= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peter_de_Blanc comments on Intelligence enhancement as existential risk mitigation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (198)
I don't think that current levels of intelligence are optimal, but if they were, it wouldn't be a coincidence. Humans are adaptation-executers, and genes make implicit assumptions about their environment. In particular, certain adaptations might be disrupted by changing the average intelligence.
If you had the option to increase your intelligence, would you decline because you were worried about certain adaptations being disrupted? The modern world is so different from our EEA that I can't buy your argument.
Disrupting adaptations can be a good thing. Birth control helps prevent overpopulation. Courts help settle disputes without violence. Even rational thought involves recognizing and changing (disrupting?) the typical thought patterns of our adapted brains.
The fact that modern world changed our values in a way that ancient people won't appreciate on reflection is a bad thing for the ancient people. To us, it'd be bad if we reverted some of these changes, and likewise if we introduced new changes that have negative side effects from the current point of view (on reflection).
It's hard to "increase intelligence" without wreaking some of the values, brain isn't designed for upgrade. It's the same problem as with trying to change emotions.
I definitely think that values, however defined, would change significantly with such a 10 point IQ change (btw, I consider this very large). And I think it would probably be a good thing.