6 ms·

Because we have no idea how any of this works, selecting against one gene may have negative externalities that we don't even know how to measure. For example: a

Because we have no idea how any of this works, selecting against one gene may have negative externalities that we don't even know how to measure. For example: a genetic cure for schizophrenia also dulling the creative traits it's correlated with. We cant even really understand how an emergent property like language works (see: every conlang), and you think we can engineer a civilization to be better by radically altering the balance of potential equality that we have been genetically optimized for? A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human.

ALittleLight 4y ago
That's a good argument for not engineering all children all at once - we don't understand the consequences. It seems like a good argument for starting to engineer a few children so we can start to learn what the consequences are. As engineering becomes more palatable to the general population we will better able to deliver good results.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  Engineering children would likely introduce horrible diseases because as you say, nobody understands the consequences. What's being proposed is selection, the selection of embryos which have already proven themselves to be viable and passed several steps of Nature's disease filtration.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    I'm using "engineering" in a sense that encompasses informed embryo selection. I don't think it's "likely" to have horrible results.
belval 4y ago
> A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. Disregarding the personal attack (I am well aware of downsides, but it's called having a discussion), higher median IQ is not really the point, it's about giving the same chances to everyone. We could use this to eradicate a wealth of issues that we do understand, there's no good reason to have babies born with Cystic Fibrosis, we know what genes are causing it.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  >there's no good reason to have babies born with Cystic Fibrosis, we know what genes are causing it. IVF is expensive and difficult and all easily identified genetic diseases are rare, so until one of those conditions changes (cost reduction and better techniques, or so many diseases being discovered that the odds that you will be saving your kid from one become significant), it will not be used for this purpose but rather as something extra to do when IVF is required for other reasons.
  - belval 4y ago
    We agree on that part, I am not advocating for editing every foetus' genome in the next 10 years. I just think it's short-sighted to put a ban on that kind of research based on fear of inequalities.
- riskQtempAcc 4y ago
  (Use of the pronoun “you” as the impersonal) You’re not curing cystic fibrosis, or any other genetic disease, are you? You’re just stopping disabled people from being born because you’ve decided their lives have no intrinsic value. This can be said to a wide swath of people. Down syndrome people, bipolar people, blue people, people with physical deformities. Why do you get to choose? Have you ever asked one of these people if they find their lives to be meaningless? How about their parents? I can think of few hells more dull than a world of smart ass public radio listeners providing unrequested comments lathered in snark and cynicism.
whatshisface 4y ago
>A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. The world is full of societies of 120 IQ individuals. That would be, like... a typical office full of programmers. That's 1 in 10 people. Even 145 is 1 in 1,000. This gene stuff could only begin to surpass what you'd be able to do by holding a conference in an academic field at... 170? 180? For the foreseeable future the kinds of selection that operate on full-grown adults will greatly surpass this other kind which is limited to four or five embryos. In so many words, more than four or five former embryos are selected between in a typical round of SWE interviews.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  >A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension > That would be, like... a typical office full of programmers. Is this an argument in support of the OP? Anyway, much like with global warming, the issue isn't so much the averages, but the impact on the extremes. Now the world suddenly has 10x as many 140 people or 100x as many 160s, etc. This cuts both ways too. A smart person isn't necessarily a nice person. A 20 point IQ increase could make the difference between someone who is a successful telephone scammer, and someone who brings down entire economies.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- taylorius 4y ago
  >>an insufferable hell beyond comprehension >That would be, like... a typical office full of programmers Well, quite... ;-)
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    Spend a week in a workplace with an average IQ of 80 and get back to me about which feels worse.

ALittleLight 4y ago

That's a good argument for not engineering all children all at once - we don't understand the consequences. It seems like a good argument for starting to engineer a few children so we can start to learn what the consequences are. As engineering becomes more palatable to the general population we will better able to deliver good results.

whatshisface 4y ago
Engineering children would likely introduce horrible diseases because as you say, nobody understands the consequences. What's being proposed is selection, the selection of embryos which have already proven themselves to be viable and passed several steps of Nature's disease filtration.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  I'm using "engineering" in a sense that encompasses informed embryo selection. I don't think it's "likely" to have horrible results.

belval 4y ago

> A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. Disregarding the personal attack (I am well aware of downsides, but it's called having a discussion), higher median IQ is not really the point, it's about giving the same chances to everyone. We could use this to eradicate a wealth of issues that we do understand, there's no good reason to have babies born with Cystic Fibrosis, we know what genes are causing it.

whatshisface 4y ago
>there's no good reason to have babies born with Cystic Fibrosis, we know what genes are causing it. IVF is expensive and difficult and all easily identified genetic diseases are rare, so until one of those conditions changes (cost reduction and better techniques, or so many diseases being discovered that the odds that you will be saving your kid from one become significant), it will not be used for this purpose but rather as something extra to do when IVF is required for other reasons.
- belval 4y ago
  We agree on that part, I am not advocating for editing every foetus' genome in the next 10 years. I just think it's short-sighted to put a ban on that kind of research based on fear of inequalities.
riskQtempAcc 4y ago
(Use of the pronoun “you” as the impersonal) You’re not curing cystic fibrosis, or any other genetic disease, are you? You’re just stopping disabled people from being born because you’ve decided their lives have no intrinsic value. This can be said to a wide swath of people. Down syndrome people, bipolar people, blue people, people with physical deformities. Why do you get to choose? Have you ever asked one of these people if they find their lives to be meaningless? How about their parents? I can think of few hells more dull than a world of smart ass public radio listeners providing unrequested comments lathered in snark and cynicism.

whatshisface 4y ago

>A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. The world is full of societies of 120 IQ individuals. That would be, like... a typical office full of programmers. That's 1 in 10 people. Even 145 is 1 in 1,000. This gene stuff could only begin to surpass what you'd be able to do by holding a conference in an academic field at... 170? 180? For the foreseeable future the kinds of selection that operate on full-grown adults will greatly surpass this other kind which is limited to four or five embryos. In so many words, more than four or five former embryos are selected between in a typical round of SWE interviews.

mywittyname 4y ago
>A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension > That would be, like... a typical office full of programmers. Is this an argument in support of the OP? Anyway, much like with global warming, the issue isn't so much the averages, but the impact on the extremes. Now the world suddenly has 10x as many 140 people or 100x as many 160s, etc. This cuts both ways too. A smart person isn't necessarily a nice person. A 20 point IQ increase could make the difference between someone who is a successful telephone scammer, and someone who brings down entire economies.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
taylorius 4y ago
>>an insufferable hell beyond comprehension >That would be, like... a typical office full of programmers Well, quite... ;-)
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  Spend a week in a workplace with an average IQ of 80 and get back to me about which feels worse.