, the US economy (or those of other developed nations) rely on the output of grossly underpaid workers in underdeveloped nations, for instance, doesn't mean those jobs can be abandoned without your country suffering ill effects.

A particularly choice piece of baseless nonsense, given that stock-trading algorithms do not simply roll dice in the background.

And? Neither do stock traders, but they'd do better if they did (Although they'd have to be really big honking dice).

I am well aware of the abuses of the financial sector, but there have been stock analysts who actually do, y'know, research of the relevant industries before putting money in, and they've been known to do a lot better than chance.

A: The existence of outliers doesn't change the industry, and you're the one positing that intelligence is commonly used in the financial sector, and therefore a smarter industry is a better one.
B: You didn't even cite intelligence as the dominant factor here- you cited work (although a kind of work that certainly does require at least some level of education). Knowing when to work is a kind of intelligence, but it isn't what is measured by IQ.

...And, that tears it. Thank you and good night, RPGGuru, you are now being blocked.

Well, we know where someone put all their self-esteem this morning.

[Carry2]

But really, the main point is that going "carbon nanotubes thus grey goo scenario" is kind of a big leap of logic, especially given since the only thing those two have in common is being really, really small.

Once again, I must remind you that I am in fact highly skeptical about the likelihood of a 'gray goo scenario'. Nor am I relying on an assumption of exponential growth, demographic or otherwise, or making any terribly specific timeframe predictions about things like strong AI or Von Neumann machines (though, logically, the former would sort-of imply the latter.)

Oh, and the comment about intelligence being voodoo that RPGuru made? As far as I can tell the intention was to say that we don't know what intelligence is or how it works, we can only imperfectly measure the output.

Perhaps. But aside from the likelihood that genetic evidence could itself yield significant insights into how intelligence functions, even an imperfect knowledge is likely to result in large changes to the gene pool over time.

.

[warty goblin]

Hmm. I'll have to investigate this further.

The truth (at least in the US*)is not pretty, particularly once you start looking at actual wealth, not just income.

*Since this is where I live, this is where I track statistics. I'm not trying to maliciously ignore the rest of the world, I just don't know the overall trends well enough to be comfortable talking about them.

Although if you do look at the rest of the world at all, it seems to be even less pleasant.

Neither is assuming the existence of a 1000-dollar gene-sequencer, which should be pretty affordable to the non-rich. (And the main difference between crude and advanced treatments would be information, which is essentially free.) I covered this on the last page of the thread.

A valid point. Sequencing the genes would only be a portion of the cost for this sort of thing, no? I mean if you're doing embryo selection and implantation, doesn't that take sequencing a fair number of embryos? I could easily be wrong here, I'm not a biologist.

I don't see support for this in the article, given that the study in question was limited to variation among children. But this is beside the point- the contribution of genetics to IQ is beyond rational dispute, and improving environmental conditions makes it more important, not less so.

That analysis is done about halfway down the page. It starts in the paragraph just above the plot of variance explained vs. standard deviation in SES.

Thank you for that enlightening explanation of the terminology. ...However, given that we were discussing a chart of median, and not average income, I would have thought that this effect was already accounted for.

I was actually discussing the article you cited about intelligence, which uses an SES score of some kind on the X-axis for a couple of the plots. It's scaled to run from zero to one, so it's a proportion of something. It's not impossible that they are actual distribution quantiles (X such that 20% of observations lie to the left of X, etc), but I suspect it's simply proportion of the maximum (so .2*max, etc). Adding the distribution of SES would, for the analysis they wanted to do, just complicate matters. Plus they don't seem to mention doing it, which I think means it can be safely ruled out.

In which case the skewness of SES becomes very important if you're seeking to increase people's IQs. Since most people's parents are of lower SES (something the study doesn't seem to account for, else it would say), their genetic variance is less important than their environment. The study suggests therefore that greater gains in intelligence for more people by raising the SES of lower income families, not by genetically turbo-charging their kids.

(The article also addresses the possibility of people from different SES backgrounds having different genetic backgrounds as well. This introduces some nasty confounding into the study, which makes the variance decomposition dangerous to rely on too strongly.)

(It's also worth emphasizing this is a study of sources of variation, which means its looking at correlation. It can at best suggest causality, but the controls are nowhere near tight enough to do any more than that.)

I apologise if I expressed myself poorly. But the fact remains: Genuine social equality is a pipe-dream as long as genetic factors contribute substantially to life-outcomes.

Apology accepted.

As to the importance of genetic tinkering, I think that depends if you want equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome, and for whom you want what. If you want to make sure the children of elites have greater equality of outcome, then genetics are probably the way to go. If you want either for everybody else, everything I've seen suggests that raising their economic status is probably a better bet. If you want more smart people, again the second option looks better; simply because there are far more really poor people worldwide than upper middle class first worlders.

That is however one of those hard problems; the solution to which involves things like personal sacrifice, instead of cool future gadgets.

[Poison_Fish]

I don't see how 'the US is not every country' counts as an argument, because it is typical of developed nations. Who are we supposed to model ourselves after? Zimbabwe?

The US is not typical of most developed nations. Income inequality and specifically the Gini index should be enlightening for you. Seriously, Carry2, stop with your blatant misinformation and ignorance.

[warty goblin]

The US is not typical of most developed nations. Income inequality and specifically the Gini index should be enlightening for you. Seriously, Carry2, stop with your blatant misinformation and ignorance.

Or as a political science teacher of mine once put it, the US is a second world nation in disguise.

And we could maybe simmer the rhetoric down a bit?

[Terraoblivion]

And yet, they still seem to correlate. And manufacturing does depend on a knowledge of engineering sciences. I don't see how 'the US is not every country' counts as an argument, because it is typical of developed nations. Who are we supposed to model ourselves after? Zimbabwe?

I missed this the first time around, but RPGuru and Poison Fish pointing it out drew my attention to it. Like Poison Fish said, the US is highly abnormal compared to other developed countries in almost every way. In addition to having a gini coefficient so high that it beat Russia and China in inequality in 2007 before the current crisis which by all accounts has massively increased income inequality, as well as inequality in distribution of wealth, the American political system has a number of unique features. These include a unique form of conservatism by appeal to founding ideology, a constitution that is unusually specific in how government is run and what legislation can get passed. It is further unique for a nation outside the Middle East, Subsaharan Africa and southern and southeastern Asia in that it has a majority of the population respond that religion is either important or very important to them. Staying on the topic of religion, it is one of a select group of countries along with Canada, Turkey, Australia and maybe New Zealand to have a creationist movement. On a more personal, economic level the US has the lowest consumer prices of any of the traditional developed countries, featuring prices roughly on par with those found in the major cities of China.

Further unique features include a higher degree of physical mobility than almost anywhere else that isn't an active warzone, the most ridiculously huge debt ever seen on the planet in absolute terms and still one of the largest when measured as percentage of GDP. Also, when considering the US as a political entity and the ways it is unique, the military expenditures are hard to get around as they make up over half of those of the entire planet and has for years. Finally, I'd like to point out the unique political situation that American power and prestige relative to other nations creates, as well as the ability to project that power thanks to a network of military bases spanning the globe. No other country has any significant, permanent military presence far from its borders, confining even militarily powerful countries like China, Russia or the UK to far more limited operations when not operating in their own immediate vicinity. The effects this has on the role of the US in international politics should be obvious, but as if it wasn't enough the American economic is so large and significant that should it fall it would tear everyone else down with it, a fact that almost all political and economic agents across the planet are acutely aware of.

So, no, the US is by no means typical of developed countries. In fact I'd be hard pressed to find a nation that was. I can see major unique features about pretty much any choice, though none of them are as significant as those of the US.