3 ms·

(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 t

by 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?

by gwern 9y ago

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?