We read Flowers for Algernon, and this discussion ensued. We now have to write an essay about it, and I am sure I must be missing something, because I can't find any reason to side against increasing intelligence.
To set the stage, we debated whether to increase intelligence in real life. This means that any potential effects of intelligence-enhancing surgery inside Charlie Gordon's universe (i.e., the intelligence wearing off) are not applicable. In this debate, we are referring to intelligence—not knowledge. In this context, intelligence refers to IQ, while knowledge refers to information. This means Elon Musk's Neuralink, while not irrelevant, is not the main focus of this argument.
If an argument is good, I will do my best to admit that.
These are in no particular order.
Starting off strong with this interesting point, those against increasing intelligence argue that increasing intelligence would eliminate neurological differences between people. In other words, it would get rid of stupid people.
The amount of intelligence someone has is not 'diversity.' If everyone had the same IQ, we would not all be the same because we still have our personalities -- and that's only touching on neurological differences. There are plenty of other ways we differ.
Personally, I don't understand this argument. Just because something is of more value to your success doesn't mean everything else doesn't matter.
Imagine you're on your way to class. You'd want a pencil, right?
Well, you don't actually <em>need</em> that pencil. You could just take the lead, and it would still work -- maybe not as well, but it would still work. The wood casing around the lead isn't the most important part of the pencil, so, under this logic, it's unnecessary.
This is a much better point than the last two, but it's still not infallible.
While sophisticated crime, such as bank robberies and pharmaceutical cover-ups, would increase, so would the effectiveness of our methods of battling it. If everyone had increased intelligence, we would still be fighting on an even playing field.
For example, while Isaac Newton was very intelligent, he was also a misanthrope. People can have prejudices and incorrect opinions despite being very intelligent.
This is true -- to a point. While some people would still be caught up in their prejudice, increased intelligence will let more people see through it. It doesn't make much sense to use this as a stand-alone point
See this, y'all? THIS is how you make a good argument. Talk about stuff like this instead of bringing up weird points about grit and diversity, and you'll be golden.
We need to solve a lot of things before we can make intelligence-enhancing technology available -- that's undeniable. However, this is the case with most medical procedures. The wealthier among us can afford expensive treatments to save their children's (or their) lives and give them a boost in life, while those with less money are left sitting in the dust.
It's not great, but it's the unfortunate reality. Adding another medical procedure to the mix wouldn't make much a difference.
I agree, however, that introducing intelligence-enhancing technology while we have such drastic class differences could be dangerous. It would give the rich a large advantage while middle and lower-class citizens would have a much harder time getting into the same universities as them because they have lower IQs.
See? This is a good argument. I will admit that -- this is one of the best points I've heard against it, and it's rarely brought up.
What do you guys think? I'm mostly limited to the evidence provided by my teacher, so I'm curious as to what some points you guys have are.
If I was unclear on anything, please let me know.
Sources for Arguments:
Intelligence Article
Grit Tedtalk (used as evidence for grit argument)
Anyway, it's 2:45 and I have school tomorrow, so I should probably go to bed. See y'all tomorrow!