Founded in 2005 and lauded by Silicon Valley, the Nick Bostrom’s centre for studying existential risk warned about AI but also gave rise to cultish ideas such as effective altruism
Bostrom wrote a paper on existential risk that helped launch the longtermist movement, in which he discusses “dysgenic pressures” – dysgenic is the opposite of eugenic. Bostrom wrote:
“Currently it seems that there is a negative correlation in some places between intellectual achievement and fertility. If such selection were to operate over a long period of time, we might evolve into a less brainy but more fertile species, homo philoprogenitus (‘lover of many offspring’).”
Well I would rather people discuss and look at these issues. Currently it seems people have made the decision before, and potentially in spite of, evidence and that decision is final. That not how the world should work.
that statement is such bullshit: it implies intelligence is an easily quantifiable and purely genetic trait. What constitutes intelligence? If i know quantum physics but nothing of genetic, how smart I am? If i know both but know nothing of sociology, of politics, of the injustices perpretrated in the world, how dumb does that make me? is it decided by my genetics, or is it the nurture i am shown and i have towards my intellect that grows it?
What we call intelligence is largely a genetic trait. Otherwise I’d be able to have this conversation with my dog.
I think the main point is, if the genetic predisposition to what we call intelligence does not positively affect the reproduction rate, the process of evolution could phase it out at any time. The “goal” of evolution is adaptation in order to reproduce. The intelligence is not THE strategy to adapt, its A strategy. It could be replaced by something else, like faster reproduction rate, or the ability to survive in harsh environment without a need for clothes, housing, and medicine.
Well I would rather people discuss and look at these issues. Currently it seems people have made the decision before, and potentially in spite of, evidence and that decision is final. That not how the world should work.
that statement is such bullshit: it implies intelligence is an easily quantifiable and purely genetic trait. What constitutes intelligence? If i know quantum physics but nothing of genetic, how smart I am? If i know both but know nothing of sociology, of politics, of the injustices perpretrated in the world, how dumb does that make me? is it decided by my genetics, or is it the nurture i am shown and i have towards my intellect that grows it?
What we call intelligence is largely a genetic trait. Otherwise I’d be able to have this conversation with my dog.
I think the main point is, if the genetic predisposition to what we call intelligence does not positively affect the reproduction rate, the process of evolution could phase it out at any time. The “goal” of evolution is adaptation in order to reproduce. The intelligence is not THE strategy to adapt, its A strategy. It could be replaced by something else, like faster reproduction rate, or the ability to survive in harsh environment without a need for clothes, housing, and medicine.