Jolting Your Neurons to Life: What Can Frankenstein Teach Us About the Economy?
*
Two more commentators responded to this post by briefly debating whether enhancing intelligence would simply put more smart people out of work (by devaluing their main asset) or present more opportunities for everyone as a result of a great improvement in society's ability to adapt and innovate.
I commented...
I understand where you're coming from ..., but I generally agree with what ... wrote above about intelligence and employment/opportunity.
I will grant you that there are intelligent, motivated people who are unemployed -- even well-trained and/or well-educated ones. After all, sometimes whole career fields come to an abrupt end, and either employment shrinks to a tiny minority (the world's best hand-illuminator of ancient manuscripts) or simply disappears (assembly-line painters of automobiles, watching the robots do twice the job in half the time using three-quarters of the paint).
But here's the thing... If human beings can be made substantially smarter overall -- nothing seemingly revolutionary, just pushing everyone a couple noticeable steps up the ladder in terms of average, overall intelligence, creativity and learning ability -- then you will swiftly see a revolutionary change in terms of economic productivity and scientific and technological progress.
Imagine, your average scientists become brilliant, your well-above-average scientists become geniuses, and your genius scientists become de facto superhumans, at least within the limits of their fields.
And this result is replicated in every single field of endeavor on the planet.
Is it true that many jobs, career fields and even industries will speedily drop into the dustbin of history? Yes, just as we once all gave up flint-knapping. We will move on to new jobs, new technologies and new products as stunning progress ushers them in.
But the vast increase in wealth made available by such changes, and tremendously enhanced human ability to cope with and take advantage of change will help people retrain for new work far faster than before. And meanwhile, smarter government, industry and NGO decisions will lead to better support for individuals in transition.
Could all of the above fall apart very quickly if large numbers of people become technically skilled but become (or remain) morally bankrupt? Absolutely. Which is one reason it would be wise to consider what kinds of ethics it would be wise to propogate in society as a whole and among enhancement first-adopters in particular.
But on the whole, I think uplifting as much of humanity as possible, more or less at the same time, is not only a good idea in terms of social, economic and technological progress, but also in terms of preventing an egregious concentration of immense power in the hands of some kind of self-selected elite.
Bio, Mind, Noo, Self, Soc
Future Imperative
Two more commentators responded to this post by briefly debating whether enhancing intelligence would simply put more smart people out of work (by devaluing their main asset) or present more opportunities for everyone as a result of a great improvement in society's ability to adapt and innovate.
I commented...
I understand where you're coming from ..., but I generally agree with what ... wrote above about intelligence and employment/opportunity.
I will grant you that there are intelligent, motivated people who are unemployed -- even well-trained and/or well-educated ones. After all, sometimes whole career fields come to an abrupt end, and either employment shrinks to a tiny minority (the world's best hand-illuminator of ancient manuscripts) or simply disappears (assembly-line painters of automobiles, watching the robots do twice the job in half the time using three-quarters of the paint).
But here's the thing... If human beings can be made substantially smarter overall -- nothing seemingly revolutionary, just pushing everyone a couple noticeable steps up the ladder in terms of average, overall intelligence, creativity and learning ability -- then you will swiftly see a revolutionary change in terms of economic productivity and scientific and technological progress.
Imagine, your average scientists become brilliant, your well-above-average scientists become geniuses, and your genius scientists become de facto superhumans, at least within the limits of their fields.
And this result is replicated in every single field of endeavor on the planet.
Is it true that many jobs, career fields and even industries will speedily drop into the dustbin of history? Yes, just as we once all gave up flint-knapping. We will move on to new jobs, new technologies and new products as stunning progress ushers them in.
But the vast increase in wealth made available by such changes, and tremendously enhanced human ability to cope with and take advantage of change will help people retrain for new work far faster than before. And meanwhile, smarter government, industry and NGO decisions will lead to better support for individuals in transition.
Could all of the above fall apart very quickly if large numbers of people become technically skilled but become (or remain) morally bankrupt? Absolutely. Which is one reason it would be wise to consider what kinds of ethics it would be wise to propogate in society as a whole and among enhancement first-adopters in particular.
But on the whole, I think uplifting as much of humanity as possible, more or less at the same time, is not only a good idea in terms of social, economic and technological progress, but also in terms of preventing an egregious concentration of immense power in the hands of some kind of self-selected elite.
Bio, Mind, Noo, Self, Soc
Future Imperative
posted by Ralph Cerchione | Monday, November 20, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home