4 ms·

From an interview with Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist: "Q: What does that mean in human language? A: Any given couple could potentially have sev

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 would be able to produce if they had 100 kids. It’s not genetic engineering or adding new genes, it’s the genes that couples already have. Q: And over the course of several generations you’re able to exponentially multiply the population’s intelligence. A: Right. 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. Q: How does Western research in genetics compare to China’s? A: We’re pretty far behind. We have the same technical capabilities, the same statistical capabilities to analyze the data, but they’re collecting the data on a much larger scale and seem to be capable of transforming the scientific findings into government policy and consumer genetic testing much more easily than we are. Technically and scientifically we could be doing this, but we’re not. Q: Why not? A: We have ideological biases that say, “Well, this could be troubling, we shouldn’t be meddling with nature, we shouldn’t be meddling with God.” I just attended a debate in New York a few weeks ago about whether or not we should outlaw genetic engineering in babies and the audience was pretty split. In China, 95 percent of an audience would say, “Obviously you should make babies genetically healthier, happier, and brighter!” There’s a big cultural difference. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gw8vn/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gw8vn/chinas-taking-over...

pcnonpc 9y ago
" Q: Could it develop into something more sinister? A: That same research does open up the door potentially to genetic engineering in the future. But that would take a lot longer to make practical. === Q: When do you think the embryo analysis might be implemented on a large scale? A: Actual use of the technology to do embryo screening might take five to ten years, but it could be just a few years. It depends on how motivated they are. ......"
Pulcinella 9y ago
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 technology will be seen as "do this or you will be left behind." I fear it will be coercive and alienating.
- pcnonpc 9y ago
  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 prohibit them to use either embryo selection or genetic engineering? What are the impact on the child's life for each option? Is the 'distaste' more important than giving a better opportunity for the newborns? Also, what can you do? You cannot put regulations on China or other countries. On this issue, they will not agree on international agreement either. And there will be rich people who fly to other countries to have the procedures done. This will cause even more inequality than allowing it domestically. Jordan Peterson IQ and Job Market https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0
  - ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
    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.
    - pcnonpc 9y ago
      With a large number of DNA sequences, the genetic cause can be separated from environmental. That's why embryo selection is possible. Getting parent's DNAs sequenced might be needed but it's affordable now. See gwern's answers and link for more info.
agumonkey 9y ago
I'd be against for two reasons 1) life isn't about being smart, far from that (that's national emergent feedback, and I often despise nations as a concept) 2) being smart isn't even needed, a culture of sharing and listening would be enough to uplift life by many points. A culture of recognizing ego and letting him shut down then appreciate everything as a whole. Most brains can do this, if people can pass this down. I regularly remember how everything was beautiful before, even with flaws and limits.. a race for optimization, especially driven by national interest isn't something I'd like to see. ps: I'd even say, "intelligence" is an emergency mode for our brains, and cultivating it was a normal response, but it's not supposed to be our main mode
pmoriarty 9y ago
"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?
- jchien17 9y ago
  Don't think it is - do you have anything to back this up? I think IQ is pretty accepted as a measure of intelligence.
  - kwhitefoot 9y ago
    Maybe, but what is the definition of intelligence? And even if there is a usable definition is it something that warrants being optimized?
    - csa 9y ago
      See my comment above. Some additional comments: - 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.
- csa 9y ago
  Short answer: No, IQ has not been discredited as a measure of intelligence, but maybe there is more to the scope of intelligence than what it measures. 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.
saalweachter 9y ago
From a purely functional, non-ethical standpoint, the problem here is that you can't select the smartest embryo from a pile. You can only select the embryo with the most genes identified as correlating with intelligence. 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.
- hipjiveguy 9y ago
  well the answer of course is to let some greater intelligence decide this for you. Something greater than humans. AI? Let data and algorithms that aren't influenced by emotions decide? I'm not denying science, and how it improves the human condition. But this is the point when it stops improving the human condition, and improves the controlled human condition. not the same thing.

pcnonpc 9y ago

" Q: Could it develop into something more sinister? A: That same research does open up the door potentially to genetic engineering in the future. But that would take a lot longer to make practical. === Q: When do you think the embryo analysis might be implemented on a large scale? A: Actual use of the technology to do embryo screening might take five to ten years, but it could be just a few years. It depends on how motivated they are. ......"

Pulcinella 9y ago

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 technology will be seen as "do this or you will be left behind." I fear it will be coercive and alienating.

pcnonpc 9y ago
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 prohibit them to use either embryo selection or genetic engineering? What are the impact on the child's life for each option? Is the 'distaste' more important than giving a better opportunity for the newborns? Also, what can you do? You cannot put regulations on China or other countries. On this issue, they will not agree on international agreement either. And there will be rich people who fly to other countries to have the procedures done. This will cause even more inequality than allowing it domestically. Jordan Peterson IQ and Job Market https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0
- ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
  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.
  - pcnonpc 9y ago
    With a large number of DNA sequences, the genetic cause can be separated from environmental. That's why embryo selection is possible. Getting parent's DNAs sequenced might be needed but it's affordable now. See gwern's answers and link for more info.

agumonkey 9y ago

I'd be against for two reasons 1) life isn't about being smart, far from that (that's national emergent feedback, and I often despise nations as a concept) 2) being smart isn't even needed, a culture of sharing and listening would be enough to uplift life by many points. A culture of recognizing ego and letting him shut down then appreciate everything as a whole. Most brains can do this, if people can pass this down. I regularly remember how everything was beautiful before, even with flaws and limits.. a race for optimization, especially driven by national interest isn't something I'd like to see. ps: I'd even say, "intelligence" is an emergency mode for our brains, and cultivating it was a normal response, but it's not supposed to be our main mode

pmoriarty 9y ago

"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?

jchien17 9y ago
Don't think it is - do you have anything to back this up? I think IQ is pretty accepted as a measure of intelligence.
- kwhitefoot 9y ago
  Maybe, but what is the definition of intelligence? And even if there is a usable definition is it something that warrants being optimized?
  - csa 9y ago
    See my comment above. Some additional comments: - 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.
csa 9y ago
Short answer: No, IQ has not been discredited as a measure of intelligence, but maybe there is more to the scope of intelligence than what it measures. 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.

saalweachter 9y ago

From a purely functional, non-ethical standpoint, the problem here is that you can't select the smartest embryo from a pile. You can only select the embryo with the most genes identified as correlating with intelligence. 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.

hipjiveguy 9y ago
well the answer of course is to let some greater intelligence decide this for you. Something greater than humans. AI? Let data and algorithms that aren't influenced by emotions decide? I'm not denying science, and how it improves the human condition. But this is the point when it stops improving the human condition, and improves the controlled human condition. not the same thing.