The problem with this post is that I'm not so much making a complete argument as arguing against some of their arguments.
The problem with replying to your comment is I can't remember what specific arguments I was trying to refute, and keeping the three ideas in my head simultaneously (their idea, my disagreement, your disagreement with that) is hurting my brain! So I will have a vague go and maybe look at it again when I'm not feeling so mentally drained.
So: I agree that there's no particular reason to think improving the average intelligence of society would be harmful, but I think I was arguing against them saying that it was inconceivable that it could have any negative effect. And, you know, it might. The danger of that possible negative effect is plausibly worth risking, but it is a risk.
And again: I'm not saying medical advance is bad. But they were saying that it was impossible that it could have any negative consequences, that it was obvious that it would trickle down, and they seemed not to acknowledge the likelihood of it being concentrated amongst the rich and powerful. Imo the way to fix that concentration is to make sure the tech is fairly distributed.
My problem is not with individual technologies, it's with these specific arguments in favour of those technologies. In fact I'd say we'd possibly agree on policy: while I think that there should be an automatic consideration for the possible consequences of any new technology before it's implemented, most of the negative consequences I brought up here should be dealt with by changing society, and maybe regulating but still using the tech, not banning it outright.
eg they seemed to me to be saying "The best and only important thing we need health wise is better technology, and there is no way better tech could have any negative consequences", and I strongly disagree with that, but that doesn't mean I think better technology is necessarily bad.
no subject
The problem with replying to your comment is I can't remember what specific arguments I was trying to refute, and keeping the three ideas in my head simultaneously (their idea, my disagreement, your disagreement with that) is hurting my brain! So I will have a vague go and maybe look at it again when I'm not feeling so mentally drained.
So: I agree that there's no particular reason to think improving the average intelligence of society would be harmful, but I think I was arguing against them saying that it was inconceivable that it could have any negative effect. And, you know, it might. The danger of that possible negative effect is plausibly worth risking, but it is a risk.
And again: I'm not saying medical advance is bad. But they were saying that it was impossible that it could have any negative consequences, that it was obvious that it would trickle down, and they seemed not to acknowledge the likelihood of it being concentrated amongst the rich and powerful. Imo the way to fix that concentration is to make sure the tech is fairly distributed.
My problem is not with individual technologies, it's with these specific arguments in favour of those technologies. In fact I'd say we'd possibly agree on policy: while I think that there should be an automatic consideration for the possible consequences of any new technology before it's implemented, most of the negative consequences I brought up here should be dealt with by changing society, and maybe regulating but still using the tech, not banning it outright.
eg they seemed to me to be saying "The best and only important thing we need health wise is better technology, and there is no way better tech could have any negative consequences", and I strongly disagree with that, but that doesn't mean I think better technology is necessarily bad.