Actually, there is no perfect genome. Many genes have tradeoffs, so that gene that gives you +2 to your IQ might lose you 4 points to your EQ. It isn't quite that simple, but that is how it works.
There is one set of genes in particular that help a lot with IQ, BUT if you have more than 4 of them, you have aspergers, and if you have more than 6, you have autism.
So you could have templates -- the "dispassionate scientist" -- the "takes orders well, strong, dextrous soldier" -- the "passionate artist" -- etc, but being the best, or even close to the best at something knocks down some of the other sliders quite a lot.
Even if we were all genetically identical, we still wouldn't all be equal in our abilities. If identical twins take jobs in substantially different industries, the one with years of experience at a given job will tend to be much better at it than his twin who has never tried it.
I think we all know when you say everyone is equal they are not talking about skills or abilities. They are saying one person is not a superior person or human than another.
And yes I know personhood is a title.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Actually, there is no perfect genome. Many genes have tradeoffs, so that gene that gives you +2 to your IQ might lose you 4 points to your EQ. It isn't quite that simple, but that is how it works.
There is one set of genes in particular that help a lot with IQ, BUT if you have more than 4 of them, you have aspergers, and if you have more than 6, you have autism.
So you could have templates -- the "dispassionate scientist" -- the "takes orders well, strong, dextrous soldier" -- the "passionate artist" -- etc, but being the best, or even close to the best at something knocks down some of the other sliders quite a lot.
Guys you are "superior" for being on here and talking about such topics, gamers so often (still!) get portrayed as idiots that have nothing better to do with their lives.
I wonder if Centkin realises how close this is to Huxley's vison of our future in Brave New World. We could take a persons genome and see what it is "best" for. Who is closest to have a good set of genes for being an artist or a scientist? Some small changes before birth and then...voila! Here is a scientist I pulled out of a hat.
Then we have Quizzicals nurture argument, but if genetics can overcome nature, could science not also overcome nurture? Could we not give people a second cyberbrain which has skills stored in it to the required level?
As I mentioned before science and technological progress have founded and brought our civilizations to great heights but we have lost a lot of what it means to be a human along the way. What it means to be a human being has evolved even if we as a species are no longer evolving. We look at Huxleys vision with horror, but I am sure ancient man would look at us with some horror as well.
It is a very odd question,one i have asked myself many times. I feel every single person would live life differently.I find it odd at how corrupt religion began and how it was used for power but at the same time,it gave us some beliefs to help the human race function within reason. I can't imagine with the mindset of MANY people "pvp minded"what a world would be like,it definitely would not be a good place to live. The difference is that long ago,we know of atrocities,those one by one beheading,slaughters,now a days it is done in a flash with nuclear bombs/missiles.So if the mmorpg mimic'd say a modernized warfare type game,nobody would be alive for very long.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It is a very odd question,one i have asked myself many times. I feel every single person would live life differently.I find it odd at how corrupt religion began and how it was used for power but at the same time,it gave us some beliefs to help the human race function within reason. I can't imagine with the mindset of MANY people "pvp minded"what a world would be like,it definitely would not be a good place to live. The difference is that long ago,we know of atrocities,those one by one beheading,slaughters,now a days it is done in a flash with nuclear bombs/missiles.So if the mmorpg mimic'd say a modernized warfare type game,nobody would be alive for very long.
"So if the mmorpg mimic'd say a modernized warfare type game,nobody would be alive for very long."
No, we just keep coming back to fight it again and again with new chapters of the game, World War 1 then World War 2 and so on. There were updates to classes, abilities and powers in between but they reused the European theatre resources. Tank classes were way overpowered by the start of WW2 only matched by the ridiculous DPS of bombers.
Seriously you are quite right, for the world to be perpetually at war, that would be quite awful.
Actually, there is no perfect genome. Many genes have tradeoffs, so that gene that gives you +2 to your IQ might lose you 4 points to your EQ. It isn't quite that simple, but that is how it works.
There is one set of genes in particular that help a lot with IQ, BUT if you have more than 4 of them, you have aspergers, and if you have more than 6, you have autism.
So you could have templates -- the "dispassionate scientist" -- the "takes orders well, strong, dextrous soldier" -- the "passionate artist" -- etc, but being the best, or even close to the best at something knocks down some of the other sliders quite a lot.
Guys you are "superior" for being on here and talking about such topics, gamers so often (still!) get portrayed as idiots that have nothing better to do with their lives.
I wonder if Centkin realises how close this is to Huxley's vison of our future in Brave New World. We could take a persons genome and see what it is "best" for. Who is closest to have a good set of genes for being an artist or a scientist? Some small changes before birth and then...voila! Here is a scientist I pulled out of a hat.
Then we have Quizzicals nurture argument, but if genetics can overcome nature, could science not also overcome nurture? Could we not give people a second cyberbrain which has skills stored in it to the required level?
As I mentioned before science and technological progress have founded and brought our civilizations to great heights but we have lost a lot of what it means to be a human along the way. What it means to be a human being has evolved even if we as a species are no longer evolving. We look at Huxleys vision with horror, but I am sure ancient man would look at us with some horror as well.
Yes, I actually have read Huxley. What actually was most interesting to me in Brave New World was not as much the beta's or the gamma's or the epsilon's, but the controllers. In fiction, every time you have a structured society like this, be it in logan's run, brave new world, etc, you always have the top class which is essentially above the rules.
Actually, there is no perfect genome. Many genes have tradeoffs, so that gene that gives you +2 to your IQ might lose you 4 points to your EQ. It isn't quite that simple, but that is how it works.
There is one set of genes in particular that help a lot with IQ, BUT if you have more than 4 of them, you have aspergers, and if you have more than 6, you have autism.
So you could have templates -- the "dispassionate scientist" -- the "takes orders well, strong, dextrous soldier" -- the "passionate artist" -- etc, but being the best, or even close to the best at something knocks down some of the other sliders quite a lot.
Guys you are "superior" for being on here and talking about such topics, gamers so often (still!) get portrayed as idiots that have nothing better to do with their lives.
I wonder if Centkin realises how close this is to Huxley's vison of our future in Brave New World. We could take a persons genome and see what it is "best" for. Who is closest to have a good set of genes for being an artist or a scientist? Some small changes before birth and then...voila! Here is a scientist I pulled out of a hat.
Then we have Quizzicals nurture argument, but if genetics can overcome nature, could science not also overcome nurture? Could we not give people a second cyberbrain which has skills stored in it to the required level?
As I mentioned before science and technological progress have founded and brought our civilizations to great heights but we have lost a lot of what it means to be a human along the way. What it means to be a human being has evolved even if we as a species are no longer evolving. We look at Huxleys vision with horror, but I am sure ancient man would look at us with some horror as well.
I'm not saying that genetics can overcome nurture or the other way around. In pretty much any activity, how well you perform will be a combination of a lot of factors, including your natural, God-given ability, the training and prior experience you have, how hard you're willing to work at the activity (more a question of priorities than work ethic), whether you care how well you perform, and whether you're now in an environment conducive to performing well, among other things. My argument was not that this or that factor dominates, but rather, that even if we could completely equalize one of the factors, the others would still lead to unequal outcomes.
Yes, I actually have read Huxley. What actually was most interesting to me in Brave New World was not as much the beta's or the gamma's or the epsilon's, but the controllers. In fiction, every time you have a structured society like this, be it in logan's run, brave new world, etc, you always have the top class which is essentially above the rules.
You mean, just like... right now ?
The reason for the checks and balances designed into the American political system was to try to prevent any particular class from getting control of everything and being above the law. The hope was that the House, Senate, President, and courts would fight against each other so that lawless acts on the part of one would get smacked down by the others. They didn't foresee that political parties would make it possible to have majorities in both houses of congress inclined to support the President due to partisan allegiances, but the political parties fighting with each other does serve much of the intended role. And elections can sometimes mean that powerful elites get thrown out of office if they go too far in disregarding what most of the people want.
Actually, there is no perfect genome. Many genes have tradeoffs, so that gene that gives you +2 to your IQ might lose you 4 points to your EQ. It isn't quite that simple, but that is how it works.
There is one set of genes in particular that help a lot with IQ, BUT if you have more than 4 of them, you have aspergers, and if you have more than 6, you have autism.
So you could have templates -- the "dispassionate scientist" -- the "takes orders well, strong, dextrous soldier" -- the "passionate artist" -- etc, but being the best, or even close to the best at something knocks down some of the other sliders quite a lot.
Guys you are "superior" for being on here and talking about such topics, gamers so often (still!) get portrayed as idiots that have nothing better to do with their lives.
I wonder if Centkin realises how close this is to Huxley's vison of our future in Brave New World. We could take a persons genome and see what it is "best" for. Who is closest to have a good set of genes for being an artist or a scientist? Some small changes before birth and then...voila! Here is a scientist I pulled out of a hat.
Then we have Quizzicals nurture argument, but if genetics can overcome nature, could science not also overcome nurture? Could we not give people a second cyberbrain which has skills stored in it to the required level?
As I mentioned before science and technological progress have founded and brought our civilizations to great heights but we have lost a lot of what it means to be a human along the way. What it means to be a human being has evolved even if we as a species are no longer evolving. We look at Huxleys vision with horror, but I am sure ancient man would look at us with some horror as well.
Yes, I actually have read Huxley. What actually was most interesting to me in Brave New World was not as much the beta's or the gamma's or the epsilon's, but the controllers. In fiction, every time you have a structured society like this, be it in logan's run, brave new world, etc, you always have the top class which is essentially above the rules.
Actually, there is no perfect genome. Many genes have tradeoffs, so that gene that gives you +2 to your IQ might lose you 4 points to your EQ. It isn't quite that simple, but that is how it works.
There is one set of genes in particular that help a lot with IQ, BUT if you have more than 4 of them, you have aspergers, and if you have more than 6, you have autism.
So you could have templates -- the "dispassionate scientist" -- the "takes orders well, strong, dextrous soldier" -- the "passionate artist" -- etc, but being the best, or even close to the best at something knocks down some of the other sliders quite a lot.
Guys you are "superior" for being on here and talking about such topics, gamers so often (still!) get portrayed as idiots that have nothing better to do with their lives.
I wonder if Centkin realises how close this is to Huxley's vison of our future in Brave New World. We could take a persons genome and see what it is "best" for. Who is closest to have a good set of genes for being an artist or a scientist? Some small changes before birth and then...voila! Here is a scientist I pulled out of a hat.
Then we have Quizzicals nurture argument, but if genetics can overcome nature, could science not also overcome nurture? Could we not give people a second cyberbrain which has skills stored in it to the required level?
As I mentioned before science and technological progress have founded and brought our civilizations to great heights but we have lost a lot of what it means to be a human along the way. What it means to be a human being has evolved even if we as a species are no longer evolving. We look at Huxleys vision with horror, but I am sure ancient man would look at us with some horror as well.
Yes, I actually have read Huxley. What actually was most interesting to me in Brave New World was not as much the beta's or the gamma's or the epsilon's, but the controllers. In fiction, every time you have a structured society like this, be it in logan's run, brave new world, etc, you always have the top class which is essentially above the rules.
Huxley was writing to the society he saw at the time more than to what he foresaw. That is always rather easier to do than with the prescience of futurology you find in say Neuromancer. Indeed I sometimes think it is more by chance when they hit the nail somewhat on the head. Asimov had a rather good track record though, It may be that for some prediction is more important than others.
The changes that will take place will effect who we are more than ever before. Technology has always effected what we are as well as what we do, but the latter is far more obvious. I don't think people are as generally good at mental arithmetic as they used to be for example, tools take away competence as much as expanding what we can do. The internet made us more informed, while hosting a world of garbage, while word processing has been great for clarity of communication, but has led to poorer standards in writing. You rarely get an innovation that is solely positive, just the way it is.
But now we could effect traits that we think are part of what makes us a human being, intelligence, artistic ability. Our tools will change us nearly as much as they will change the world.
Actually, there is no perfect genome. Many genes have tradeoffs, so that gene that gives you +2 to your IQ might lose you 4 points to your EQ. It isn't quite that simple, but that is how it works.
There is one set of genes in particular that help a lot with IQ, BUT if you have more than 4 of them, you have aspergers, and if you have more than 6, you have autism.
So you could have templates -- the "dispassionate scientist" -- the "takes orders well, strong, dextrous soldier" -- the "passionate artist" -- etc, but being the best, or even close to the best at something knocks down some of the other sliders quite a lot.
Guys you are "superior" for being on here and talking about such topics, gamers so often (still!) get portrayed as idiots that have nothing better to do with their lives.
I wonder if Centkin realises how close this is to Huxley's vison of our future in Brave New World. We could take a persons genome and see what it is "best" for. Who is closest to have a good set of genes for being an artist or a scientist? Some small changes before birth and then...voila! Here is a scientist I pulled out of a hat.
Then we have Quizzicals nurture argument, but if genetics can overcome nature, could science not also overcome nurture? Could we not give people a second cyberbrain which has skills stored in it to the required level?
As I mentioned before science and technological progress have founded and brought our civilizations to great heights but we have lost a lot of what it means to be a human along the way. What it means to be a human being has evolved even if we as a species are no longer evolving. We look at Huxleys vision with horror, but I am sure ancient man would look at us with some horror as well.
Yes, I actually have read Huxley. What actually was most interesting to me in Brave New World was not as much the beta's or the gamma's or the epsilon's, but the controllers. In fiction, every time you have a structured society like this, be it in logan's run, brave new world, etc, you always have the top class which is essentially above the rules.
Huxley was writing to the society he saw at the time more than to what he foresaw. That is always rather easier to do than with the prescience of futurology you find in say Neuromancer. Indeed I sometimes think it is more by chance when they hit the nail somewhat on the head. Asimov had a rather good track record though, It may be that for some prediction is more important than others.
The changes that will take place will effect who we are more than ever before. Technology has always effected what we are as well as what we do, but the latter is far more obvious. I don't think people are as generally good at mental arithmetic as they used to be for example, tools take away competence as much as expanding what we can do. The internet made us more informed, while hosting a world of garbage, while word processing has been great for clarity of communication, but has led to poorer standards in writing. You rarely get an innovation that is solely positive, just the way it is.
But now we could effect traits that we think are part of what makes us a human being, intelligence, artistic ability. Our tools will change us nearly as much as they will change the world.
Technology may change, but human nature doesn't. People are still people, with all that that entails, no matter how much the technology and culture may change around us.
Actually, there is no perfect genome. Many genes have tradeoffs, so that gene that gives you +2 to your IQ might lose you 4 points to your EQ. It isn't quite that simple, but that is how it works.
There is one set of genes in particular that help a lot with IQ, BUT if you have more than 4 of them, you have aspergers, and if you have more than 6, you have autism.
So you could have templates -- the "dispassionate scientist" -- the "takes orders well, strong, dextrous soldier" -- the "passionate artist" -- etc, but being the best, or even close to the best at something knocks down some of the other sliders quite a lot.
Guys you are "superior" for being on here and talking about such topics, gamers so often (still!) get portrayed as idiots that have nothing better to do with their lives.
I wonder if Centkin realises how close this is to Huxley's vison of our future in Brave New World. We could take a persons genome and see what it is "best" for. Who is closest to have a good set of genes for being an artist or a scientist? Some small changes before birth and then...voila! Here is a scientist I pulled out of a hat.
Then we have Quizzicals nurture argument, but if genetics can overcome nature, could science not also overcome nurture? Could we not give people a second cyberbrain which has skills stored in it to the required level?
As I mentioned before science and technological progress have founded and brought our civilizations to great heights but we have lost a lot of what it means to be a human along the way. What it means to be a human being has evolved even if we as a species are no longer evolving. We look at Huxleys vision with horror, but I am sure ancient man would look at us with some horror as well.
Yes, I actually have read Huxley. What actually was most interesting to me in Brave New World was not as much the beta's or the gamma's or the epsilon's, but the controllers. In fiction, every time you have a structured society like this, be it in logan's run, brave new world, etc, you always have the top class which is essentially above the rules.
Huxley was writing to the society he saw at the time more than to what he foresaw. That is always rather easier to do than with the prescience of futurology you find in say Neuromancer. Indeed I sometimes think it is more by chance when they hit the nail somewhat on the head. Asimov had a rather good track record though, It may be that for some prediction is more important than others.
The changes that will take place will effect who we are more than ever before. Technology has always effected what we are as well as what we do, but the latter is far more obvious. I don't think people are as generally good at mental arithmetic as they used to be for example, tools take away competence as much as expanding what we can do. The internet made us more informed, while hosting a world of garbage, while word processing has been great for clarity of communication, but has led to poorer standards in writing. You rarely get an innovation that is solely positive, just the way it is.
But now we could effect traits that we think are part of what makes us a human being, intelligence, artistic ability. Our tools will change us nearly as much as they will change the world.
Technology may change, but human nature doesn't. People are still people, with all that that entails, no matter how much the technology and culture may change around us.
I think that is a constant ebb and flow, but over the centuries we have changed, lets just look at intelligence. Now it is hard to do comparisons between people of the past and today, we know about grade inflation and so on but that does not show people are more or less intelligent. But our tools are doing what our brains used to do, that in my mind makes our brains more "flabby".
One study looked at the school curriculum of the renascence period, looking at ability in Latin and Ancient Greek. Schools were for the privileged few and leaving ages varied but you certainly left by or before the age we would go to university. They found that the average school students leaving age ability in Latin and Ancient was as good as todays university students who had obtained a degree in the classics (Latin and AG).
When we look at morals we find they vary by country, what is it that makes us human that is not a triumph of nurture over nature? Lets take the relative importance a society puts on emotions, Victorians are thought to be more emotional than we are today, but you may well have noticed how much more importance in the last twenty years we are putting on "emotional impact", "human interest", "life affirming". What is it that makes us human that nurture is not changing?
If Matrix Theory is real, then it's very simple to go to another planet as the "Creator" of the "Matrix" could simply drag the data from one directory to another and you would be at another location...
Comments
There is one set of genes in particular that help a lot with IQ, BUT if you have more than 4 of them, you have aspergers, and if you have more than 6, you have autism.
So you could have templates -- the "dispassionate scientist" -- the "takes orders well, strong, dextrous soldier" -- the "passionate artist" -- etc, but being the best, or even close to the best at something knocks down some of the other sliders quite a lot.
And yes I know personhood is a title.
I wonder if Centkin realises how close this is to Huxley's vison of our future in Brave New World. We could take a persons genome and see what it is "best" for. Who is closest to have a good set of genes for being an artist or a scientist? Some small changes before birth and then...voila! Here is a scientist I pulled out of a hat.
Then we have Quizzicals nurture argument, but if genetics can overcome nature, could science not also overcome nurture? Could we not give people a second cyberbrain which has skills stored in it to the required level?
As I mentioned before science and technological progress have founded and brought our civilizations to great heights but we have lost a lot of what it means to be a human along the way. What it means to be a human being has evolved even if we as a species are no longer evolving. We look at Huxleys vision with horror, but I am sure ancient man would look at us with some horror as well.
When is the next expansion ?
If it is f2p, what is the shop currency ?
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
I feel every single person would live life differently.I find it odd at how corrupt religion began and how it was used for power but at the same time,it gave us some beliefs to help the human race function within reason.
I can't imagine with the mindset of MANY people "pvp minded"what a world would be like,it definitely would not be a good place to live.
The difference is that long ago,we know of atrocities,those one by one beheading,slaughters,now a days it is done in a flash with nuclear bombs/missiles.So if the mmorpg mimic'd say a modernized warfare type game,nobody would be alive for very long.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
No, we just keep coming back to fight it again and again with new chapters of the game, World War 1 then World War 2 and so on. There were updates to classes, abilities and powers in between but they reused the European theatre resources. Tank classes were way overpowered by the start of WW2 only matched by the ridiculous DPS of bombers.
Seriously you are quite right, for the world to be perpetually at war, that would be quite awful.
2. I'm not sure what I could do about it as a Paleoscatologist.....you didn't specify what type of scientist I am.
Woo first post! Long time reader, first time signer upper/ poster/ participator in discussions.
I would probably convert to Hinduism or Buddhism or a gnostic religion so I could respawn
Yes, I actually have read Huxley. What actually was most interesting to me in Brave New World was not as much the beta's or the gamma's or the epsilon's, but the controllers. In fiction, every time you have a structured society like this, be it in logan's run, brave new world, etc, you always have the top class which is essentially above the rules.
The changes that will take place will effect who we are more than ever before. Technology has always effected what we are as well as what we do, but the latter is far more obvious. I don't think people are as generally good at mental arithmetic as they used to be for example, tools take away competence as much as expanding what we can do. The internet made us more informed, while hosting a world of garbage, while word processing has been great for clarity of communication, but has led to poorer standards in writing. You rarely get an innovation that is solely positive, just the way it is.
But now we could effect traits that we think are part of what makes us a human being, intelligence, artistic ability. Our tools will change us nearly as much as they will change the world.
One study looked at the school curriculum of the renascence period, looking at ability in Latin and Ancient Greek. Schools were for the privileged few and leaving ages varied but you certainly left by or before the age we would go to university. They found that the average school students leaving age ability in Latin and Ancient was as good as todays university students who had obtained a degree in the classics (Latin and AG).
When we look at morals we find they vary by country, what is it that makes us human that is not a triumph of nurture over nature? Lets take the relative importance a society puts on emotions, Victorians are thought to be more emotional than we are today, but you may well have noticed how much more importance in the last twenty years we are putting on "emotional impact", "human interest", "life affirming". What is it that makes us human that nurture is not changing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d9i_0Ty7Cg
^ Red Pill, or Blue Pill?
If Matrix Theory is real, then it's very simple to go to another planet as the "Creator" of the "Matrix" could simply drag the data from one directory to another and you would be at another location...