/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9484786
Genetically engineered kids don't exist yet.
We have no idea what genetic changes would produce brainiacs.

If you want a flock of super-geniuses, rely on statistics. If one in a hundred million is a Newton or Einstein and one in ten million is a Faraday or Edison, educate a billion children to the limits of their capacity. You should get ten Newton/Einsteins and 100 Faraday/Edisons.
The ones who aren't absolutely top tier can be put to work solving "lesser" problems like feeding and housing everybody, cleaning up the environment, and so on.

The waste of brainpower in the world today is heartbreaking. A recent thread asked "Was Newton the smartest man ever?" Probably not. But he was very smart and in the right place under the right circumstances. Gauss would be unknown today if a teacher hadn't noticed his potential and arranged for him to be trained. Probably equally smart kids in Appalachia or Calcutta right now who'll spend their lives feeding chickens.

>>9484786
Because as>>9484823 said, there is a lot of wasted intellectual potential that could/should be unlocked first.
You mentioned AI, why wouldn't it be an equally good option to prioritise general AI which then revolutionises other fields?

>>9484786
Because masters programs are memes

>>9484823
>We have no idea what genetic changes would produce brainiacs.
Look at whites and non-chinese asians, do more of the same.
Look at blacks, arabs, spanish, and abos, do the opposite.

>>9485068
You're obviously someone who never took a course in genetics, learned statistics, or paid any attention to anything besides Fox News.
You take infants from what you'd consider shithole countries, raise them in an environment where education is valued and mystical mumbo-jumbo is not, and (again statistically) they turn out to be just as capable as children born into literate societies.

Racists like to believe the dumbest White (or whatever their in-group is) is smarter than the smartest Black (or whomever they happen to hate.)
If there IS a difference, it's tiny and the bell curves nearly overlap. It's the very idea that approx. half the THEM are smarter than appox. half of US that drives them batshit.

Ask any geneticist which gene (or set of genes) he'd modify to get smarter people and, if he's honest, he'll say "we don't know." That's why all the /sci/ threads about doing it with CRISPR are inane. We can alter DNA but we don't know what we're doing or what the results and side-effects will be.

>>9485235

>>9485235
>You take infants from what you'd consider shithole countries, raise them in an environment where education is valued and mystical mumbo-jumbo is not, and (again statistically) they turn out to be just as capable as children born into literate societies.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

>>9485504
Coming from you, I consider that a compliment, asshole.

>>9485235
If you don't post your address right now you are a coward and a redditor. This conversation never took place.