[extropy-chat] Is Ignorance part of the genes?

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

Let's put it like that:

If you are knowledgeable, you can choose to act ignorant. For example
I know that I should not drink too much but I can choose to do it
because I like it.

But if you are ignorant you cannot choose to act knowledgeable.

So, almost by way of mathematical proof, being knowledgeable is better
because the range of options open to a knowledgeable person is a
superset of the range of options open to an ignorant.

On 3/22/06, Anne-Marie Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> >Hypothesis:
>
> >I keep asking myself if it's better to be ignorant:)
> >If genes contain certain characteristics of ignorance,  wouldn't it be OK.
> >To ask that if genes really do contain ignorance,  then it would  perhaps
> >be a needed to a distinct gene for a certain type of people?
>
> >Hypothesis:
> >I keep asking myself if it's better to be knowledgeable:)
> >If genes contain certain characteristics of knowledge, wouldn't it be OK
> >To ask that if genes really do contain knowledge, then it would be perhaps
> >be a needed to a distinct gene for a certain type of people?
>
> Is it better to be ignorant or knowledgeable?
> Just curious
> Anna:)