261–270 of 292 posts
Sounds nice, but I don't want children, I want myself to be improved.
This is the real shit right here. There's going to be gene-ism against older generations with inferior genetics, talk of "cutting them off" of government health programs because their fragile bodies are too expensive to maintain...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "fertilizing many eggs and then picking the genetically 'best' ones" is literally a plot point in Gattaca. "This child is still you, just the best of you." I don't know if the "economic competitiveness" part will be a comforting argument if this ever comes to pass. What I mean is, it won't been seen as "look at how our economy could grow if we do this." That economy would just be viewed as the new standard. This…
Modern advanced society already requires a high minimum intelligence for people to function in especially to hold a respectable job or be a respectable member of a community. The minimum is increasing when more automation is used for most kinds of automation. If someone's children will likely have a lower than this minimum intelligence, which you can infer from parent's IQ and other measures, will you encourage or pr…
Can it really be inferred? Not including conditions or syndromes of course. The parents' environment may have affected their intelligence and the child may turn out entirely different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Modern advanced society already requires a high minimum intelligence for people to function in especially to hold a respectable job or be a respectable member of a community. The minimum is increasing when more automation is used for most kinds of automation. If someone's children will likely have a lower than this minimum intelligence, which you can infer from parent's IQ and other measures, will you encourage or pr…
If someone's children will likely have a lower than this minimum intelligence, which you can infer from parent's IQ and other measures... Can it really be inferred? Not including conditions or syndromes of course. The parents' environment may have affected their intelligence and the child may turn out entirely different.
Getting parent's DNAs sequenced might be needed but it's affordable now. See gwern's answers and link for more info.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From an interview with Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist: "Q: What does that mean in human language? A: Any given couple could potentially have several eggs fertilized in the lab with the dad’s sperm and the mom’s eggs. Then you can test multiple embryos and analyze which one’s going to be the smartest. That kid would belong to that couple as if they had it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple…
"Even if it only boosts the average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge difference in terms of economic productivity, the competitiveness of the country, how many patents they get, how their businesses are run, and how innovative their economy is." IQ points? Hasn't IQ long ago been discredited as a measure of intelligence?
Long answer:
The g form of IQ is still valid. Based on context in which a test is taken, there may be some type 2 error (people scoring lower than actual IQ), but relatively little type 1 error (people scoring higher than actual IQ).
That said, many researchers have asked if g is the be all and end all of intelligence. Research suggests that g tends to focus on the analytic and verbal parts of our brains. Howard Gardner found through research on aphasia patients that there are areas of our brain that function largely outside of what g measures. Others have found that while IQ floors may exist for certain professions (e.g., 120 for lawyers), IQ is not always the strongest predictor for success -- things like EQ often have stronger predictive value.
Note that some of the derivative works of multiple intelligences, EQ, etc. are twisted interpretations of the original ideas, so be careful when reading the non-seminal works. Some people have co-opted the term "intelligence" in their derivative works in an effort to support a political agenda that may not necessarily be true to the original idea or even constructive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From an interview with Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist: "Q: What does that mean in human language? A: Any given couple could potentially have several eggs fertilized in the lab with the dad’s sperm and the mom’s eggs. Then you can test multiple embryos and analyze which one’s going to be the smartest. That kid would belong to that couple as if they had it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple…
"Even if it only boosts the average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge difference in terms of economic productivity, the competitiveness of the country, how many patents they get, how their businesses are run, and how innovative their economy is." IQ points? Hasn't IQ long ago been discredited as a measure of intelligence?
I've seen most of these arguments for and against gene editing before, but the fact of the matter is that it will come down to the economic competitiveness of nations, as always. What concerns me in the long term is that gene editing will cause human genomes to converge to a single gold standard with proven mental and physical benefits, thereby reducing our species' genetic diversity and leaving us more vulnerable to…
From an interview with Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist: "Q: What does that mean in human language? A: Any given couple could potentially have several eggs fertilized in the lab with the dad’s sperm and the mom’s eggs. Then you can test multiple embryos and analyze which one’s going to be the smartest. That kid would belong to that couple as if they had it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple…
Even assuming that this works, when you do that, you immediately run into the same problem as every other eugenics program: you are reducing the diversity of the population to seek a local maximum. In the analogy for optimization problems of the cows in the field standing on hills and in valleys, you're having all the cows stand on a single hill. You improve the current fitness of the population, according to your metrics, at the cost of the future fitness - you'll never find higher hills to stand upon, and if the fitness function changes, your population will be less equipped to handle it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't think it is - do you have anything to back this up? I think IQ is pretty accepted as a measure of intelligence.
Maybe, but what is the definition of intelligence? And even if there is a usable definition is it something that warrants being optimized?
- Optimizing EQ is probably far more valuable for society.
- I am not sure that EQ can be optimized for in genetics as easily as IQ can.
- On an individual level, putting a child on the right side of their potential IQ curve will probably make their lives easier or better assuming that relatively few of their peers have this same advantage.
- If every child is on the right side of their potential IQ curve, then optimizing IQ will largely just be a different state for society rather than a noticeable improvement. Most (all?) improvements would likely be seen on the high end in terms of theoretical developments.
- Note that if this switch is somehow flipped in a society, I personally believe that there will be a huge EQ intergenerational crisis such that EQ will be valued even more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thing is, we are naturally not diverse at all (in part because our nearest ancestors with whom which we, at one time, did have reproduction compatibility with, are no longer here): https://www.ashg.org/education/pdf/geneticvariation.pdf Specifically, modern humans have, on average, less than 0.1% of differences in their DNA amongst each other: "How diverse are we? Perhaps the most widely cited statistic about human g…
This is definitely true, but all of these genes have been vetted by millions of years of evolution, so we know they're rock solid. The edits we're talking about will be happening on a time scale that won't be constrained by natural selection, so by the time a weakness is found in one of these new genes, it's likely that it will already be widely adopted. I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard to anticipate what na…
Evolution does not vet for anything except population-level viability. Once upon a time, our population bottlenecked. The return of large-scale genetic diversity is normal for an animal species, especially one that has spread to practically every environment on the planet.
Also, evolution is not a prescriptive standard. Oy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The medical dogma never comes down to do no harm, at least today. The Hippocratic oath is largely symbolic today. The main goal of a physician is to ensure the well being of their patient. This means that they will judge the risks/harm to the benefits and make a judgement, and receive informed consent. Anyway what’s abhorrent about the blastulation method? Furthermore, I don’t think there is a need to only let those…
As one of the earlier male in vitro embryos successfully carried to term in the US, I'll claim a unique perspective on the scientific creation of life. As a living, thinking human, I am grateful for everything that was done so that I may live. If the fertility lab had mixed chemicals differently, or deleted a propensity towards colon cancer, or changed my hair color, there's no way in hell I would have mourned my "un…
Besides which, the Neolithic Revolution was 10,000 years ago if some damned primitivist really wants to make appeals to the natural order, rather than to the potential benefits and detriments to human health and happiness.