These are merely my qualifications I would place on this seemingly very interesting and highly well informed, well researched and competent idea the author has raised. Overall, these qualifications are of the "meta" sociological and political intersections onto the trait being enhanced here. Before presenting them, I would also like to state that the novel characteristics and approach to this subject that the author, who is not formally educated in biology and free of its academic milieu, is suggestive that the culture that surrounds subjects like this functions as a smothering dogma holding back innovation not advancing it as many academics would prefer to tell themselves.
Qualifications:
1. The use of biotechnology to enhance intelligence raises ethical questions regarding fairness and equality. It would create an uneven playing field in terms of astronomical cost or not be FDA approved, as only those who can afford the enhancement may have access to it, exacerbating existing social inequalities like jet fuel on a dumpster fire.
2. Modifying genes to enhance intelligence could have unforeseen side effects or unintended consequences. Genetic modifications can have complex and unpredictable effects on various aspects of an individual's physical and mental health, potentially leading to unforeseen negative outcomes.
3. Intellectual diversity is valuable for society as a whole. If everyone were genetically enhanced to have significantly higher intelligence, it may lead to a loss of diverse perspectives, creative thinking, and alternative problem-solving approaches that contribute to the richness of human society.
4. Individuals who choose not to undergo genetic enhancement for intelligence may face stigmatization or discrimination in a society that places a high value on intelligence. This could create a divide between enhanced and non-enhanced individuals, leading to social tensions and inequality.
5. Focusing solely on increasing intelligence may lead to an imbalance in human development. Other important qualities such as emotional intelligence, creativity, empathy, and social skills may be undervalued or neglected, potentially resulting in a society that lacks holistic development. As we can deduce from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pure application of intelligence even with the urging of now socially disregarded religious mores to empathy for others, there tends to be some really horrific wars that result and that creates incentives for weapons systems to be developed that could lead to the extinction of the species. As has been said by a wise sage of the Levant long ago, "man cannot live by bread alone."
6. The long-term effects of genetically enhancing intelligence are currently unknown. It would require extensive research and testing to fully understand the potential consequences, including any negative impacts on individuals and the broader population. This would also be the means the gatekeepers are most likely to hold these things back using, if first they don't use the patent court racket first (see below for thoughts on that specifically intended for the author's consideration).
7. Introducing widespread genetic enhancement for intelligence could have far-reaching societal implications that are difficult to predict. It may disrupt social dynamics, undermine traditional educational systems, and challenge existing notions of intelligence, potentially leading to unintended societal consequences. This being the primary fear of the plutocratic elite, who already game the economy, government and society itself (via mass media and implanted insecurities picked up from them as hypnotic triggers and post-hypnotic suggestions among other marketing tactics) to stabilize their ranking and prevent too much movement in or especially out of their ranks and widespread social change, even positive for the vast majority, would likely amount to shake up in their ranks of the order their individual best interest would make them inclined to reject.
8. Assuming intelligence is primarily IQ, which is how quickly and effectively an individual comes up with a solution for a novel problem, does not fully encapsulate the notion meant by the word intelligence. The exact conceptual boundaries are open to extensive debate on this subject in particular and are charged by the raging insecurities of those attempting its definition that have rendered this concept outside of post-modernity's ability to adequately define with any precision. Raising problem solving capacity without subsequent and proportional increases in the other elements that partially factor into intelligence may actually lead to a reduced overall intelligence in the treated population, or the increase of problem solving capacity might have a long term effect of reducing the other elements such that this primes a (steeper) downward trend in the intelligence of subsequent generations.
The Patent Court Racket
You are clearly very intelligent and apparently learn quickly, so now is the time to learn how to write patent applications for any and all processes you think evidently implied by these ideas or face paying a licensing fee to conduct research along lines you came up, if the patent holder even allows that much and doesn't shovel the idea into the filing cabinet of doom. Patents are granted for technology and processes employing them that are evidently not possible, or if they are not exploited, otherwise patents for controlling peoples' emotions using flickering of CRT monitors should probably be of a greater concern to the average person. Your intelligence being of a "raw" quality and your idea coming off with little self-righteousness also implies that you can be bought, so getting the patents might turn out to be rather lucrative because this sort of thing once the patent application is published will generate some profound interest for reasons discussed above. In the future, patent first and make announcements second, if for no other reason than
Qualifications to Consider
These are merely my qualifications I would place on this seemingly very interesting and highly well informed, well researched and competent idea the author has raised. Overall, these qualifications are of the "meta" sociological and political intersections onto the trait being enhanced here. Before presenting them, I would also like to state that the novel characteristics and approach to this subject that the author, who is not formally educated in biology and free of its academic milieu, is suggestive that the culture that surrounds subjects like this functions as a smothering dogma holding back innovation not advancing it as many academics would prefer to tell themselves.
Qualifications:
1. The use of biotechnology to enhance intelligence raises ethical questions regarding fairness and equality. It would create an uneven playing field in terms of astronomical cost or not be FDA approved, as only those who can afford the enhancement may have access to it, exacerbating existing social inequalities like jet fuel on a dumpster fire.
2. Modifying genes to enhance intelligence could have unforeseen side effects or unintended consequences. Genetic modifications can have complex and unpredictable effects on various aspects of an individual's physical and mental health, potentially leading to unforeseen negative outcomes.
3. Intellectual diversity is valuable for society as a whole. If everyone were genetically enhanced to have significantly higher intelligence, it may lead to a loss of diverse perspectives, creative thinking, and alternative problem-solving approaches that contribute to the richness of human society.
4. Individuals who choose not to undergo genetic enhancement for intelligence may face stigmatization or discrimination in a society that places a high value on intelligence. This could create a divide between enhanced and non-enhanced individuals, leading to social tensions and inequality.
5. Focusing solely on increasing intelligence may lead to an imbalance in human development. Other important qualities such as emotional intelligence, creativity, empathy, and social skills may be undervalued or neglected, potentially resulting in a society that lacks holistic development. As we can deduce from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pure application of intelligence even with the urging of now socially disregarded religious mores to empathy for others, there tends to be some really horrific wars that result and that creates incentives for weapons systems to be developed that could lead to the extinction of the species. As has been said by a wise sage of the Levant long ago, "man cannot live by bread alone."
6. The long-term effects of genetically enhancing intelligence are currently unknown. It would require extensive research and testing to fully understand the potential consequences, including any negative impacts on individuals and the broader population. This would also be the means the gatekeepers are most likely to hold these things back using, if first they don't use the patent court racket first (see below for thoughts on that specifically intended for the author's consideration).
7. Introducing widespread genetic enhancement for intelligence could have far-reaching societal implications that are difficult to predict. It may disrupt social dynamics, undermine traditional educational systems, and challenge existing notions of intelligence, potentially leading to unintended societal consequences. This being the primary fear of the plutocratic elite, who already game the economy, government and society itself (via mass media and implanted insecurities picked up from them as hypnotic triggers and post-hypnotic suggestions among other marketing tactics) to stabilize their ranking and prevent too much movement in or especially out of their ranks and widespread social change, even positive for the vast majority, would likely amount to shake up in their ranks of the order their individual best interest would make them inclined to reject.
8. Assuming intelligence is primarily IQ, which is how quickly and effectively an individual comes up with a solution for a novel problem, does not fully encapsulate the notion meant by the word intelligence. The exact conceptual boundaries are open to extensive debate on this subject in particular and are charged by the raging insecurities of those attempting its definition that have rendered this concept outside of post-modernity's ability to adequately define with any precision. Raising problem solving capacity without subsequent and proportional increases in the other elements that partially factor into intelligence may actually lead to a reduced overall intelligence in the treated population, or the increase of problem solving capacity might have a long term effect of reducing the other elements such that this primes a (steeper) downward trend in the intelligence of subsequent generations.
The Patent Court Racket
You are clearly very intelligent and apparently learn quickly, so now is the time to learn how to write patent applications for any and all processes you think evidently implied by these ideas or face paying a licensing fee to conduct research along lines you came up, if the patent holder even allows that much and doesn't shovel the idea into the filing cabinet of doom. Patents are granted for technology and processes employing them that are evidently not possible, or if they are not exploited, otherwise patents for controlling peoples' emotions using flickering of CRT monitors should probably be of a greater concern to the average person. Your intelligence being of a "raw" quality and your idea coming off with little self-righteousness also implies that you can be bought, so getting the patents might turn out to be rather lucrative because this sort of thing once the patent application is published will generate some profound interest for reasons discussed above. In the future, patent first and make announcements second, if for no other reason than