Smart world

[falcosenna1 8,320]

That's a great question! I guess it's in our nature to explore. We want to understand everything. The most brilliant minds come up with the most brilliant breaktroughs. I personally love science. I hate math alone but I find it really interesting when it's applied in biology for example. The medical evolution won't stop and the new technologies lead to some great stuff.

 

 

The ethical aspect of science is something else. And I have no idea how to put that but there's a limit in how far science can go. I don't think we'll do that as humans though because we always seek for some sort of explanation for everything. I am sure the societal acceptability of scientific research is an important and rather difficult topic in your study. You know more of that than me, I'm just saying what comes up to my mind currently.

 

Recently I've seen read something about scientist reversing age in mice with DNA. Absolutely radical breakthrough The concept of it is rather simple actually and so is the medicine so there are already test samples being sold for a huge price on the black market.

 

Yeah, it's a difficult subject and food for discussion for sure. There indeed is a subject in my study called (medical) ethics. It's extremely interesting to think about different cases. How far can we go treating a patient? How for can we go giving dozens of medicines? Are we, doctors, the ones to decide? Is it completely up to the patient or should we find a golden middle way? What if this golden middle way doesn't exist? Another widely discussed topic is euthanasia. Who are we, doctors, normal people like all other people, who are we to decide if a patient can commit euthanasia? When are patients 'ready' to go? When are people too ill, mentally, so that they lose the right to ask for euthanasia? What about physician-assisted suicide? Wouldn't it sometimes be better to let a patient die instead of trying the utmost to keep him alive knowing his future life will be that of a plant, not being able to do anything besides breathing?

 

Also, what about testing new drugs on animals, another widely discussed topic with scattered opinions.

[r_Masquerade2 98]

What if natural selection happened more often in humans?

• Minimize birth limit to every country 2 per mother. Legalize abortions, costly but legal. So then we will have the population under control and we don't need to worry about over populated starvation. 

Would some dieseases stop from passing from 1 to another? Would "dumb" people be filtered out? People with bad choices would've filtered, maybe people without a permanent job would be too. This kind of world sounds sad, but imagine: everyone has jobs, maybe fewer dieseases, everyone strives to do their best, overpopulation would take longer than right now.

In some ways, your question is contradictory. Any changes to natural-selection via human manipulation would render the selection system no longer natural. If we were to instate a global two-child policy, this would be selection, but it would not be natural selection. Natural selection is nature's innate selectivity, not humanity's. 

 

However, I suppose that human technology has greatly minimized the selective effects of our environment. Modern medicine is a good example. So is clothing. Or stone tools. Humans have, to some degree, transcended natural selection. Instead of mankind gradually adapting itself to the world through the slow process of genetic mutation, mankind reached a focal point, an intellectual singularity, that allowed us to adapt the environment to us. That being said, we still haven't fully adapted the environment to ourselves, so natural selection still takes place, albeit to a lesser degree. People are still eaten by tigers, or drown, or are killed by diseases. Almost 100 million people were killed by the Spanish Influenza just after WW1. Up until the past 200 years, the human population has been growing at a slow pace, kept relatively in check by natural forces. But recent technological and medicinal innovations have created an exponential growth in population.

 

 

Ironically, the countries that facilitated these innovations and benefited the greatest, such as Europe and the United States, actually do not have particularly high birthrates. Birth rates in the European Union are at 1.6, which is below the 2-child-policy that you suggested. Japan, another highly modernized country, has a birthrate of 1.46 and because of low immigration actually has a negative domestic growth rate. Poorer countries are the ones that are exponentially increasing in population, not the richer ones. This is a paradox that doesn't have a clear explanation. These poorer countries have substantially poorer healthcare and lower general quality of life, and thus are subjected to environmental selectivity more severely. One would expect them to have lower birthrates than Europe or Japan. But this isn't the case.

 

 

Africa, India, and Southeast Asia have benefited from innovations in technology and medicine, but certainly not to the degree as has Europe. But Africa's, India's, and Southeast Asia's birthrate is growing much faster than Europe. I believe that this can be explained by examining the social hierarchies that led to innovation in the first place, and comparing them to the hierarchies that exist in less civilized countries. 

 

Human civilization has overtime developed a complex array of social hierarchies. "Success" is when a human climbs up the rungs of a given hierarchy. If you were to become a successful lawyer, you would have to do well in college, do well in graduate school, and be willing to work 80 hour work weeks. This would allow you to ascend the hierarchy of lawyer-ship. A similar hierarchy exists if one were to become a doctor, or really any well-payed professional in the western world. Western social hierarchies are focused around a meta-hierarchy of intelligence and education, and these values have led to progress. In Africa, or other third-world countries, the hierarchies are much different. Education is less of an issue, and physical strength and practical knowledge is more important. A successful subsistence farmer is on an entirely different hierarchy as a good lawyer. A bushman living in the wilderness of Cameroon exists on a hierarchy that is based on vastly different values than the hierarchies in the modernized world.  

 

Statistically speaking, women are far more likely to marry and have children with males who have ascended the social hierarchy, thus resulting in offspring that are genetically predisposed to ascend the same hierarchies, not to mention the fact that the offspring will be taught by their parents to ascend these same hierarchies. This is a form of selection, and it means that geographic populations are genetically/culturally predisposed to excel at the social hierarchies that exist in their given location. IQ is basically a measure of proficiency at spatial, verbal, and mathematical reasoning. The social hierarchies that exist in modern countries are predicated upon these exact values, which is why it is no surprise that the IQ scores of modernized countries is substantially higher than less civilized countries with different values and hierarchies. But while a European might be able to beat a Namibian in a math test, you can sure as hell bet that a European couldn't last as long in the African savanna. 

 

 

But, all this aside, why is it that birthrates in modernized countries are so much lower than in others? I believe it is because the social hierarchies in modern countries are much longer. To become a doctor (in the USA), you've got to complete four years of college, four years of medical school, and three to sevenish years of residency before you've finally made it up the hierarchy. You'll be in your late twenties or early thirties before you've fully asserted yourself as a successful individual. And as a I said earlier, people are statistically more likely to reproduce with other people whom they deem successful. Thus, in modern countries with lengthy social hierarchies, you might not have kids until your thirties, because you will not really be "successful" until you have climbed a fair bit of the hierarchy. And a woman's fertility only lasts until her late thirties, meaning that the time frame in which to have children is very narrow. In less developed country, the social hierarchy is shorter, meaning that you have kids earlier. 

 

My thoughts on the ideas you proposed:

• Would diseases be prevented if we increased environmental selectivity? No. Diseases have historically been eradicated by medical breakthroughs, in which the goal was to decrease environmental selectivity, not increase it. If we were to suddenly round up and slaughter everyone with AIDS, I suppose we could get rid of it. But once again, this wouldn't be environmental selection. This would be artificial selection. 
• Would dumb people be filtered out if we increased environmental selectivity? No. It's actually the opposite: in countries where environmental selectivity is higher, such as many African countries, the average IQ is actually (on average) quite low. However, in countries where environmental selectivity is is lower, such as Europe, IQs are higher. Obviously the definition of "dumb" is important, and IQ doesn't necessarily mean intelligence. But I think you can understand my point. Social hierarchies aimed at decreasing environmental selectivity select for "intelligent" people, much more than does the environment.
• Would the proportion of the population without a permanent job be decreased if we increased environmental selectivity? Not exactly. "Permanent jobs" are a social creation, not an environmental creation. Hunter/gatherers don't exactly have permanent jobs. That being said, increasing environmental selectivity would make people work more-- it would be a necessity in order to survive. 
• Would people always strive to do their best if we increased environmental selectivity? Not exactly. People would probably exert more effort than they currently do, simply out of necessity. But the idea of people always "giving it their all" might be a little unrealistic. But yes, increasing environmental selectivity would probably make people work harder. 
• Would overpopulation be less of a problem if we increased environmental selectivity? Its complicated. It still has yet to be established if overpopulation is as dangerous an issue as it is commonly believed. But if all of human technology suddenly vanished, the population would drastically decrease. However, overpopulation is not even a chance in modern countries due to their below 2.0 birthrates. It seems to be that overpopulation is a social problem, but a social problem that can be dealt with, without doing away with technology. Eventually, with increased globalization, the social hierarchies throughout the world will adapt themselves to a modern world with modern hierarchies, and birthrates will decrease in Africa and Southeast/Southwest Asia.

[Crimson_Tank 285]

This smart world it be terrible.

[Agent101us 310]

This smart world it be terrible.

Well, druggers wouldn't be alive, you wouldn't need to sleep the disgusting crap they smoke? Edited August 20, 2017 by Agent101us

[Metaphor 538]

Why not have Beethoven? He made money of of his music? Disable does not = able. it means you can't do something or you need help to do it. The general population only knows Hellen Keller cause she was deaf and blind but she could communicate. But this topic is called "smart world" high IQs mean they are "smart"

1.) Actually, an individual's IQ does not represent their intelligence, but rather their potential to be intelligent (fluid intelligence). IQ tests have had many controversies over the years on whether it is accurate or not. 

 

2.) You are correct in stating that "Disable does not = able"; however, you seem to be implying that it also means not being able to do something. Disabled simply means impaired in the sense of a condition. The correct term for not being able to do something would be 'unable' rather than 'disable'.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  In response to the topic, I think living in this so called 'smart world' would be just as inefficient (if not more) than the way the world already is. Natural selection has been neglected by the human species for centuries simply due to free will and the fact we are social animals. Plus, your perception of natural selection ideally would sort out flaws, but every human being has a flaw of some sort; basically this version of natural selection would make the human species extinct. It is also probably worth mentioning that having a strict set of criteria for what is considered a smart person would be subjective due to there being different types of intelligence; every human being has at least one type of intelligence that they excel in (unless their brain is incapable of functioning properly). I could make an article or two on all the fallacies in this mentality, but I'd rather not go through the time and effort.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Metaphor

[Crimson_Tank 285]

Well, druggers wouldn't be alive, you wouldn't need to sleep the disgusting crap they smoke?

Your idea of smart world would be to get rid of people. 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Crimson_Tank

[Agent101us 310]

Your idea of smart world would be to get rid of people.

EXACTLY. It would save our world from overpolulation, meaning less crowded streets, less car pollution, less hunger, less food to make etc

[Crimson_Tank 285]

EXACTLY. It would save our world from overpolulation, meaning less crowded streets, less car pollution, less hunger, less food to make etc

We HAVE enough food for the ENTIRE population. Except most of the grain grown is fed to the animals to fatten them up. A lot of the animals don't make it to execution day. But for the ones who do...   Enjoy your happy meal...   I mean, why help the poor? Can profit off them? This is the world, they use money as there tool, but it's power they strive for. If making people disappear is the answer just think, what if you become the one who disappears. If it's possible it WILL happen, eventually. 

Edited August 24, 2017 by Crimson_Tank

[Agent101us 310]

We HAVE enough food for the ENTIRE population. Except most of the grain grown is fed to the animals to fatten them up. A lot of the animals don't make it to execution day. But for the ones who do... Enjoy your happy meal... I mean, why help the poor? Can profit off them? This is the world, they use money as there tool, but it's power they strive for. If making people disappear is the answer just think, what if you become the one who disappears. If it's possible it WILL happen, eventually.

We have a limit on this earth. It is 10 billion. With global warming, oceans rising, we will have a smaller area of land, we will have to move inland because the storms are massive. We will have too many people to feed. We do try to feed the poor.

[Crimson_Tank 285]

We have a limit on this earth. It is 10 billion. With global warming, oceans rising, we will have a smaller area of land, we will have to move inland because the storms are massive. We will have too many people to feed. We do try to feed the poor.

No we DON'T. People have to set up charities, because the government could care less...   Some charities are corrupted very few charities actually have the money go to the poor, instead of their paychecks. The amount of times, I've heard on the news this charity saved $million for cancer or for the hungry...  With so many charities around the word, you'd think nobody would be homeless, right? But I do agree with your smart world idea. At least to an extent. Those who commit severe crimes e.g. murder, and those terrorising should become the ones who leave to make a smart world. 

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

This is some quality r/Im14AndThisIsDeep material.

[Agent101us 310]

No we DON'T. People have to set up charities, because the government could care less... Some charities are corrupted very few charities actually have the money go to the poor, instead of their paychecks. The amount of times, I've heard on the news this charity saved $million for cancer or for the hungry... With so many charities around the word, you'd think nobody would be homeless, right? But I do agree with your smart world idea. At least to an extent. Those who commit severe crimes e.g. murder, and those terrorising should become the ones who leave to make a smart world.

Wait so we don't have a limit on this earth? You think we can fit 20 billion people twice as many as we can hold? No, we will die of starvation

[The-Jinx 32]

Wait so we don't have a limit on this earth? You think we can fit 20 billion people twice as many as we can hold? No, we will die of starvation

Don't forget, we on Earth are expanding our knowledge of space travel. Star Trek will become a reality for us, just not in our lifetime. But, then, who's to say we haven't done it before? 

[SmellThis 117]

Forget any cogent arguments just google the Darwin Awards    health and safety rules don't apply to these people, they deselected themselves

[personia 4,036]

How is this still open?

[Hate 5,582]

 

Because of people like you post a comment and therefore, never gets archived as the last posts are fresh...;p

[personia 4,036]

Because of people like you post a comment and therefore, never gets archived as the last posts are fresh...;p

Edited September 1, 2017 by personia

[Shadowmaster2.o 125]

No we DON'T. People have to set up charities, because the government could care less...   Some charities are corrupted very few charities actually have the money go to the poor, instead of their paychecks. The amount of times, I've heard on the news this charity saved $million for cancer or for the hungry...  With so many charities around the word, you'd think nobody would be homeless, right? But I do agree with your smart world idea. At least to an extent. Those who commit severe crimes e.g. murder, and those terrorising should become the ones who leave to make a smart world. 

all these crimes are not gonna go away if there is love there is hate, if there is peace there is war. 

[Sword-of-Damocles 83]

We HAVE enough food for the ENTIRE population. Except most of the grain grown is fed to the animals to fatten them up. A lot of the animals don't make it to execution day. But for the ones who do...   Enjoy your happy meal...   I mean, why help the poor? Can profit off them? This is the world, they use money as there tool, but it's power they strive for. If making people disappear is the answer just think, what if you become the one who disappears. If it's possible it WILL happen, eventually. 

You get your food as satisfaction but..... what do those animals get... oblivion!