Me and a friend had an argument about whether it is alright for scientists to work on improving intelligence of society as a whole. (Yeah this is probably quite a while away) using technology. Because neither of us possess anything close to the intellect of a scientist our arguments were probably silly but an interesting question came up..how many scientists are opposed to this idea? Looking up bioconservatives and technology critics, I find that those opposing it are right wing religious groups. I'm not sure how many intelligent people with analytical capacity of scientists occupy these groups. Personally I think that improving intelligence would mean a progession to 'civilization'. What we know of civilization today will look like something crude and ugly once we make the transistion. Probably a lot of intelligent people are completely against such a notion for the sake of protecting the power they wield over others. I think that society needs to become less caught up with power and control and focus more on looking on solving problems. So I wanted to find out the views of scientists and mathematicans and other academics on this topic. If a poll was conducted a) Give the green light for developing cyborg technolgies with the intent of improving human intelligence b) No, the natural social order should never be interfered with what would you pick? Why? Can you put your arguments in layman's terms?