4 ms·

It’s going to be weird, because much like we have standards for what constitutes a USB cable, we may soon have standards for what a baseline genetically modifie

It’s going to be weird, because much like we have standards for what constitutes a USB cable, we may soon have standards for what a baseline genetically modified human is. Treating disease is no threshold, the real question will be IQ or strength - even if you assume equal opportunity to access peak genetics for everyone. On one hand, society will be far better off with having smarter people (imagine what society would be like where everyone had an IQ of 120 - I’d be very curious). On the other hand, you’ll probably get a Gattaca-like situation. Interesting times...

vkjv 9y ago
Nitpick: IQ is based on a normal distribution with 100 as the mean. If everyone had an IQ of today's 120, then it would no longer be an IQ of 120.
- SerLava 9y ago
  Meta nitpick: he's clearly referring to the future relative to now, so it makes sense in that context.
- bpodgursky 9y ago
  I don't think it gets recalibrated year to year.
Lyle-Cantor 9y ago
IQ enhancement is almost the only thing that matters in the genetic engineering story. If we don't allow it, somewhere else will; and it is they who will control future technological progress. Strength matters little in comparison.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Would lifespan matter?
- protomyth 9y ago
  I get the feeling opposition to IQ enhancements (beyond fixing obvious problems) have been drilled into the public by scifi and frankly history. I don't see it turning out real well unless humility and empathy can be genetically engineered.
  - Lyle-Cantor 9y ago
    China has orthogonal moral hysterias. Again, someone will do it and they will have an enormous advantage, 8 IQ points per generation at worst and 60+ at best. Considering the effect on the tails of the distribution, the vast majority of scientific productivity will be from edited or selected individuals.
    - protomyth 9y ago
      I guess we'll see if all those scifi authors are correct and they tear themselves apart as the "new humans" deal with the "old humans".
lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
Except for that small detail in that there aren't a set single or even set groupings of genes that determine IQ and there's tenuous data to support that we'll ever find such fixtures. I really hate how every thread there's someone that jumps from "treating genetic disease" which is both small scale (in many cases just the expression of a single gene) and tangible (ready definitions and lack of trade offs in "not having cystic fibrosis" as opposed to "maybe smarter"). We're so close to saving real lives it's a waste of time to bring up a terrible dystopia movie(the reason gattaca's protagonist can't got to space is he's got a heart condition that's likely to kill him; not because he's lacking the hand-wavy "genetic ubermench" qualities) to construct an artificial ethical dilemma.
- sbierwagen 9y ago
  >Except for that small detail in that there aren't a set single or even set groupings of genes that determine IQ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    I don't think any sane person doubts intelligence is genetic and inheritable. I think the other poster's point was more that there isn't a simple genetic switch that adds 5 IQ points. There appear to be many complex factors that are part of intelligence and currently we are not sure how to untangle that mess to get simple thing we can do to make people smarter.
    - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
      Exactly. It's a fundamentally different problem to solve as compared to treating genetic illnesses and far more likely to involve some sort of trade off or side effects due to the number of genes involved. Considering that approximately half of measured intelligence variation isn't concluded to be genetic [0] it's my opinion you get a lot more bang for your buck focusing on social and environmental factors if you want to increase a populous's overall intellectual acumen.
vtange 9y ago
Isn't IQ based on a standard deviation? If everyone had an IQ of 120, wouldn't 120 become the new 100?
- joncrocks 9y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't mean you can't try and make comparisons over time. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
2017Dude 9y ago
Well if you will not engineer geniuses you will eliminate them. Will mutations and thus good/bad outliers still be present?

vkjv 9y ago

Nitpick: IQ is based on a normal distribution with 100 as the mean. If everyone had an IQ of today's 120, then it would no longer be an IQ of 120.

SerLava 9y ago
Meta nitpick: he's clearly referring to the future relative to now, so it makes sense in that context.
bpodgursky 9y ago
I don't think it gets recalibrated year to year.

Lyle-Cantor 9y ago

IQ enhancement is almost the only thing that matters in the genetic engineering story. If we don't allow it, somewhere else will; and it is they who will control future technological progress. Strength matters little in comparison.

tyingq 9y ago
Would lifespan matter?
protomyth 9y ago
I get the feeling opposition to IQ enhancements (beyond fixing obvious problems) have been drilled into the public by scifi and frankly history. I don't see it turning out real well unless humility and empathy can be genetically engineered.
- Lyle-Cantor 9y ago
  China has orthogonal moral hysterias. Again, someone will do it and they will have an enormous advantage, 8 IQ points per generation at worst and 60+ at best. Considering the effect on the tails of the distribution, the vast majority of scientific productivity will be from edited or selected individuals.
  - protomyth 9y ago
    I guess we'll see if all those scifi authors are correct and they tear themselves apart as the "new humans" deal with the "old humans".

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago

Except for that small detail in that there aren't a set single or even set groupings of genes that determine IQ and there's tenuous data to support that we'll ever find such fixtures. I really hate how every thread there's someone that jumps from "treating genetic disease" which is both small scale (in many cases just the expression of a single gene) and tangible (ready definitions and lack of trade offs in "not having cystic fibrosis" as opposed to "maybe smarter"). We're so close to saving real lives it's a waste of time to bring up a terrible dystopia movie(the reason gattaca's protagonist can't got to space is he's got a heart condition that's likely to kill him; not because he's lacking the hand-wavy "genetic ubermench" qualities) to construct an artificial ethical dilemma.

sbierwagen 9y ago
>Except for that small detail in that there aren't a set single or even set groupings of genes that determine IQ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/
- sqeaky 9y ago
  I don't think any sane person doubts intelligence is genetic and inheritable. I think the other poster's point was more that there isn't a simple genetic switch that adds 5 IQ points. There appear to be many complex factors that are part of intelligence and currently we are not sure how to untangle that mess to get simple thing we can do to make people smarter.
  - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
    Exactly. It's a fundamentally different problem to solve as compared to treating genetic illnesses and far more likely to involve some sort of trade off or side effects due to the number of genes involved. Considering that approximately half of measured intelligence variation isn't concluded to be genetic [0] it's my opinion you get a lot more bang for your buck focusing on social and environmental factors if you want to increase a populous's overall intellectual acumen.

vtange 9y ago

Isn't IQ based on a standard deviation? If everyone had an IQ of 120, wouldn't 120 become the new 100?

joncrocks 9y ago
Yes, but that doesn't mean you can't try and make comparisons over time. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

2017Dude 9y ago

Well if you will not engineer geniuses you will eliminate them. Will mutations and thus good/bad outliers still be present?