This would, in theory, eventually give us a Locke. Maybe even several.

Altaris: Granted, my knoledge of genetic engineering is limited, but I believe mankind is well on its way to programing every last gene. However, I do definitely agree that there is more to human being's than genetics.
As for "u can't teach ethics to someone smarter than u are" you'll remember I said that it is sketchy. What I did not say and do not believe is that it is impossible. Nor do I believe, as you say(if that is indeed what you intend), that (in the event we DO attempt this whole genetic programming bit) we should leave such things up to chance. There is, after all, more than one way of teaching; creating the environment, for instance. In defense of my belief that such a thing would be possible: Even Eienstein had teachers, and one of the things that he learned from was their mistakes.

The problem is, you're seeing the problem from a Bean-type example; a test tube baby being reared to rule the world, as opposed to a Wiggin-type example.

I don't think thats the idea here.

"...(similar to Heinlein's Howard Foundation, or what the IF, apparently, is doing) that gives grants to people who marry other people with desirable leadership qualities, such as drive, ambition, and charisma.This would, in theory, eventually give us a Locke. Maybe even several."

Is everyone familiar with R A Heinlein's Howard Foundation? I've read some of his "Future History" series, and the Howards go like this: a wealthy buisnessman dies of cancer (or a similar fatal illness). As his dying act, he creates the Howard Foundation and leaves all his possesions and funds to it. It has only one purpose, "To prolong human life."

The way it's trustees go about this is simple. Anyone whos four grandparents have all reached one hundred are given money, grants, when healthy children are produced, exponentially. The more children, the more money.

The "Locke Foundation" might work similarly, only the crucial point wouldn't be age; it would be 'leadership positions' or 'intelligence' or 'charisma' or perhaps all three.

The problem of 'morals' is then out of our foundation's hands. They'll get their morals the same way we all do:

They'll learn from experience. From their parents and their siblings and their teachers and their friends. After all, the parents will be at least as intelligent as their children.

Its simililar, actually, in many ways to how Locke came about in the first place, or at least how Ender came about. Super-intelligent people given extra incentive to reproduce...

It solves both problems: it solves the problem of genetic engineering and it solves the problem of moral training.

"When I used the term disasterous, I did not mean unsatisfactory. I meant disasterous. If the wrong mistake was made, there could very well be no other generations."

Assuming that the percentage of geniuses in, say, America, is relatively low, and assuming that about half of these are discovered by the breeding program's tests, this elite group of people would not constitute nearly enough people to start a "Locke Foundation" project.

Let's back up a little bit. Let's say a wealthy (extremely wealthy) businessman has a child, a son, and that the son is tragically mentally retarded. Untreatable. The problem is traced to a defect in a blood vessel in the brain.

This businessman and wife courageously try again, and soon a daughter is conceived. The best doctors are summoned to examine the child. They find a similar defect, circulation of blood to the brain; everthing is done for the daughter in utero, and nothing works.

The daughter is born with the same mental defect. Untreatable.

The two failed attempts embitter the businessman; and his marriage is on thin ice at best. In a year he divorces his wife, and remarries a dashing young blonde. She concieves yet another child. Same story; untreatable mental defect.

By this time, the science of personal genetic mapping has come to fore. Upon examination, the businessman learns that he carries a reccesive brain circulation problem, the doctor informs him that in all likelyhood, every child he could possibly have will be born defective.

Meanwhile, the businessman's health has been rapidly deteriorating, and is diagnosed with cancer.

The man, from his deathbed, establishes the "Locke Foundation" and entrusts it with the task of increasing human intelligence.

Is it possible for a leader like what you describe to come forward anyway? In this time- there is no need for him, considering the fact that the entire world would reject any such possibility.Even if you speculate into the future- which nation would be willing to accept one without another force (such as the buggars ^.~) calling the need for one? I agree such possibilities are fascinating- yet sadly unlikely.

Also the fact that brains is good to have- but you need to be a politician. Ya need to know how to shmoose through the people. And who believes a good politician who is also good for the entire world? And one last thing, my little old opinion has almost nothing to do with any other subject- could someone explain the entire point of the Locke Foundation? I'd be much obliged,

[This message has been edited by Leanne (edited January 10, 2003).]

I disagree. I wouldn't want a moron for a Hegemon, and neither would you.

But you're right. In order for someone to become Hegemon, they would have to be charismatic; they'd have to be able to talk to everybody and get almost everybody to agree.

So what do we need? We need someone who's smart. We know that, an idiot is not at all what we're looking for. We also need someone who looks good on camera, someone who's good at giving speeches and the like.

But thats not all. We also need someone who's all there ethically, morally. Someone who's accepting. An Arthur, not a Mordred.

Let's break it down:

We need our Locke to be smart. That's covered from ground zero under the program; thats what they test for. Problem number one solved.

He's got to be charismatic. Again, this is covered. If they're smart and ambitious, they'll learn charisma. even if we couldn't breed a Locke, we'd definently get a shlew of politicians.

Number three, we've got ethics. Locke's got to be a moral man. Fine. The breeding program might have thousands of ambitious, charismatic pre-Lockes running around. Isn't it incredulous to say that not one of them is an Arthur? That not a single one grows up to be a Roosevelt or a Lincoln?

It's got to be about them. They've got to do it on their own. If we ever get a Hegemon, it'll be becuase he reaches up and takes Hegemony, not because we give it to him.

If we train him, he's not going to have the ambition to take what he wants and make the world a better place, he's going to feel that the world is his to begin with, no questions asked.

Altaris the Skeptic:

quote:

---

Your intelligence, leadership and ethics has very few to do with genetics

---

Yes, that you know of. Your first paragraph is (or appears to be) ranting on your part. You underestimate science. We can do it. We're doing it now. We've been doing it for thousands of years.

Granted, the point of the breeding in past incidences has been primarily domestication; but it doesn't have to be so. Breeding mankind for favourable traits is both possible and beneficial. You can't simply say, "It wouldn't work", because we know that it could. It is being done as we speak, by farmers all over the world. Now, when it comes to human beings, the only problem is ethical, and that is merely logistics. That problem can be worked around.

Your second paragraph is self-defeating. You conceed my point, "...of course, a Locke HAS to be smart.", but then you keep going. I conceed your point, to a certain extent; yes, idiots are capable of leading people.

Whoops... sorry about the "iour", I meant "our"

Cows.

Cows have been bred for centuries. They are now healthier, and produce better milk, meat, and birth healthier calves than they ever have before, all as a result of selective breeding.

This was done WITHOUT an intricate knowledge of the bovine genome. We've had the science to do this for centuries.

Your second point: Yes, Locke has to have charisma. Granted. I agree with you. Locke has to be both intelligent and charismatic. Bravo. You're brilliant. Kudos.

So, in conclusion, a breeding program is feasible.

To help you understand, I'll echo something Sutranafs said ages ago, in this very thread.

"How many of you are there that you use the pronoun 'we'?"

You say:

"we don't know if IQ and leadership have anything to do with genetics"

YOU don't know. Qualified experts (of which I assume from your statements you are not) disagree with you.

"it appears that intelligence (as measured by I.Q.) is a result of a combination of genes..."

"From a study of twins it appears that I.Q. is about 80% nature and 20% nurture..."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lane/8771/chromosomes.html

I agreed with you, before I read this, about leadership not being genetic.

It turns out we were both wrong.

Scroll down to right underneath the "Viking Genetics" snipet and the Isaac Newton quote.

You see where it talks about all the different forms of inherited intelligence? See where is says interpersonal relationships and intrapersonal relationships?