Genesis of the 1500 IQ Humanoids

[Stavia]

Frank I hear ya. Seen ir over and over. And you did the right thing in helping the patients.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[floramaria]

If they were aiming at creating more altruistic humans, I'd find that exciting. and promising for humanity.

[Sandy57]

Mahalo Dr. Stavia, means a lot coming from you. Stavia you have that drive, that compassion, patience, sharing, and giving. It is so evident on these boards, we are so lucky to have you. YOU ARE AN ANGEL.

Aloha Frank

[J11]

I think there should be a rule that in polite company one would not engage in conversation about something related to intelligence
and after the conservation had drifted through the same well-worn arguments about 1 SD differences in IQ, mention the potential to genetically engineer 100 SD humans. This is an intellectual knockout punch that is still making me see stars a week later.

Pages 19 and 20 of the below pdf is of interest to us.
The solid green lines on the right hand panels of page 20 are the expected SNP count per GWAS sample size in Alzheimer's
along with other traits and illnesses. Notice that even at a million GWAS sample there is less than 1000 AD SNPs though they explain more of the variance than does schizophrenia even while schizophrenia has many more expected SNP hits at a million GWAS size.
I had thought that the research was pointing to the conclusion that AD genetics is now more or less resolved, though this does not appear to be true. Pushing to top up AD GWAS to a million would make sense. We would not hit as many SNPs as say schizophrenia, though they would have larger effect sizes. Considering the financial costs associated with AD it is difficult to justify not spending such resources.

I am somewhat unsure about the figure on page 19. Do all of these traits really have essentially perfect normal distributions of positive and negative effect sizes? This does not make sense to me. I would guess that you would have noticeable asymmetries. Any SNP that had a really negative effect on intelligence should be heavily selected against and should become reduced in frequency. I would love to see the Figure that compared effect sizes and the allele frequencies that increased and decreased traits.

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/ ... 6.full.pdf

[J11]

I have been re-reading Sapiens (2011).

"And no matter how convincing the ethical arguments may be, it is hard to see how they can hold back the next step for long, especially if what is at stake is the possibility of prolonging human life indefinitely, conquering incurable diseases, and upgrading our cognitive and emotional abilities. What would happen, for example, if we developed a cure for Alzheimer’s disease that, as a side benefit, ..."

The "hold back the next step for long" above refers to genetic engineering.

This chapter also proposes that if men were to be genetically reengineer to have vole genes they would remain faithful to their spouses. The benefits might be so numerous and so socially helpful that gene editing will become seen as unstoppable.


I am amazed that a book on the leading edge as of 2011 still was not suggesting the 100 SD humans.
Can anyone provide a popular reference to the optimized intelligence human idea?

[J11]

Sandy, thank you for your comments and compliments.

Yet, it is a bitter taste of reality for me that now that we are at the entrance to a new realm, there are questions about whether we should or will allow others to enter. After our long and successful quest to transcend, will there be valid reasons against doing so?

This technology has been advancing so rapidly that it does not seem stoppable. Further, some of the technology is quite mature.
For example, PGD could be used to simply select an embryo. This is already a widely used technique.

Regarding how sometimes those with high intelligence are misfits, I would more often than not give the benefit of the doubt to those with higher IQ. For those with greater cognitive abilities probably most of what happens out in the world on a day to day basis would make very little sense. When you really think about, you realize that they would be quite correct in this assessment.

For example, the fact that for over a hundred years there appears to have been no popular depiction or description of 100 SD IQ humans points to a g deficit on a species wide level. I find it very surprising and disturbing. Even up to the last 5 years, there appears to have been little if any awareness of this possibility. This is the most powerful idea that I have ever encountered and yet it did not click with anyone? Life is an intelligence test and no one actually got this slow lofty pitch across the plate? Guess we'll have bell curve everyone. When the 100 SD people arrive I suspect there will be a long list of other hidden in plain view concepts that are invisible to us because of our limited cognitive abilities.

I am not sure we can now congratulate ourselves for seeing ahead when this technology has basically already arrived. It is much more impressive when people have the mental ability to project forward when all the details are not presented to them. I remember reading about the discovery about the high polygenic nature of intelligence over 10 years ago and I had no great spark of insight at the time. What I do remember is that there was an audible sense of frustration that intelligence was going to be a tough nut to crack. I say, the more polygenic the better! The more IQ SNPs that exist the more of the trait that has been hidden. If there are 100,000 SNPs great! Maybe we can move this up to 200 SD people. I will be watching carefully to see how this story filters through the geo-techno-political economic system.

Recognizing our own cognitive limitations and trying to embrace a higher g mentality would go a long in helping make the world more welcoming to the highly intelligent.

Likely one of the big problems to date is that when given a choice between the absolutely most intelligent candidate and a less intelligent one though with better social skills, the most intelligent would likely be chosen. When the rationale for choosing is so narrow, the fact that the successful candidate has other deficits is not that unexpected. Counter-intuitively in a genetically engineered world in which everyone has more or less equal and highly extreme IQ and other positive qualities, the competition would then be pushed to those who would make a special effort to engage the patients. Without genetic variation, environmentally modified personality characteristics would be the only competitive edge. In this future, all doctors would be nice, caring and concerned about their patients.

This typically is true. Whenever some more optimal solution to a problem is rejected, all sorts of secondary problems emerge as a consequence. Ignoring or rejecting genetic engineering will be like that. People will ascribe a range of issues to high intelligence that would be resolved by accepting a high g world.

[J11]

Great point, flora!

Yes I am so fixated on high g that I ignored everything else.
I suppose there is more to life than IQ.

For example, height!
The same idea should apply to height.

So, 100 SD people might be 30 feet tall (?) and as a consequence I suppose that they would
have very very large cranial capacities. Suppose this might push up their IQ past 100 SD.

30 foot people would be a highly noticeable physical distinguishing difference from those who had not been enhanced.
Big problem here would be that if they weren't careful they might squish some of us.
If they were ever out of luck for a job they could always clean my eaves troughs.

[J11]

Impressive!

They just reported a GWAS for neuroticism with almost a half million people.
This is one of the largest GWAS I have seen.

Interesting that the best hit was in the MAPT gene.
That is a tau gene ---> AD gene.
Anyone notice any neuroticism traits in those with AD?

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/ ... 0.full.pdf

[J11]

I continue to be startled by this new development.
None of the conceptions of the future that I have encountered suggested this specific possibility.

More importantly, the technology is already available that will allow a roll out.
Given the widespread presence of such genetic technology it will not be possible to prevent such a future.

Now that such a massive change in human potential looms, it would be best for people considering
bringing a new human life into this world to refrain from doing so. Unenhanced humans will be at an
overwhelming disadvantage compared to those engineered to have extremes of intelligence, height
and other traits.

Reproduction at this time is not rational.

[Stavia]

J11 - people arent rational. They fall in love and want to start a family.
And seriously - CRISPR for embroys on demand will not be ùniversally available for a long time, if ever.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk