Comments on: Ender's Game Proves That Every Child Deserves to Be Gifted And Talented

By: Cathy

Cathy — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:26:26 +0000

Another good example in sci-fi of cognitive enhancement benefitting everyone and lifting up all the “boats” are the Abh humans in Crest of the Stars. All Abh go through genetic tinkering and have a 6th sense (sort of a third eye) tagged onto their genome, allowing them to interface directly with their spaceships and navigate without thinking. The children of any normal human (Lander) who is promoted to an Abh also undergos that genetic tinkering. As a side effect of the screening, all diseases and much of the aging process is also adjusted, so that an Abh enhanced human lives for about 200 years (although they can still be killed in an accident.) Abh society is described as mostly peaceful, with political infighting and bickering but no famine, no disease, and no poverty.

By: Geack

Geack — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:58:12 +0000

Kyle,

While your argument basically holds for the outlier points of either an individual or an entire society, I have to worry about both the ethics and practicality of enhancement in all that middle ground, where some people have it and others don’t. The entire drive toward egalitarianism since the Enlightenment has been based on the growing realization/acceptance that “born poor” doesn’t mean “born stupid”. That IS the American Dream. The first large-scale implementation of enhancement, whenever it comes, will almost inevitably benefit the rich first, making an objective fact out of what was once unfounded snobbery. The ethical questions that matter in this discussion have little to do with whether enhancements for an individual are right or wrong in the abstract, and almost everything to do with how (or whether?) to gain their benefits without permanently screwing the offspring of everyone in the bottom 9/10 of the earnings charts.

By: Made of Stars

Made of Stars — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:06:54 +0000

I’m interested to know your thoughts on the role of education in this context. We see a lot of differences between and within societies associated with the level of the population’s education. Perhaps greater improvements in individual and societal fitness can be improved by ‘enhancing’ cognitive function through better educational systems, rather than tech or genetic enhancement.

By: amphiox

amphiox — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 13:58:53 +0000

Interesting that some people have brought up the character of Bean, seeing as Bean’s intelligence actually was enhanced. At considerable price.

By: daniel I.

daniel I. — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 13:47:59 +0000

“A major argument against human enhancement is that most enhancements won’t be beneficial if everyone is enhanced.”

Firstly, I disagree that it is a major argument against human enhancement. I have never heard that argument before (granted, I have never heard of a lot of things which you probably have) and I can’t see any reason why anyone would argue in such a way. Arguing against augmentation because it is ‘unnatural’, I can understand.

Secondly, I disagree with the idea that most enhancements won’t be beneficial if everyone is enhanced, for 2 reasons.
Any enhancement must be beneficial. The benefit is not compared to other beings, but to the state that existed prior to the enhancement. Increased strength (for example) is good in and of itself. Even if someone were to enhance their muscles to be stronger than others in competition, then everyone followed suit and they lost their competetive edge, they would still be stronger. A clear benefit.
Like your example of the benefits of increased intelligence being amplified by everyone being smarter, such an effect can happen with most enhancements simply because they would become the new norm. The more in common we have with others, the easier it is to cooperate. Intelligence is not unique in this sense.
You hint that the benefits of some enhancements are reduced when everyone has it, but this is not so. Everyone else being stronger would be a benefit to me, just as my increased strength would benefit others.

The only enhancements that I can see potentially being reduced by becoming common are those to do with beauty.

By: Umm...

Umm... — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:26:54 +0000

@Kyle/14 – I think the point is that there is no “wonderful environment.” Many GT kids struggle through public schools that don’t have GT/AP programs. This is not an argument against enhancement (nice Mensa generalization, btw), but rather a caution that the enhancement itself isn’t enough.

P.S. Your scifi->sci argument could be rebutted with any number of tales, including “Odd John”.

By: Kyle Munkittrick

Kyle Munkittrick — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:16:19 +0000

Of course someone who is associated with Mensa would push the idea that enhancement is somehow jumping the gun. How is it fair that some people win the genetic lottery and some don’t. Genes determine capacities. If I put 10,000 kids in the same wonderful nurturing environment, only those with the genetic foundation for genius will have the possibility of becoming exceptionally intelligent. Enhancement would give every child the ability to maximize that wonderful environment.

By: Peggy Madsen

Peggy Madsen — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 09:43:43 +0000

You really have to ask if people should be, or want to be, intelligent? Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

“Giftedness” is a gift that we must give, but doing it by artificial means is jumping the gun. Special nurturing and non-pressuring early teaching will give most children and babies skills that will render them “Incredibles” right here in our reality.

Giftedness is every baby’s birthright, but not as much due to heredity as it is the “special effect” of a caring, careful teacher or parent.

By: AJKamper

AJKamper — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:23:08 +0000

AFter reading Ender’s Shadow, I WISH I could forget about Bean. But that’s neither here nor there.

I think this post is probably right on, unless there are inherent negatives to intelligence that I’m not considering. But it seems to me that any difficulties from being intelligent in this society are a result of difference, not of intelligence itself. Same goes triple for gifted/talented programs–the reason they aren’t treated well is because those people aren’t common enough to need help to get up to speed!

By: Alice

Alice — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:17:08 +0000

@Kyle: OMG you wrote to me- while I do disagree with you on a few topics I still think you’re a really awesome cool smart guy and you actually care what I think!!!
Ahem. Anyhow, I understand what you meant in your shortness post- and I’m sorry that I wasn’t very clear about that- I understood that what you were saying is that it is a disadvantage in our current society and that height enhancement should be an option- but I still think that rather than encourage people to increase their (or their children’s) height artificially, we should change the nature of modern society and culture to be more accommodating to people of all shapes and sizes- and you were saying the same thing in your post about form following function.
I also agree with you about the value of being around intellectually curious minds- and if anybody knows about the defectiveness of our education system it’s me- I’m living it. Oh, the glory of adolescent idiocy (I sat next to a girl who made a daily habit of showing me her underwear for a whole semester. I don’t even want to begin to imagine what the reason for this may have been). I am constantly bored and working ahead in classes, and would love to be able to have some more competent classmates. In group projects, I insist on doing all the work because it’s EASIER that way. However, the way to fix this is to fix our education system. For one thing, I’m a firm believer in the Montessori method, and here’s a great explanation of why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GcgN0lEh5IA
I think that many more children would be gifted and talented if only they were allowed to be. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to salvage a love for learning, but we shouldn’t have to fight to hold onto that.