4 ms·
Yeah your right, there is loads of literature on it. Now I am internally confused what the ethical consequence of that is. What should happen in policy? Should
by tlarkworthy 10y ago
Yeah your right, there is loads of literature on it. Now I am internally confused what the ethical consequence of that is. What should happen in policy? Should we mess with the societal bio machine? Is it a good thing, or a bad thing. What are we trying to achieve?
- aab0 10y agoI would say the implications are simple: first, acknowledge this reality and stop scientists from constantly making policy pronouncements like 'education correlates with increased longevity, let's make everyone go to school longer' which do not control the large known universal confounds of genetics and produce a large body of futile programs and bogus 'science'; second, push forward genetic engineering as fast as possible. Just as no one deserves to be born poor or born with a horrible genetic disease like Tay-Sachs, no one deserves to be born with a bum set of intelligence or SES-reducing variants either. The injustices and inequities of modern society remain outrageous, whether or not they stem from 'poverty traps' or SNPs. Everyone should have an equal chance; we will know we are moving towards a better society when shared-environments and heritability approach 0, and it's all error.