morriswalters wrote:Explain to me how you talk about intelligence without talking about IQ. If you are going to talk about it, you have to have a metric. And IQ as a metric speaks to capacity.
I have no problem talking about them both, so long as it is realized that they are not synonymous.
I am assuming that by 'IQ' it is meant 'the result of IQ tests' - which is affected by many more factors than pure raw intelligence. For example, if you were given an IQ test in Swahili you'd probably do very badly at it. Or if you were given an IQ test in English but hadn't eaten or slept properly for a year you'd do badly as well.
If when you talk about IQ you don't mean IQ tests then perhaps explain what you do mean.
And if you want to say 'well how can you measure intelligence except via IQ tests' - well, one way would be if we did identify the genes that made a contribution...
So what I'm saying is that genetic engineering to improve native intelligence will obviously improve IQ (if we ignore that IQ is meant to be normalized) - but improving intelligence without improving education and empowerment will likely have no effect on birth-rates.
(You could argue that any society that puts funds into improving intelligence will likely already be putting funds into education and empowerment but that's not guaranteed: There could be rich, scientifically advanced, fundamentalist/repressive societies going forwards, such as a future Saudi Arabia.)
As for leady's 'troubles' - well, one of 'overpopulation' and 'demographic collapse' is likely to be an issue going forwards. Personally I think the former is much worse than the latter, since robotics and AI is likely to replace much of the unskilled/semi-skilled workforce, so so long as the fruits of that economic revolution get shared fairly then the future should be comfortable for the retired and the young alike.