6 ms·

I suspect we're on the verge of pretty big advances in genetic engineering, robotics and other physical technologies, including technologies that are likely to

I suspect we're on the verge of pretty big advances in genetic engineering, robotics and other physical technologies, including technologies that are likely to spur the development of other technologies. Genetic engineering of embryos for increased IQ is looking very feasible, for example. This is likely to increase the pace of innovation drastically in those countries that allow it.

Mikeb85 11y ago
> This is likely to increase the pace of innovation drastically in those countries that allow it. And create a divide between the rich who can afford it for their children, and the poor who can't.
- ElysianEagle 11y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted but this is a perfectly valid concern.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    Guess some don't like being reminded that the world isn't a meritocracy after all. The circumstances you're born into still correlate highly with life outcomes, no matter how much we try to convince ourselves otherwise.
    - Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
      Yes. And your genetics is the most important circumstance you're born into to. If only we could seize the high IQ alleles and distribute them to the proletariat!
- Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
  There is already a huge wealth and status divide between those born with high IQs and those born with normal IQs. The incentives are such that it's going to happen. Also, it looks like very-large increases in IQ will be possible once we have millions of genomes tagged with their donor's IQ and a reliable means of editing thousands of alleles. More than a few standard deviations. I would certainly use this were it available today. If a rich person has to fly to Korea to do it, so what? Any country that bans it will fall behind. The gains from this may be such that governments will think it worth subsidizing it for the poor's children. High IQ people commit less crimes, pay more taxes, tend not to use welfare. Liberals and conservatives will likely both converge on such subsidization.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    You're assuming IQ correlates with some capitalist notion of success, and genetic engineering can significantly improve IQ. Both are debatable. Empirically, many people with high IQs do badly financially, for a variety of reasons - not least because IQ doesn't correlate with ambition, creativity, strategic insight, mental health, empathy, or social skills. Practically I'd expect useful intelligence enhancement would be incredibly difficult, with many potential side effects. If you want to improve population intelligence, it may be better to invest in better nutrition, health care, and education. >High IQ people commit less crimes Or do they just get caught less often, and convicted less often if they're caught?
    - Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
      Empirically, on average they do better. There are brilliant losers. But brilliant people, on average, are wealthier and have higher status than less-brilliant people. Also, I suspect conscientiousness (another big factor in success) has a significant heritable component. >If you want to improve population intelligence, it may be better to invest in better nutrition, health care, and education. We've already plucked this fruit. Genetic engineering of embryos to IQs higher than any living human looks possible without side effects, as alleles that effect intelligence aren't likely to be additive: http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421 http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        Conscientiousness?
        Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
        Damn auto correct! But conciseness is huge factor in success. Very few unconscious people achieve much of anything.
        nkurz 11y ago
- arvinsim 11y ago
  Reminds me of the central conflict in the Japanese animation series, Gundam Seed.
- woofyman 11y ago
  Very "Brave New World". The Alpha pluses will have their Gamma, Delta, and Epilon servents.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bryanlarsen 11y ago
Sure, you may be right. But those are a few years out, and then it will take a few more to move from bleeding edge to main stream where it significantly impacts the economy. That's why the OP data his prediction is for the next twenty five years only.
- mousa 11y ago
  25 years from now is forever in biological engineering. It's crazy to think noone knew much about CRISPR 4 years ago, now it's used everywhere. It's like that in other fields too. The things AI is able to do is growing rapidly too. Nothing looks like a big deal to the Freakonomics guy because the next thing comes out so quickly and replaces it that it doesn't seem like a big development, whereas we had decades to admire and reflect upon what a big deal our cars and light bulbs were.
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    Great example. How long will it take before CRISPR has economy-level impacts? (100s of billions of dollars) It's obvious that it will, but we're still a few more years out before that's going to happen.
saalweachter 11y ago
> Genetic engineering of embryos for increased IQ is looking very feasible, for example. Citation needed. Seriously, I can think of like four reasons, mostly technological, that engineering smart babies isn't going to happen in my lifetime. Just to name a few-- 1. We don't have a good enough understanding of intelligence to describe the target. 2. We don't have a good enough understanding of intelligence to separate the developmental factors from the genetic factors. 3. We don't have a good enough understanding of the genetic factors to know what changes need to be made to the DNA. 4. We don't have a 'one-and-done' method of genetic engineering -- you can't modify a single embryo reliably. 5. As applied to humans, the iteration cycle is well over twenty years and the biggest IRB nightmare you can imagine.
- jack9 11y ago
  1. Not good enough for YOU maybe being slightly better at solving a class of problems or a better memory (on almost any metric) is a measurable improvement and qualifies. 2. Irrelevant (just like #3 and #4) because we're not talking about identical cloning. 3. We domesticate on iteration and result, not strict design. 4. Reliability is a lot like saying we get results, just not 100% of the time. We probably already have altered humans in circulation. The Israelis aren't waiting around for approval, they are just doing it. I wouldn't be surprised by someone discovering the US Military has embarked on a genetic program (Bourne Identity style). Even the Germans were doing it in WW2, so I could see it coming to light in my lifetime. It wont be commodified in the US in 50 years, but swiss facilities might be an option.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    You're referring to Nazies, so are you suggesting simply sterilization of "stupid" people? That gets you most bang for the buck and could have been done since 60's with ease.
    - saalweachter 11y ago
      God, let's leave the idiot child of human engineering (eugenics) out of this. I can almost forgive the early twentieth century for its idiocy, but this is a computer science heavy board and evolution is a hill-climbing algorithm. Reducing variation in the population (eg, killing/sterilizing "stupid" people) just clusters your population more tightly, which makes it prone to getting stuck on local maximums. It's almost acceptable if you lived before DNA was understood and either thought that the evolutionary landscape was perfectly sloped upward or our genome involved continuous "factors" that could be "concentrated", but nowadays we know that DNA comes in discrete chunks (genes) and that the edit distance between two good versions of a gene can be greater than one (eg, you might need three mutations to get from good gene A to better gene B, and it passes through less-good genes C & D to get there). Eugenics is entirely a short-term gain: you entrench your population solidly in a local maximum, which gives you a higher average than before, but prevents you from ever reaching a higher non-local maximum. (And that's assuming that your environment is stable and your selection function was well-chosen.)

Mikeb85 11y ago

> This is likely to increase the pace of innovation drastically in those countries that allow it. And create a divide between the rich who can afford it for their children, and the poor who can't.

ElysianEagle 11y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted but this is a perfectly valid concern.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Guess some don't like being reminded that the world isn't a meritocracy after all. The circumstances you're born into still correlate highly with life outcomes, no matter how much we try to convince ourselves otherwise.
  - Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
    Yes. And your genetics is the most important circumstance you're born into to. If only we could seize the high IQ alleles and distribute them to the proletariat!
Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
There is already a huge wealth and status divide between those born with high IQs and those born with normal IQs. The incentives are such that it's going to happen. Also, it looks like very-large increases in IQ will be possible once we have millions of genomes tagged with their donor's IQ and a reliable means of editing thousands of alleles. More than a few standard deviations. I would certainly use this were it available today. If a rich person has to fly to Korea to do it, so what? Any country that bans it will fall behind. The gains from this may be such that governments will think it worth subsidizing it for the poor's children. High IQ people commit less crimes, pay more taxes, tend not to use welfare. Liberals and conservatives will likely both converge on such subsidization.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  You're assuming IQ correlates with some capitalist notion of success, and genetic engineering can significantly improve IQ. Both are debatable. Empirically, many people with high IQs do badly financially, for a variety of reasons - not least because IQ doesn't correlate with ambition, creativity, strategic insight, mental health, empathy, or social skills. Practically I'd expect useful intelligence enhancement would be incredibly difficult, with many potential side effects. If you want to improve population intelligence, it may be better to invest in better nutrition, health care, and education. >High IQ people commit less crimes Or do they just get caught less often, and convicted less often if they're caught?
  - Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
    Empirically, on average they do better. There are brilliant losers. But brilliant people, on average, are wealthier and have higher status than less-brilliant people. Also, I suspect conscientiousness (another big factor in success) has a significant heritable component. >If you want to improve population intelligence, it may be better to invest in better nutrition, health care, and education. We've already plucked this fruit. Genetic engineering of embryos to IQs higher than any living human looks possible without side effects, as alleles that effect intelligence aren't likely to be additive: http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421 http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Conscientiousness?
      - Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
        Damn auto correct! But conciseness is huge factor in success. Very few unconscious people achieve much of anything.
        nkurz 11y ago
arvinsim 11y ago
Reminds me of the central conflict in the Japanese animation series, Gundam Seed.
woofyman 11y ago
Very "Brave New World". The Alpha pluses will have their Gamma, Delta, and Epilon servents.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bryanlarsen 11y ago

Sure, you may be right. But those are a few years out, and then it will take a few more to move from bleeding edge to main stream where it significantly impacts the economy. That's why the OP data his prediction is for the next twenty five years only.

mousa 11y ago
25 years from now is forever in biological engineering. It's crazy to think noone knew much about CRISPR 4 years ago, now it's used everywhere. It's like that in other fields too. The things AI is able to do is growing rapidly too. Nothing looks like a big deal to the Freakonomics guy because the next thing comes out so quickly and replaces it that it doesn't seem like a big development, whereas we had decades to admire and reflect upon what a big deal our cars and light bulbs were.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  Great example. How long will it take before CRISPR has economy-level impacts? (100s of billions of dollars) It's obvious that it will, but we're still a few more years out before that's going to happen.

saalweachter 11y ago

> Genetic engineering of embryos for increased IQ is looking very feasible, for example. Citation needed. Seriously, I can think of like four reasons, mostly technological, that engineering smart babies isn't going to happen in my lifetime. Just to name a few-- 1. We don't have a good enough understanding of intelligence to describe the target. 2. We don't have a good enough understanding of intelligence to separate the developmental factors from the genetic factors. 3. We don't have a good enough understanding of the genetic factors to know what changes need to be made to the DNA. 4. We don't have a 'one-and-done' method of genetic engineering -- you can't modify a single embryo reliably. 5. As applied to humans, the iteration cycle is well over twenty years and the biggest IRB nightmare you can imagine.

jack9 11y ago
1. Not good enough for YOU maybe being slightly better at solving a class of problems or a better memory (on almost any metric) is a measurable improvement and qualifies. 2. Irrelevant (just like #3 and #4) because we're not talking about identical cloning. 3. We domesticate on iteration and result, not strict design. 4. Reliability is a lot like saying we get results, just not 100% of the time. We probably already have altered humans in circulation. The Israelis aren't waiting around for approval, they are just doing it. I wouldn't be surprised by someone discovering the US Military has embarked on a genetic program (Bourne Identity style). Even the Germans were doing it in WW2, so I could see it coming to light in my lifetime. It wont be commodified in the US in 50 years, but swiss facilities might be an option.
- vlehto 11y ago
  You're referring to Nazies, so are you suggesting simply sterilization of "stupid" people? That gets you most bang for the buck and could have been done since 60's with ease.
  - saalweachter 11y ago
    God, let's leave the idiot child of human engineering (eugenics) out of this. I can almost forgive the early twentieth century for its idiocy, but this is a computer science heavy board and evolution is a hill-climbing algorithm. Reducing variation in the population (eg, killing/sterilizing "stupid" people) just clusters your population more tightly, which makes it prone to getting stuck on local maximums. It's almost acceptable if you lived before DNA was understood and either thought that the evolutionary landscape was perfectly sloped upward or our genome involved continuous "factors" that could be "concentrated", but nowadays we know that DNA comes in discrete chunks (genes) and that the edit distance between two good versions of a gene can be greater than one (eg, you might need three mutations to get from good gene A to better gene B, and it passes through less-good genes C & D to get there). Eugenics is entirely a short-term gain: you entrench your population solidly in a local maximum, which gives you a higher average than before, but prevents you from ever reaching a higher non-local maximum. (And that's assuming that your environment is stable and your selection function was well-chosen.)