26 ms·

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

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

gwern 9y ago
(Gattaca is a fictional movie, not a realistic outcome. What anyone thinks about it is irrelevant because it has not, will not, and could not happen, any more than Brave New World.) As far as making use of these techniques, certainly. Transhumanists, socialists, and 'liberal eugenicists' have always advocated 'seizing the means of reproduction', so to speak, but it's mostly been theoretical; modern behavioral genetics has fill in so many of the blanks that concrete discussions and analyses can be done, IVF embryo selection can be done right now, CRISPR can also be done now if you can find anything useful to do with it besides fixing rare genetic diseases, and IES and genome synthesis will be possible within the next 20 years.
- cliffy 9y ago
  Why do you say its unrealistic? Eugenics has been seriously considered in the past, and is likely to be seriously considered in the future. If genetic modification and control becomes 'easy' and relatively safe I don't see why those in power wouldn't try to exercise control over that power. In that future its not hard to imagine lawmakers banning having children who would have inherited known genetic 'defects'. Now imagine 'defects' are classified as having dark skin, or whats considered a 100 IQ today.
  - gwern 9y ago
    Gattaca is unrealistic because (aside from being intended as mass-market entertainment rather than a scientific extrapolation) it is simultaneously too aggressive and too conservative: it envisions a world in which instant genome sequencing can be done effectively for free on a global scale (which, as cheap as genome sequencing has become, does not seem likely to ever happen unless non-chemical-based processes are developed) while organizations use solely genetic information far beyond its predictive limits (set by heritability estimates, which are noticeably <100% for traits of interest like intelligence) and ignoring the overriding phenotypic information, but puts this in a setting where there are no genuine consequences to any of this, no genetic engineering, no embryo selection, all of which should make the society unrecognizable. If the Gattacaverse's scientific understanding and control of genetics were really as perfect as portrayed, none of the events would happen in the first place - it is ludicrous to imagine a world of genetically-engineered von Neumanns walking around and still needing human janitors, for example. Its poorly conceived world is mostly there as as simplistic grade-school-level allegory about 'how you shouldn't judge a book by its cover' with a genetics gloss. Which is fine as entertainment, but where we're going looks nothing like Gattaca.
    - SilasX 9y ago
      >while organizations use solely genetic information far beyond its predictive limits (set by heritability estimates, which are noticeably <100% for traits of interest like intelligence) and ignoring the overriding phenotypic information, Organizations cargo-cultishly over-emphasizing certain ability signals? Seems pretty realistic to me! "How many golf balls can fit in a bus..." >but puts this in a setting where there are no genuine consequences to any of this, no genetic engineering, no embryo selection, all of which should make the society unrecognizable. What? A key plot point was that parents go through a doctor to have kids, who then picks the genetically-best kid that the parents are capable producing. Those who don't (and have "god-children" or "de-gene-erates") end up with sicker, stunted kids. Maybe that's short of maximizing the potential of the tech, but it seems like a genuine consequence. >it is ludicrous to imagine a world of genetically-engineered von Neumanns walking around and still needing human janitors, for example. Because they'd have automated it all? There will always be the 1% least-intelligent, who will take the roles that can't be automated. Perhaps it's unrealistic that someone would be mopping the floor, but that's just to save the viewer from having to be told "oh, 'janitors' now just press buttons and visually inspect the work of machines".
      - gwern 9y ago
        It is not realistic. Look at NASA - do they mindlessly go 'you must have X DNA' or do they do testing, like the women astronauts? > Maybe that's short of maximizing the potential of the tech, but it seems like a genuine consequence. It's not, because you get literally the same consequence by not genetically testing sperm/eggs at all and simply screening by motility and donor health etc - people who don't do that have kids with more defects. And 'short of maximizing the potential' is exactly my point. A world with perfect genetic prediction and too-cheap-to-meter sequencing simply will not look like that. Some healthier kids are the least of the consequences of generations of society-wide embryo selection with perfect prediction and universal sequencing. > Because they'd have automated it all? Yes. Assuming it's still even an issue. > but that's just to save the viewer from having to be told "oh, 'janitors' now just press buttons and visually inspect the work of machines". A movie is nothing but what it depicts.
  - mmirate 9y ago
    Wait a sec. If this dystopic future you cite is able to genetically engineer embryos, then wouldn't everyone be able to reproduce? (Less-fit people would obviously pass on less of their genes.) And while your complaint about skin color is certainly valid, why do you abhor making humanity smarter on average?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mmmrtl 9y ago
  *IES being Iterated Embryo Selection - the concept of shortening generation times to months or less by producing gametes from selected embryos and crossing those until you have embryos with the genotypes you desire, so we could breed human strains on the same timescale as mice. An important caveat is that we wouldn't see the phenotypic outcomes (behavioural or physical) until we let a generation mature, so selection will be entirely on the basis of trusting the SNPs that large studies have implicated - who knows if all of these SNPs would function well in concert?
sillysaurus3 9y ago
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.
- le-mark 9y ago
  The ladies who empty the trash here contribute more to society than I do. I just write throwaway apps for throwaway companies, they actually DO something.
  - 794CD01 9y ago
    You're free to quit your job and go empty peoples' trash if you really find it so much more meaningful.
    - lbebber 9y ago
      It's as meaningful as it's thankless.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - yters 9y ago
      His lack of nobility does not invalidate his argument. Arguably, many of the most despised jobs are most important. None of the elite would or could do them, and without society would fall apart. On the other hand, a very large percentage of elite jobs could be eliminated without ill effect. Our role as the elite is to elevate and recognize their worth, and not sink them to our moral level.
      - 794CD01 9y ago
pcnonpc 9y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0
- opportune 9y ago
  I find the underclass argument important and generally ignored. The whole drive for UBI is due in part to the fact that all but the most specialized human professions are being automated. Of course, specialization is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence, but I would guess that they are pretty correlated. Since intelligence is at least in part genetic (and the environmental portion seems to respond very poorly to poverty, which a UBI would likely put people in or close to), it is very likely that a society with UBI would have a very large generational underclass of those unable to sufficiently specialize enough for gainful employment. If we can make more people capable of becoming specialized, everyone will benefit. Perhaps fields like medicine are limited in the number of people it would make sense to employ, but software engineering and scientific research pretty generally benefit the more people get involved (wrt software I am thinking more in terms of FOSS and startups, not huge teams for simple tasks). The barrier to participation in the future economy might end up essentially becoming IQ. It's important that we give people the tools to help their children be successful as the economy changes.

gwern 9y ago

(Gattaca is a fictional movie, not a realistic outcome. What anyone thinks about it is irrelevant because it has not, will not, and could not happen, any more than Brave New World.) As far as making use of these techniques, certainly. Transhumanists, socialists, and 'liberal eugenicists' have always advocated 'seizing the means of reproduction', so to speak, but it's mostly been theoretical; modern behavioral genetics has fill in so many of the blanks that concrete discussions and analyses can be done, IVF embryo selection can be done right now, CRISPR can also be done now if you can find anything useful to do with it besides fixing rare genetic diseases, and IES and genome synthesis will be possible within the next 20 years.

cliffy 9y ago
Why do you say its unrealistic? Eugenics has been seriously considered in the past, and is likely to be seriously considered in the future. If genetic modification and control becomes 'easy' and relatively safe I don't see why those in power wouldn't try to exercise control over that power. In that future its not hard to imagine lawmakers banning having children who would have inherited known genetic 'defects'. Now imagine 'defects' are classified as having dark skin, or whats considered a 100 IQ today.
- gwern 9y ago
  Gattaca is unrealistic because (aside from being intended as mass-market entertainment rather than a scientific extrapolation) it is simultaneously too aggressive and too conservative: it envisions a world in which instant genome sequencing can be done effectively for free on a global scale (which, as cheap as genome sequencing has become, does not seem likely to ever happen unless non-chemical-based processes are developed) while organizations use solely genetic information far beyond its predictive limits (set by heritability estimates, which are noticeably <100% for traits of interest like intelligence) and ignoring the overriding phenotypic information, but puts this in a setting where there are no genuine consequences to any of this, no genetic engineering, no embryo selection, all of which should make the society unrecognizable. If the Gattacaverse's scientific understanding and control of genetics were really as perfect as portrayed, none of the events would happen in the first place - it is ludicrous to imagine a world of genetically-engineered von Neumanns walking around and still needing human janitors, for example. Its poorly conceived world is mostly there as as simplistic grade-school-level allegory about 'how you shouldn't judge a book by its cover' with a genetics gloss. Which is fine as entertainment, but where we're going looks nothing like Gattaca.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    >while organizations use solely genetic information far beyond its predictive limits (set by heritability estimates, which are noticeably <100% for traits of interest like intelligence) and ignoring the overriding phenotypic information, Organizations cargo-cultishly over-emphasizing certain ability signals? Seems pretty realistic to me! "How many golf balls can fit in a bus..." >but puts this in a setting where there are no genuine consequences to any of this, no genetic engineering, no embryo selection, all of which should make the society unrecognizable. What? A key plot point was that parents go through a doctor to have kids, who then picks the genetically-best kid that the parents are capable producing. Those who don't (and have "god-children" or "de-gene-erates") end up with sicker, stunted kids. Maybe that's short of maximizing the potential of the tech, but it seems like a genuine consequence. >it is ludicrous to imagine a world of genetically-engineered von Neumanns walking around and still needing human janitors, for example. Because they'd have automated it all? There will always be the 1% least-intelligent, who will take the roles that can't be automated. Perhaps it's unrealistic that someone would be mopping the floor, but that's just to save the viewer from having to be told "oh, 'janitors' now just press buttons and visually inspect the work of machines".
    - gwern 9y ago
      It is not realistic. Look at NASA - do they mindlessly go 'you must have X DNA' or do they do testing, like the women astronauts? > Maybe that's short of maximizing the potential of the tech, but it seems like a genuine consequence. It's not, because you get literally the same consequence by not genetically testing sperm/eggs at all and simply screening by motility and donor health etc - people who don't do that have kids with more defects. And 'short of maximizing the potential' is exactly my point. A world with perfect genetic prediction and too-cheap-to-meter sequencing simply will not look like that. Some healthier kids are the least of the consequences of generations of society-wide embryo selection with perfect prediction and universal sequencing. > Because they'd have automated it all? Yes. Assuming it's still even an issue. > but that's just to save the viewer from having to be told "oh, 'janitors' now just press buttons and visually inspect the work of machines". A movie is nothing but what it depicts.
- mmirate 9y ago
  Wait a sec. If this dystopic future you cite is able to genetically engineer embryos, then wouldn't everyone be able to reproduce? (Less-fit people would obviously pass on less of their genes.) And while your complaint about skin color is certainly valid, why do you abhor making humanity smarter on average?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mmmrtl 9y ago
*IES being Iterated Embryo Selection - the concept of shortening generation times to months or less by producing gametes from selected embryos and crossing those until you have embryos with the genotypes you desire, so we could breed human strains on the same timescale as mice. An important caveat is that we wouldn't see the phenotypic outcomes (behavioural or physical) until we let a generation mature, so selection will be entirely on the basis of trusting the SNPs that large studies have implicated - who knows if all of these SNPs would function well in concert?

sillysaurus3 9y ago

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.

le-mark 9y ago
The ladies who empty the trash here contribute more to society than I do. I just write throwaway apps for throwaway companies, they actually DO something.
- 794CD01 9y ago
  You're free to quit your job and go empty peoples' trash if you really find it so much more meaningful.
  - lbebber 9y ago
    It's as meaningful as it's thankless.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - yters 9y ago
    His lack of nobility does not invalidate his argument. Arguably, many of the most despised jobs are most important. None of the elite would or could do them, and without society would fall apart. On the other hand, a very large percentage of elite jobs could be eliminated without ill effect. Our role as the elite is to elevate and recognize their worth, and not sink them to our moral level.
    - 794CD01 9y ago

pcnonpc 9y ago

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0

opportune 9y ago
I find the underclass argument important and generally ignored. The whole drive for UBI is due in part to the fact that all but the most specialized human professions are being automated. Of course, specialization is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence, but I would guess that they are pretty correlated. Since intelligence is at least in part genetic (and the environmental portion seems to respond very poorly to poverty, which a UBI would likely put people in or close to), it is very likely that a society with UBI would have a very large generational underclass of those unable to sufficiently specialize enough for gainful employment. If we can make more people capable of becoming specialized, everyone will benefit. Perhaps fields like medicine are limited in the number of people it would make sense to employ, but software engineering and scientific research pretty generally benefit the more people get involved (wrt software I am thinking more in terms of FOSS and startups, not huge teams for simple tasks). The barrier to participation in the future economy might end up essentially becoming IQ. It's important that we give people the tools to help their children be successful as the economy changes.