Replies

I don’t really disagree.

I just don’t think this is something we can stop.

A frankly more pressing problem for society is that there is less and less demand (in an economic sense) for the services of those of lower intelligence. And probably one IQ point falls out the bottom every year or two.

The same thing applies to more and more fields. What are we to do with those for whom there is no economic demand?

One can make a case for stopping this trend, as you have for stopping research into human racial differences.

But the only way to enforce these stoppages would be to install a worldwide totalitarian system, a “solution” that is almost certainly worse than the problems.

IOW, we can’t stop this. We WILL have to deal with what is discovered.

Blacks are in a dysgenic downward spiral, because the lowest common denominator-the majority-are being subsidised to breed while the “talented tenth” are not havimg children, just like whites.

Then there’s regression to the mean-one study showed that the male black children (Prince George Co, a buppie bastion) of affluent, two-parent black families have been shown to have higher crime rates, higjer drop-out rates, and lower academic scores than white male children from poor families in West Virginia.

I'm optimistic that developing technologies could lead to an explosion in production in the next decade or two. In that case, the surplus production may make it possible, although it would be financial suicide (and conservative heresy) today, to spend some of that surplus towards some sort of basic welfare and housing program for those who can't find a job. For altruistic purposes, and to minimize social unrest.

An easy way out of this genetic conundrum, I think, would be the invention and introduction of neural implants that could enhance intelligence, processing complex problems for us.

One can make a case for stopping this trend, as you have for stopping research into human racial differences.

But the only way to enforce these stoppages would be to install a worldwide totalitarian system, a “solution” that is almost certainly worse than the problems.

I don't think it can be stopped either, but keeping it out of the mainstream is on the whole preferable to what could easily be the alternative. That wouldn't require government repression, but rather a social and cultural consensus which already exists.

IOW, we can’t stop this. We WILL have to deal with what is discovered.

If so, let it be gradual, peaceful and not particularly subversive.

The same thing applies to more and more fields. What are we to do with those for whom there is no economic demand?

In the US and other representative democracies, the question will probably be what will they and their leftist political allies do with the rest of society.

If globalizationa and automation continue to make larger and larger portions of society economically unnecessary, then they will vote in the biggest, big government redistributionist central government ever imagined.

A good start has already been made on such a redistributionist central government.

It is probable that in ten or fifteen years all the millions of people employed primarily as drivers of vehicles will be out of a job. Computers will replace them. A computer system that will probably cost $10k or so, can operate around the clock, never gets sick, and has many fewer accidents.

The same thing applies to more and more fields. What are we to do with those for whom there is no economic demand?

One can make a case for stopping this trend, as you have for stopping research into human racial differences.

But the only way to enforce these stoppages would be to install a worldwide totalitarian system, a “solution” that is almost certainly worse than the problems.

IOW, we can’t stop this. We WILL have to deal with what is discovered.

Good points. We, my friends and I, were talking about this at one time. We can only see a few ways "out" although it may not be palatable to many here. One way is to have a guaranteed basic living wage for everyone. Best case scenario, think Star Trek where everyone has a basic wage, basic house, maybe basic car, etc., and if they want more, then they find their niche to work for it. the downside, idle hands are truly the Devil's workshop. so this brings into another side of this:

Many societies will enact laws against automation with the exception of very hazardous duties such as cleaning up meltdowns from atomic power plants for example. If a human can do it, they will do it. Sure they might run a machine but a human must be in control. I read the novelization of "Battlestar Galactica" (the 1978 version) where Caprica and I assume most or all of the Colonies did outlaw the use of robot labor and untended automation to keep their people working, although I admit the enemy, the mechanized Cylons had a lot to do with it too. I also remember a similar idea from an old episode of "Sliders" where they landed on an alternate Earth where technology was restricted to a 1955 level by law. I'm not against technology but I think we are not ready to deal with the after-effects of it as a society and although these ideas challenge my idealistic beliefs, as the pragmatist/realist I am, we might have to do one or two, preferable the latter, at least people will still be productive. IIRC, India does a bit of this, when they tested their atomic bombs, although they had machinery to dig the holes, they still used a lot of human labor to keep many of their people busy.

I know the topic is a discussion between races and/or groups of people and since I brought up India, many Indians I see really use the internet and cellphones. I work at a department store and I notice many people who hail from India use coupons from their cellphones and use only e-mail receipts. They make me look "half-a$$ed Amish," then again, I still use a 1982 Zenith, VHS tape and my grandfather's 5 tube radio from 1953.