X-Message-Number: 32347
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32340 - #32345
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:21:43 +0100
References: <>

On 30 Jan 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> Very few people are capable of doing the scientific research that you
> mention.


Forwarded message -  Re: [LongevityReport] Krugman Explains Why  
Progress Is Slowing Down
>>
>>
>> > Only about 1 of a thousand persons are scientists, so there is  
>> massive
>> > under underutilization of brain power and therefore advancement.:
>> >
>> Really? What proportion of the population could be scientists,
>> do you think? More than 0.1%, but perhaps not much more.
>
> http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/12/physics-still-pulls-them-in.html
>
> the average IQ of a physics PhD student is about 130.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
>>
>> the scoring of modern IQ tests such as the Wechsler Adult  
>> Intelligence Scale is now based on a projection of the subject's  
>> measured rank on the Gaussian bell curve with a center value  
>> (average IQ) of 100, and a standard deviation of 15
>
> 2.3% of the population is beyond 2 standard deviations from the  
> norm, thus this percentage of persons could be the smartest half of  
> physicists. That is, 23 of 1000. This is the subject with the  
> highest average IQ. So, we are now using 1/46 of the potential  
> physicists on the Planet.
>



> We've already seen the discrediting of the anti-aging "experts" back
> in the 1970's who predicted that we could throw away the actuarial
> tables by now instead of our vitamins. Bohemians on the fringes of
> cryonics back then like Robert Anton Wilson, Timothy Leary and F.M.
> Esfandiary helped to popularize these forecasts.

According to my calculation above, we are progressing at 1/46th the  
potential rate due to a socioeconomic inability to mobilize scientific  
manpower that could be working in the hard sciences. Thus, if we had  
mobilized the manpower excluded by the current system from 1980 to  
2010, we would have achieved the level that will be reached in 1380  
years. Of course, it wouldn't be possible to educate the excluded  
manpower in one shot, so we need a more conservative estimate.  
However, we only need a couple of hundred years of scientific progress  
to achieve reversible suspension and, perhaps, to halt ageing.  
Therefore, except for the social factors, the Bohemians probably had  
it right.

At least Leary was working for a social mobilization to promote life- 
extension, higher intelligence, and space colonization. These concepts  
are more and more moving into the mainstream of transhumanist and  
cryonicist thought. So, the question can be posed as to whether the  
Bohemians failed or the cryonics movement failed, by not recognizing  
what the Bohemians were trying to accomplish and how it could impact  
cryonics. Unfortunately, the exclusion of social factors from  
consideration by the current generation of cryonicists seems to  
persist, to a large degree.


dss

David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32347