10 ms·

China’s embrace of embryo selection raises thorny questions

45 points by gwern 9y ago

gwern 9y ago
The question of embryo selection is particularly germane in light of the ever-increasing size & sophistication of GWASes, such as today in intelligence GWASes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15039329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15039329
kaffeemitsahne 9y ago
Ah, the old "when China does it it's suddenly a problem".
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
I find it interesting how different countries similar actions are viewed in headlines China - "China’s embrace of embryo selection raises thorny questions" Iceland - "Iceland close to becoming first country where no Down's syndrome children are born" (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...) Both countries are basically trying to eliminate genetic disease via testing embryos/fetuses, but the perception of their actions seems very different.
- gwern 9y ago
  You're looking in the wrong place: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450509/down-syndrome-iceland-cbs-news-disturbing-report http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450509/down-syndrome-i...
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    They're (NR) welcome having Down syndrome children if the desire. Most people would rather not, I assume. However I suspect even they don't want to do it oneself, rather view it as a kind of community work awarded by lottery. They would like "somebody out there" having Down syndrome child so they can feel good about themself as not-eugenics-supporters.
    - sp332 9y ago
      If you're only in favor of eugenics when it's convenient - well, then you're in favor of eugenics.
      - thriftwy 9y ago
        Actually you can't mark Down syndrome elimination as eugenics, because Down syndrome sufferers are infertile (I guess) and thus unable to contribute in "-genics" either way. I would say, Down syndrome elimination is anti-eugenics, because people with genetic predisposition for Down syndrome will provide more non-Down offspring. Anyway, I've never seen any discussion about eugenics, except "the Bogeyman did it!" Eugenics aversion is something forced on the society from above.
        sp332 9y ago
        Don't try to make your ignorance my problem. Go do some research. There's plenty of discussion out there, I promise. Edit: I'm just going to leave you this because of your bogeyman comment. This is my hometown around the time my father was born. It's not about bogeymen. https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/NH/NH.html https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/NH/NH.html You're in your own for the rest though.
        thriftwy 9y ago
        I've never saw anybody asking for my opinion on eugenics. So there's probably just a lot of echo-chamber monologues.
  - tree_of_item 9y ago
    Incredible. How can they spin prenatal screening for Down syndrome as a bad thing? It's a severe disorder with literally no benefits and we're absolutely better off taking steps to eliminate it.
    - nsxwolf 9y ago
      It's being reported as though a cure for Down Syndrome has been found, however the step taken to "eliminate" it is abortion. That may be of no consequence to the world view of the average SV engineer, but that explains how it is being "spun" as a bad thing by many.
      - tree_of_item 9y ago
        Yes, I read the article. I also don't live in Silicon Valley. I don't think it's "being reported as though a cure for Down syndrome has been found". That's the spin the National Review article puts on it. Here are the first two paragraphs of the quoted CBS article: > With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States, the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland. > Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women -- close to 100 percent -- who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy. It's pretty clear that they're not talking about a cure. How is this a bad thing at all? How is this "eugenics"? Down syndrome is a serious, debilitating genetic disorder with no benefits in any sense. Why do we want it to exist? I'm not really seeing an argument against this besides the usual pro-life positions.
        wbl 9y ago
        People with Down syndrome have high life satisfaction.
        thriftwy 9y ago
        That's the problem with humans where life satisfaction seems to be inversely correlated with IQ.
- sp332 9y ago
  Funny, all the coverage of the Iceland thing I've come across has been negative.
FeepingCreature 9y ago
China embraces embryo selection, disregards thorny questions
mythrwy 9y ago
Prediction: Thorny questions are eventually brushed aside in favor of practical solutions. Worldwide.
- virmundi 9y ago
  Probably true. As we saw with the Asgard (1), there will be unintended consequences resulting in the decimation of the species. 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asgard_(Stargate) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asgard_(Stargate)
reader5000 9y ago
Doesnt any standard IVF procedure in the US involve "embryo selection"? Whats the difference between embryo selection and Harvard undergraduate class selection?
- tyingq 9y ago
  I assume the amount of criteria used to decide. There's some line between no checking, detecting Downs, and breeding the new super race that sets various people off.
  - eric_h 9y ago
    > breeding the new super race that sets various people off. I'm just not convinced that we know enough yet about all the genetic interactions involved in developing a human being to actually be capable of breeding a super race, instead of say, a race with a single genetic point of failure. High intelligence tends to come with higher incidences of other mental disorders [EDIT: this actually appears to be incorrect, per a reply](and we certainly haven't isolated all the genes involved in intelligence, let alone reliably quantify it). Sure, eliminating known debilitating genetic disorders seems like a reasonable thing to do - but what if we're throwing the baby out with the bath water? What if that debilitating disorder is a base pair switch away from a genetic superpower, that we'd never discover because we eliminated that gene from future generations? Personally I think we should take our sweet time with this stuff until we can ethically figure out as many of the ins and outs and consequences as we can. The consequences of making a significant mistake could be species ending.
    - gwern 9y ago
      > High intelligence tends to come with higher incidences of other mental disorders No, lower, with the single exception of perhaps autism spectrum traits: see the signs in the papers reported in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Intelligen... > (and we certainly haven't isolated all the genes involved in intelligence, let alone reliably quantify it). You don't need to, many have been, and the quantification is reliable enough.
jxramos 9y ago
I've always been curious if genetic diseases are not only heritable but also spontaneously generated. If two genes combine to produce a genetic disorder and you remove those two genes from the population does that really remove the possibility for that disease or does it reduce the probability to a very low number? I guess if you screen every embryo it wouldn't matter how they developed the bad gene they'd terminate that life anyways.
- gwern 9y ago
  > I've always been curious if genetic diseases are not only heritable but also spontaneously generated. They certainly are. Consider Down's syndrome: almost no one with Down's reproduces because it is a physically/socially crippling disorder. If Down's was not spontaneously generated, with considerable probability, it would not be an issue because it would've disappeared within a generation or two at most. This applies to a lot of genetic diseases: they are 'de novo mutations', not inherited, because they are sufficiently harmful that their sufferers do not reproduce for there to be anyone to inherit the disease. This is why you hear of so many recessive genetic disorders: being recessive means it won't usually have any fitness effect, so it has a chance of persisting for a long time, only occasionally hurting or killing someone. (Brand new mutations are quite common in humans on an absolute basis: I think the estimate is ~70 per person. It would be even higher except that many of them are so fatal that the sperm or egg or embryo spontaneously abort or die along the way.) There are many thousands of distinct genetic disorders, some of which can be caused by many different mutations, cumulatively affecting something like 1% of births. How specific the mutations have to be is the 'mutational cross-section' of the disease. For example, intellectual disabilities can be caused by just about anything, and the genetic cause has to be diagnosed by whole-genome sequencing of parents/child to find the new mutations and try to guess which one is responsible. > does it reduce the probability to a very low number? Yes. Unless you made everyone do IVF PGD, there will always be a 1-in-thousands chance of this or that genetic disorder, along with the ones popping up from two carriers mating. The only reason Down's is disappearing is because most of the affected fetuses are being constantly aborted, but this is not affecting the root cause (increasing maternal age) and so it will be a problem indefinitely.
  - 9y ago
whack 9y ago
> "Such systematic efforts raise thorny questions for bioethicists. Some worry that pushes to eliminate disabilities devalue the lives of those who already have them. The cost and accessibility of the procedure raises concerns about genetic traits further widening the divide between rich and poor people. Then there are concerns about the push to select for non-disease-related traits, such as intelligence or athletic ability. The ever-present spectre of eugenics lurks in the shadows. But in China, although these concerns are considered, most thoughts are focused on the benefits of the procedures. “There are ethical problems, but if you bring an end to the disease, I think it’s good for society,” says Qiao." It's interesting how there's such a wide culture gap between China and the west. We spend so much time worrying ourselves sick with every possible downside, debating in circles and not getting anywhere, while China is bravely pushing ahead with a bet that's 90% likely to pay off. The arguments in the paragraph above are a perfect example. We should continue giving birth to babies with genetic diseases, because this will supposedly make the current patients feel better? We should continue subjecting our children to illnesses, because "eugenics"? How can people seriously believe in these things? Getting rid of disease is good. Polio eradication was a great step forward for humanity, and the sooner we can replicate this success with other diseases, the better. There was only one good argument raised, which is ensuring egalitarian accessibility to such procedures. And I'm sure this is a solvable problem. If we can afford universal healthcare, we can afford universal genetic screening. When I look at the can-do attitude in places like China, and the endless cynicism and paralysis-by-analysis in more developed countries, Jeff Bezos' quote comes to mind. It seems clear that we've become a Day-2 country, while China is still very much a Day-1 country.
- bllguo 9y ago
  Interested in what quote exactly you refer to? I think this difference is primarily due to free speech. You will have to sacrifice fast, decisive action if you allow anyone to jump in and muddle the waters.
  - losteric 9y ago
    Jeff B's quote was from this year's shareholder letter re: Amazon, the previous poster was extending it to America as a whole. https://www.recode.net/2017/4/12/15274220/jeff-bezos-amazon-shareholders-letter-day-2-disagree-and-commit https://www.recode.net/2017/4/12/15274220/jeff-bezos-amazon-...
TearsInTheRain 9y ago
The problem is market forces will push towards eugenics. Societies that embrace it will likely outperform those that don't at least in the short term. This will probably lead to a loss of diversity though that will expose those societies to a greater risk of rare catastrophic events like epidemics. Those risks will likely get overlooked.
- mmirate 9y ago
  But do we know if, say, good intelligence alone (i.e. excluding physical strength/stamina/etc.), requires a sufficiently narrow genetic profile that anyone thusly engineered would be unusually susceptible to an epidemic? Otherwise, countries which embrace "eugenics" (not sure if the word actually has expanded to mean what you think it means) most certainly do deserve to outperform countries which don't: the next generation of people in the pro-"eugenics" countries will literally be better humans.
  - TearsInTheRain 9y ago
    We wont just engineer intelligence but will engineer every trait we can. If you have an idea of a perfect human, a society engaging in eugenics will see it's population distribution become taller and thinner and therefore, i think, more susceptible to negative shocks.
    - mmirate 9y ago
      With all this talk of automation, intelligence is all that's useful.
sannee 9y ago
I think that for humanity to "move forward"/"become interplanetary" or what have you, this is a necessary step. Being selfish however, I am afraid of being rendered useless by the incoming generation of superhumans :)
- Jach 9y ago
  Why not have a kid to rid you of some of that selfishness? What parent doesn't want their children to be better in every sense than they were? For myself it'd be nice to join the superhuman future directly (CRISPR? Mind emulation? Cyborg replacements?), but I'd settle for them being nice to me like present society is nice to its retired elders.
- gwern 9y ago
  > Being selfish however, I am afraid of being rendered useless by the incoming generation of superhumans :) Don't worry, you still have at least a decade and half to start saving up & investing in global stock indexes. A rising tide lifts global equity indexes!
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  Being a snob, I'm already bored by the incoming generation of bland, obedient.. hobbits. Eugenics to life to me is like pitch correction to singing, it's missing the point entirely. edit: am I not allowed to my opinion? How is that less constructive than someone they're worried about being rendered useless? That's also just some random person giving their personal outlook. But okay, I'll also give my 2 cents on leaving the planet as well: yeah, genetical engineering or transfering minds to machines would surely be necessary if you want to spread across the galaxy. But the shit non-skillfull way we treat ourselves and other life on this abundant Earth so far makes this also a more boring prospect to me than I wish it was. As people pointed out in the article about software bloat, there is no pressure anymore -- why not go all the way and go back to emailing BMP images? Similarly, if we "solve" our problems by leaving Earth, instead of mastering the lessons we so shamefully fail so far, instead of reaching a whole different ballpark of skill and tradition, letting that sink for another 100000 years, and then embracing technology to its full extent and blooming all over the galaxy -- it will be boring and lame compared to what we could be. It's like betting on aliens all being schmucks, too; if they aren't, they will not be impressed. I like tightness, beauty, skill. Sue me. > Ah, yeah. We're gonna go to Mars. And then of course we're gonna colonize deep space. With our microwave hot dogs and plastic vomit, fake dog shit and cinnamon dental floss, lemon-scented toilet paper and sneakers with lights in the heels. And all these other impressive things we've done down here. But let me ask you this: what are we gonna tell the intergalactic council of ministers the first time one of our teenage mothers throws their newborn baby into a dumpster? How are we gonna explain that to the space people? How are we gonna let them know that our ambassador was only late for the meeting because his breakfast was cold and he had to spend half an hour punching his wife around the kitchen? And what are they gonna think when they find out, its just a local custom, that over 80 million women in the Third world have had their clitorises forcibly removed in order to reduce their sexual pleasure so they won't cheat on their husbands? Can't you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up? -- George Carlin, "Complaints and Grievances" Look at George Carlin, and look at China, and tell me they're not a bunch of pussies. Heh.
mmirate 9y ago
> Then there are concerns about the push to select for non-disease-related traits, such as intelligence or athletic ability. What the fuck? We finally have the capability to extract the best possible sample of a couple's genetics - to, over generations, actively remove unfit traits from our genome without having to kill any living people - and this is how we greet the future? How ungrateful and utterly disgusting! > In the West, PGD still raises fears about the creation of an elite genetic class, Oh, boo fucking hoo. We make all kinds of investments whose payoff is self-improvement; running shoes, education, internships. This is no different! And in this particular case, the effect is slow enough that "I can't afford it; perhaps my children could, but they'll just be outcompeted by superhumans." is fucking bullshit. > and critics talk of a slippery slope towards eugenics, a word that elicits thoughts of Nazi Germany and racial cleansing. This insinuates that we would murder living people over having non-artificially-selected genes. Why would this be considered necessary? We don't have any deontological directive that all of humanity must have the best genes immediately. (The Nazis might have; or at least, such a directive would produce Nazi-like behavior.) On the other hand, if, to avoid having "genetic inequality", our nanny state decides that everyone should use IVF with their embryo pre-selected if they wish to reproduce at all ... that specific policy could be interpreted as "eugenic". So ... pick your poison, I guess? (Personally, I prefer the one that favors individuals' freedom to choose what they want.)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > This insinuates that we would murder living people over having non-artificially-selected genes. Rendering them economically noncompetitive in a market system with, as in the US, a fairly weak social safety net is a fairly grave result, even without active murder.
  - mmirate 9y ago
    Possibly. But if someone is actually unfit enough to be "gravely" hurt, and multiple generations of their ancestors were all too unproductive to afford IVF and pre-selection even when not under full competitive pressure from superhumans ... then what kind of a person is this, who we are so concerned about? Does his/her loss of competitiveness deprive humanity of so much, that it is better to hold back humanity's best+brightest?
shostack 9y ago
Assuming they continue to move forward with this, the tech keeps advancing, and they apply it to increasing intelligence, how should society respond if they are being left in the dust? It seems the only real option is follow along or hope you don't get exterminated once the gap is big enough in case they feel lesser people are not worth the resources they take up (or decide to enslave them maybe). Not saying China would do this, but who knows how that situation could evolve, particularly as resources get more and more scarce.

45 points by gwern 9y ago

The question of embryo selection is particularly germane in light of the ever-increasing size & sophistication of GWASes, such as today in intelligence GWASes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15039329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15039329

kaffeemitsahne 9y ago

Ah, the old "when China does it it's suddenly a problem".

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

I find it interesting how different countries similar actions are viewed in headlines China - "China’s embrace of embryo selection raises thorny questions" Iceland - "Iceland close to becoming first country where no Down's syndrome children are born" (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...) Both countries are basically trying to eliminate genetic disease via testing embryos/fetuses, but the perception of their actions seems very different.

gwern 9y ago
You're looking in the wrong place: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450509/down-syndrome-iceland-cbs-news-disturbing-report http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450509/down-syndrome-i...
- thriftwy 9y ago
  They're (NR) welcome having Down syndrome children if the desire. Most people would rather not, I assume. However I suspect even they don't want to do it oneself, rather view it as a kind of community work awarded by lottery. They would like "somebody out there" having Down syndrome child so they can feel good about themself as not-eugenics-supporters.
  - sp332 9y ago
    If you're only in favor of eugenics when it's convenient - well, then you're in favor of eugenics.
    - thriftwy 9y ago
      Actually you can't mark Down syndrome elimination as eugenics, because Down syndrome sufferers are infertile (I guess) and thus unable to contribute in "-genics" either way. I would say, Down syndrome elimination is anti-eugenics, because people with genetic predisposition for Down syndrome will provide more non-Down offspring. Anyway, I've never seen any discussion about eugenics, except "the Bogeyman did it!" Eugenics aversion is something forced on the society from above.
      - sp332 9y ago
        Don't try to make your ignorance my problem. Go do some research. There's plenty of discussion out there, I promise. Edit: I'm just going to leave you this because of your bogeyman comment. This is my hometown around the time my father was born. It's not about bogeymen. https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/NH/NH.html https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/NH/NH.html You're in your own for the rest though.
        thriftwy 9y ago
        I've never saw anybody asking for my opinion on eugenics. So there's probably just a lot of echo-chamber monologues.
- tree_of_item 9y ago
  Incredible. How can they spin prenatal screening for Down syndrome as a bad thing? It's a severe disorder with literally no benefits and we're absolutely better off taking steps to eliminate it.
  - nsxwolf 9y ago
    It's being reported as though a cure for Down Syndrome has been found, however the step taken to "eliminate" it is abortion. That may be of no consequence to the world view of the average SV engineer, but that explains how it is being "spun" as a bad thing by many.
    - tree_of_item 9y ago
      Yes, I read the article. I also don't live in Silicon Valley. I don't think it's "being reported as though a cure for Down syndrome has been found". That's the spin the National Review article puts on it. Here are the first two paragraphs of the quoted CBS article: > With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States, the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland. > Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women -- close to 100 percent -- who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy. It's pretty clear that they're not talking about a cure. How is this a bad thing at all? How is this "eugenics"? Down syndrome is a serious, debilitating genetic disorder with no benefits in any sense. Why do we want it to exist? I'm not really seeing an argument against this besides the usual pro-life positions.
      - wbl 9y ago
        People with Down syndrome have high life satisfaction.
        thriftwy 9y ago
        That's the problem with humans where life satisfaction seems to be inversely correlated with IQ.
sp332 9y ago
Funny, all the coverage of the Iceland thing I've come across has been negative.

FeepingCreature 9y ago

China embraces embryo selection, disregards thorny questions

mythrwy 9y ago

Prediction: Thorny questions are eventually brushed aside in favor of practical solutions. Worldwide.

virmundi 9y ago
Probably true. As we saw with the Asgard (1), there will be unintended consequences resulting in the decimation of the species. 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asgard_(Stargate) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asgard_(Stargate)

reader5000 9y ago

Doesnt any standard IVF procedure in the US involve "embryo selection"? Whats the difference between embryo selection and Harvard undergraduate class selection?

tyingq 9y ago
I assume the amount of criteria used to decide. There's some line between no checking, detecting Downs, and breeding the new super race that sets various people off.
- eric_h 9y ago
  > breeding the new super race that sets various people off. I'm just not convinced that we know enough yet about all the genetic interactions involved in developing a human being to actually be capable of breeding a super race, instead of say, a race with a single genetic point of failure. High intelligence tends to come with higher incidences of other mental disorders [EDIT: this actually appears to be incorrect, per a reply](and we certainly haven't isolated all the genes involved in intelligence, let alone reliably quantify it). Sure, eliminating known debilitating genetic disorders seems like a reasonable thing to do - but what if we're throwing the baby out with the bath water? What if that debilitating disorder is a base pair switch away from a genetic superpower, that we'd never discover because we eliminated that gene from future generations? Personally I think we should take our sweet time with this stuff until we can ethically figure out as many of the ins and outs and consequences as we can. The consequences of making a significant mistake could be species ending.
  - gwern 9y ago
    > High intelligence tends to come with higher incidences of other mental disorders No, lower, with the single exception of perhaps autism spectrum traits: see the signs in the papers reported in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Intelligen... > (and we certainly haven't isolated all the genes involved in intelligence, let alone reliably quantify it). You don't need to, many have been, and the quantification is reliable enough.

jxramos 9y ago

I've always been curious if genetic diseases are not only heritable but also spontaneously generated. If two genes combine to produce a genetic disorder and you remove those two genes from the population does that really remove the possibility for that disease or does it reduce the probability to a very low number? I guess if you screen every embryo it wouldn't matter how they developed the bad gene they'd terminate that life anyways.

gwern 9y ago
> I've always been curious if genetic diseases are not only heritable but also spontaneously generated. They certainly are. Consider Down's syndrome: almost no one with Down's reproduces because it is a physically/socially crippling disorder. If Down's was not spontaneously generated, with considerable probability, it would not be an issue because it would've disappeared within a generation or two at most. This applies to a lot of genetic diseases: they are 'de novo mutations', not inherited, because they are sufficiently harmful that their sufferers do not reproduce for there to be anyone to inherit the disease. This is why you hear of so many recessive genetic disorders: being recessive means it won't usually have any fitness effect, so it has a chance of persisting for a long time, only occasionally hurting or killing someone. (Brand new mutations are quite common in humans on an absolute basis: I think the estimate is ~70 per person. It would be even higher except that many of them are so fatal that the sperm or egg or embryo spontaneously abort or die along the way.) There are many thousands of distinct genetic disorders, some of which can be caused by many different mutations, cumulatively affecting something like 1% of births. How specific the mutations have to be is the 'mutational cross-section' of the disease. For example, intellectual disabilities can be caused by just about anything, and the genetic cause has to be diagnosed by whole-genome sequencing of parents/child to find the new mutations and try to guess which one is responsible. > does it reduce the probability to a very low number? Yes. Unless you made everyone do IVF PGD, there will always be a 1-in-thousands chance of this or that genetic disorder, along with the ones popping up from two carriers mating. The only reason Down's is disappearing is because most of the affected fetuses are being constantly aborted, but this is not affecting the root cause (increasing maternal age) and so it will be a problem indefinitely.
- 9y ago

whack 9y ago

> "Such systematic efforts raise thorny questions for bioethicists. Some worry that pushes to eliminate disabilities devalue the lives of those who already have them. The cost and accessibility of the procedure raises concerns about genetic traits further widening the divide between rich and poor people. Then there are concerns about the push to select for non-disease-related traits, such as intelligence or athletic ability. The ever-present spectre of eugenics lurks in the shadows. But in China, although these concerns are considered, most thoughts are focused on the benefits of the procedures. “There are ethical problems, but if you bring an end to the disease, I think it’s good for society,” says Qiao." It's interesting how there's such a wide culture gap between China and the west. We spend so much time worrying ourselves sick with every possible downside, debating in circles and not getting anywhere, while China is bravely pushing ahead with a bet that's 90% likely to pay off. The arguments in the paragraph above are a perfect example. We should continue giving birth to babies with genetic diseases, because this will supposedly make the current patients feel better? We should continue subjecting our children to illnesses, because "eugenics"? How can people seriously believe in these things? Getting rid of disease is good. Polio eradication was a great step forward for humanity, and the sooner we can replicate this success with other diseases, the better. There was only one good argument raised, which is ensuring egalitarian accessibility to such procedures. And I'm sure this is a solvable problem. If we can afford universal healthcare, we can afford universal genetic screening. When I look at the can-do attitude in places like China, and the endless cynicism and paralysis-by-analysis in more developed countries, Jeff Bezos' quote comes to mind. It seems clear that we've become a Day-2 country, while China is still very much a Day-1 country.

bllguo 9y ago
Interested in what quote exactly you refer to? I think this difference is primarily due to free speech. You will have to sacrifice fast, decisive action if you allow anyone to jump in and muddle the waters.
- losteric 9y ago
  Jeff B's quote was from this year's shareholder letter re: Amazon, the previous poster was extending it to America as a whole. https://www.recode.net/2017/4/12/15274220/jeff-bezos-amazon-shareholders-letter-day-2-disagree-and-commit https://www.recode.net/2017/4/12/15274220/jeff-bezos-amazon-...

TearsInTheRain 9y ago

The problem is market forces will push towards eugenics. Societies that embrace it will likely outperform those that don't at least in the short term. This will probably lead to a loss of diversity though that will expose those societies to a greater risk of rare catastrophic events like epidemics. Those risks will likely get overlooked.

mmirate 9y ago
But do we know if, say, good intelligence alone (i.e. excluding physical strength/stamina/etc.), requires a sufficiently narrow genetic profile that anyone thusly engineered would be unusually susceptible to an epidemic? Otherwise, countries which embrace "eugenics" (not sure if the word actually has expanded to mean what you think it means) most certainly do deserve to outperform countries which don't: the next generation of people in the pro-"eugenics" countries will literally be better humans.
- TearsInTheRain 9y ago
  We wont just engineer intelligence but will engineer every trait we can. If you have an idea of a perfect human, a society engaging in eugenics will see it's population distribution become taller and thinner and therefore, i think, more susceptible to negative shocks.
  - mmirate 9y ago
    With all this talk of automation, intelligence is all that's useful.

sannee 9y ago

I think that for humanity to "move forward"/"become interplanetary" or what have you, this is a necessary step. Being selfish however, I am afraid of being rendered useless by the incoming generation of superhumans :)

Jach 9y ago
Why not have a kid to rid you of some of that selfishness? What parent doesn't want their children to be better in every sense than they were? For myself it'd be nice to join the superhuman future directly (CRISPR? Mind emulation? Cyborg replacements?), but I'd settle for them being nice to me like present society is nice to its retired elders.
gwern 9y ago
> Being selfish however, I am afraid of being rendered useless by the incoming generation of superhumans :) Don't worry, you still have at least a decade and half to start saving up & investing in global stock indexes. A rising tide lifts global equity indexes!
thinkfurther 9y ago
Being a snob, I'm already bored by the incoming generation of bland, obedient.. hobbits. Eugenics to life to me is like pitch correction to singing, it's missing the point entirely. edit: am I not allowed to my opinion? How is that less constructive than someone they're worried about being rendered useless? That's also just some random person giving their personal outlook. But okay, I'll also give my 2 cents on leaving the planet as well: yeah, genetical engineering or transfering minds to machines would surely be necessary if you want to spread across the galaxy. But the shit non-skillfull way we treat ourselves and other life on this abundant Earth so far makes this also a more boring prospect to me than I wish it was. As people pointed out in the article about software bloat, there is no pressure anymore -- why not go all the way and go back to emailing BMP images? Similarly, if we "solve" our problems by leaving Earth, instead of mastering the lessons we so shamefully fail so far, instead of reaching a whole different ballpark of skill and tradition, letting that sink for another 100000 years, and then embracing technology to its full extent and blooming all over the galaxy -- it will be boring and lame compared to what we could be. It's like betting on aliens all being schmucks, too; if they aren't, they will not be impressed. I like tightness, beauty, skill. Sue me. > Ah, yeah. We're gonna go to Mars. And then of course we're gonna colonize deep space. With our microwave hot dogs and plastic vomit, fake dog shit and cinnamon dental floss, lemon-scented toilet paper and sneakers with lights in the heels. And all these other impressive things we've done down here. But let me ask you this: what are we gonna tell the intergalactic council of ministers the first time one of our teenage mothers throws their newborn baby into a dumpster? How are we gonna explain that to the space people? How are we gonna let them know that our ambassador was only late for the meeting because his breakfast was cold and he had to spend half an hour punching his wife around the kitchen? And what are they gonna think when they find out, its just a local custom, that over 80 million women in the Third world have had their clitorises forcibly removed in order to reduce their sexual pleasure so they won't cheat on their husbands? Can't you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up? -- George Carlin, "Complaints and Grievances" Look at George Carlin, and look at China, and tell me they're not a bunch of pussies. Heh.

mmirate 9y ago

> Then there are concerns about the push to select for non-disease-related traits, such as intelligence or athletic ability. What the fuck? We finally have the capability to extract the best possible sample of a couple's genetics - to, over generations, actively remove unfit traits from our genome without having to kill any living people - and this is how we greet the future? How ungrateful and utterly disgusting! > In the West, PGD still raises fears about the creation of an elite genetic class, Oh, boo fucking hoo. We make all kinds of investments whose payoff is self-improvement; running shoes, education, internships. This is no different! And in this particular case, the effect is slow enough that "I can't afford it; perhaps my children could, but they'll just be outcompeted by superhumans." is fucking bullshit. > and critics talk of a slippery slope towards eugenics, a word that elicits thoughts of Nazi Germany and racial cleansing. This insinuates that we would murder living people over having non-artificially-selected genes. Why would this be considered necessary? We don't have any deontological directive that all of humanity must have the best genes immediately. (The Nazis might have; or at least, such a directive would produce Nazi-like behavior.) On the other hand, if, to avoid having "genetic inequality", our nanny state decides that everyone should use IVF with their embryo pre-selected if they wish to reproduce at all ... that specific policy could be interpreted as "eugenic". So ... pick your poison, I guess? (Personally, I prefer the one that favors individuals' freedom to choose what they want.)

dragonwriter 9y ago
> This insinuates that we would murder living people over having non-artificially-selected genes. Rendering them economically noncompetitive in a market system with, as in the US, a fairly weak social safety net is a fairly grave result, even without active murder.
- mmirate 9y ago
  Possibly. But if someone is actually unfit enough to be "gravely" hurt, and multiple generations of their ancestors were all too unproductive to afford IVF and pre-selection even when not under full competitive pressure from superhumans ... then what kind of a person is this, who we are so concerned about? Does his/her loss of competitiveness deprive humanity of so much, that it is better to hold back humanity's best+brightest?

shostack 9y ago

Assuming they continue to move forward with this, the tech keeps advancing, and they apply it to increasing intelligence, how should society respond if they are being left in the dust? It seems the only real option is follow along or hope you don't get exterminated once the gap is big enough in case they feel lesser people are not worth the resources they take up (or decide to enslave them maybe). Not saying China would do this, but who knows how that situation could evolve, particularly as resources get more and more scarce.