Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 150 posts

Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)

#41

Post by sillysaurus3 »

le-mark wrote: post #34
gwern wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little difficult to summarize what has happened since, since so much has happened. This is a golden age of human genetics which has no precedent, and major new findings are being uploaded to Biorxiv at an almost daily rate. I think the short version would be that the BGI project made a bad bet on a particular genetic architecture of intelligence (rare variants with large boosting effects) which would have impl…

Sounds like you're really plugged into this. Is there really a contingent out there that thinks Gattaca[1] is a desirable outcome? Edit; citing the movie as a widely known example of a stratified society with both engineered and non engineered humans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

Me. In general, the less intelligent people are, the less they contribute to society. I'd rather live in an engineered society with engineered people.

The primary problem to solve is discrimination against non-engineered people. That problem was the only reason Gattaca was so dystopian. As long as there are controls in place that make it difficult, it should be possible to move forward with engineering humans in a productive way.

Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)

#42

Post by pcnonpc »

le-mark wrote: post #34
gwern wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little difficult to summarize what has happened since, since so much has happened. This is a golden age of human genetics which has no precedent, and major new findings are being uploaded to Biorxiv at an almost daily rate. I think the short version would be that the BGI project made a bad bet on a particular genetic architecture of intelligence (rare variants with large boosting effects) which would have impl…

Sounds like you're really plugged into this. Is there really a contingent out there that thinks Gattaca[1] is a desirable outcome? Edit; citing the movie as a widely known example of a stratified society with both engineered and non engineered humans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

To flesh out a large range of implications will take at least an effort worthy of a PhD dissertation.

With successful embryo selection, at least we can keep up with the increasingly higher minimum IQ needed to function well in advanced society and avoid a large underclass of unemployable people.

Jordan Peterson - IQ and The Job Market https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0

Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)

#43

Post by tormeh »

gwern wrote: post #29
smaili wrote: post #4

Here's the primary piece: > At BGI Shenzhen, scientists have collected DNA samples from 2,000 of the world’s smartest people and are sequencing their entire genomes in an attempt to identify the alleles which determine human intelligence. Apparently they’re not far from finding them, and when they do, embryo screening will allow parents to pick their brightest zygote and potentially bump up every generation's intelli…

It's a little difficult to summarize what has happened since, since so much has happened. This is a golden age of human genetics which has no precedent, and major new findings are being uploaded to Biorxiv at an almost daily rate. I think the short version would be that the BGI project made a bad bet on a particular genetic architecture of intelligence (rare variants with large boosting effects) which would have impl…

Any long term (5-10 years) stock market conclusions we can draw from this? I would love for there to be an all-country ETF focused on genetic engineering, but I haven't found one.

Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)

#44

Post by jandrese »

the8472 wrote: post #35
sametmax wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A dictatorship that wants to shut down criticism but raise IQ ? That seems like contradiction 101.

Is disobedience correlated with intelligence? Especially when the superiors are not less intelligent than the one who is receiving orders?

Personally I tend to feel less respect for people who are noticeably dumber than I am. I think that's basic human nature, or at least my nature.

Tyrants know this. You see it when they feel threatened and start purging their subordinates. If they don't respect you they can fear you instead.

Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)

#45

Post by HowardMei »

nsxwolf wrote: post #13
pcnonpc wrote: post #3

"Given the Mendelian genetic lottery, the kids produced by any one couple typically differ by 5 to 15 IQ points . So this method of "preimplantation embryo selection" might allow IQ within every Chinese family to increase by 5 to 15 IQ points per generation. After a couple of generations, it would be game over for Western global competitiveness. ...." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838

Or it could mean millions of high IQ Chinese people doing menial jobs while suffering feelings of existential dread at a higher rate than their lower IQ peers.

Yep, since the booming of Conficius, generations of Chinese has been wasting their IQ and suffering from rationality-reality inconsistence.

Increasing IQ without reforming the culture is just a mean to crush opponents in Chinese social darwin scheme.

Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)

#46

Post by lazyjones »

sametmax wrote: post #32
smaili wrote: post #4

Here's the primary piece: > At BGI Shenzhen, scientists have collected DNA samples from 2,000 of the world’s smartest people and are sequencing their entire genomes in an attempt to identify the alleles which determine human intelligence. Apparently they’re not far from finding them, and when they do, embryo screening will allow parents to pick their brightest zygote and potentially bump up every generation's intelli…

A dictatorship that wants to shut down criticism but raise IQ ? That seems like contradiction 101.

Not at all. Many of Hitler's associates were remarkably intelligent (IQ scores):

1 Hjalmar Schacht 143

2 Arthur Seyss-Inquart 141

3 Hermann Goering 138

4 Karl Doenitz 138

5 Franz von Papen 134

6 Eric Raeder 134

7 Dr. Hans Frank 130

8 Hans Fritsche 130

9 Baldur von Schirach 130

10 Joachim von Ribbentrop 129

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Intelligence_...

Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)

#47

Post by rglovejoy »

the8472 wrote: post #35
sametmax wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A dictatorship that wants to shut down criticism but raise IQ ? That seems like contradiction 101.

Is disobedience correlated with intelligence? Especially when the superiors are not less intelligent than the one who is receiving orders?

This project will produce a lot of fairly intelligent drones who will know to color inside the lines. I doubt that any Feynmans will emerge.

Re: China Is Engineering Genius Babies (2013)

#49

Post by gwern »

tormeh wrote: post #43
gwern wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little difficult to summarize what has happened since, since so much has happened. This is a golden age of human genetics which has no precedent, and major new findings are being uploaded to Biorxiv at an almost daily rate. I think the short version would be that the BGI project made a bad bet on a particular genetic architecture of intelligence (rare variants with large boosting effects) which would have impl…

Any long term (5-10 years) stock market conclusions we can draw from this? I would love for there to be an all-country ETF focused on genetic engineering, but I haven't found one.

Hard to say. Within 10 years there can't be any immediate consequences simply because even super-prodigy kids won't make any real contributions to anything before age 15 or so, but the financial markets can still price in future returns. On the other hand, scaling up is a huge challenge - even if 100% of East Asian parents wanted to do embryo selection and were willing to pay full price up front and plan reproduction around it, it simply wouldn't be possible because there aren't enough fertility clinics or trained doctors, and they struggle to keep up with regular fertility demand just from the usual aging & demographic transition trends.

Genetics strikes me as probably going to follow Amara's law: everyone is overestimating the effect in the short run ('China is engineering genius babies right now! Panic!') and underestimating it in the long run (I don't know what 2050 looks like, but I have a hard time envisioning a world with access to 30 years of CRISPR and 20 years of genome synthesis which is still much like ours and where the biggest change is that your smartphone weighs a tenth as much and Siri doesn't make any funny mistakes...). For short-term 5-10 year bets, AI is probably more important.

Post reply on HN