6 ms·

I see a lot of comments underscoring the possible eugenics implication of this, but I am curious as to why everyone always paints it as a negative? Even in our

by belval 5y ago

I see a lot of comments underscoring the possible eugenics implication of this, but I am curious as to why everyone always paints it as a negative? Even in our very diversity-conscious institutions we can generally agree that some things are plain bad. You don't want a blind or deaf child. You don't want one with down syndrome or deformities that would just make their life difficult. I wonder if the high level of opposition to this does not come from us being naturally scared of becoming irrelevant. A society capable of producing disease-less 120 IQ adults would progress faster. Yes there are a ton of ethical concerns about building a society where hierarchical boundaries find their justification in science, but I see these arguments as myopic. Inequalities have always existed, the only difference is that now nobody would have genetic diseases.

whatshisface 5y ago
>now nobody would have genetic diseases. Nobody with parents who can afford IVF would have genetic diseases. Nobody would rise from an ignoble birth to greatness ever again... or at least not in countries without universal healthcare.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Doesn't that just mean that the bar for "greatness" will have risen? Isn't that a net gain?
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    The real world is a mixture of zero-sum and positive-sum games, and people do not like the idea that they and their descendants will be destined to lose (in a compounding way) every competition. After a few generations of selection you will have a large population of people who wouldn't be good starting points even if they could afford it, because their genomes would be far behind by that point. Unless you want that you happen, you'd better make sure that everybody gets it if anybody does.
- belval 5y ago
  Equality is great, but the situation would be no different than someone having access to healthcare/higher education/equal opportunities. After a few decades that technology would become commoditized just like everything else. It's not as if it was impossible to enforce regulations around that sort of thing.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Those kids would still potentially breed the normal way. If a rich kid knocks up a bunch of poor ones, those children will have similar genetic advantages. And rich people fall from grace all the time. It's difficult for families to hold onto their wealth over successive generations. One of the keys to maintaining wealth is to keep it from being diluted, which means that some kids are going to get cut off.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    >If a rich kid knocks up a bunch of poor ones, those children will have similar genetic advantages. This doesn't set off your dystopia alarm?
    - krageon 5y ago
      Why? It's a dystopia if someone fathers a lot of children? It's dystopian when those children have heritable (but "artificial") genetic advantages?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
workaccount21 5y ago
Because we have no idea how any of this works, selecting against one gene may have negative externalities that we don't even know how to measure. For example: a genetic cure for schizophrenia also dulling the creative traits it's correlated with. We cant even really understand how an emergent property like language works (see: every conlang), and you think we can engineer a civilization to be better by radically altering the balance of potential equality that we have been genetically optimized for? A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  That's a good argument for not engineering all children all at once - we don't understand the consequences. It seems like a good argument for starting to engineer a few children so we can start to learn what the consequences are. As engineering becomes more palatable to the general population we will better able to deliver good results.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    Engineering children would likely introduce horrible diseases because as you say, nobody understands the consequences. What's being proposed is selection, the selection of embryos which have already proven themselves to be viable and passed several steps of Nature's disease filtration.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      I'm using "engineering" in a sense that encompasses informed embryo selection. I don't think it's "likely" to have horrible results.
- belval 5y ago
  > A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. Disregarding the personal attack (I am well aware of downsides, but it's called having a discussion), higher median IQ is not really the point, it's about giving the same chances to everyone. We could use this to eradicate a wealth of issues that we do understand, there's no good reason to have babies born with Cystic Fibrosis, we know what genes are causing it.
Scarblac 5y ago
Blind or deaf people would probably feel pretty bad hearing "you don't want a blind or deaf kid".
- whatshisface 5y ago
  That's a phrasing-based argument, it disappears if you replace it with "you don't want your kid to be deaf or blind."
- belval 5y ago
  I don't think there's anything wrong with having a blind or deaf kid. I take issue with the idea that given the technology we would refuse to fix their disability before they are born. Try explaining to your son or daughter that they could've been able to see and hear, but you refused to avoid hurting the feelings of existing blind and deaf people...
  - yeaman1231 5y ago
    > Try explaining to your son or daughter that they could've been able to see and hear, but you refused to avoid hurting the feelings of existing blind and deaf people... more like try explaining to your son or daughter that they wouldn't have been born at all
- ThrowawayP 5y ago
  > "Blind or deaf people would probably feel pretty bad hearing 'you don't want a blind or deaf kid'" I am legally blind. I would not want my children to have any disability whatsoever because it's difficult and miserable.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vsef 5y ago
Some people do choose to have deaf children: https://jme.bmj.com/content/28/5/283 https://jme.bmj.com/content/28/5/283 There was quite a bit of outrage around that case from hearing people, but it seems no different than two parents with genetic deafness choosing each other and then not trying to use genetic testing/embryo selection to have a hearing baby. I do think when this type of genetic manipulation becomes possible/mainstream there will be many traits chosen by parents that aren't considered universally desirable.
bobthechef 5y ago
krageon 5y ago
> I am curious as to why everyone always paints it as a negative Fear of the unknown and distrust of everyone else. This might give someone an advantage, so it must be bad for me. I view it kind of like metaphorical crabs trying to climb out of a bucket.

by belval 5y ago

whatshisface 5y ago

>now nobody would have genetic diseases. Nobody with parents who can afford IVF would have genetic diseases. Nobody would rise from an ignoble birth to greatness ever again... or at least not in countries without universal healthcare.

thegrimmest 5y ago
Doesn't that just mean that the bar for "greatness" will have risen? Isn't that a net gain?
- whatshisface 5y ago
  The real world is a mixture of zero-sum and positive-sum games, and people do not like the idea that they and their descendants will be destined to lose (in a compounding way) every competition. After a few generations of selection you will have a large population of people who wouldn't be good starting points even if they could afford it, because their genomes would be far behind by that point. Unless you want that you happen, you'd better make sure that everybody gets it if anybody does.
belval 5y ago
Equality is great, but the situation would be no different than someone having access to healthcare/higher education/equal opportunities. After a few decades that technology would become commoditized just like everything else. It's not as if it was impossible to enforce regulations around that sort of thing.
mywittyname 5y ago
Those kids would still potentially breed the normal way. If a rich kid knocks up a bunch of poor ones, those children will have similar genetic advantages. And rich people fall from grace all the time. It's difficult for families to hold onto their wealth over successive generations. One of the keys to maintaining wealth is to keep it from being diluted, which means that some kids are going to get cut off.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >If a rich kid knocks up a bunch of poor ones, those children will have similar genetic advantages. This doesn't set off your dystopia alarm?
  - krageon 5y ago
    Why? It's a dystopia if someone fathers a lot of children? It's dystopian when those children have heritable (but "artificial") genetic advantages?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

workaccount21 5y ago

Because we have no idea how any of this works, selecting against one gene may have negative externalities that we don't even know how to measure. For example: a genetic cure for schizophrenia also dulling the creative traits it's correlated with. We cant even really understand how an emergent property like language works (see: every conlang), and you think we can engineer a civilization to be better by radically altering the balance of potential equality that we have been genetically optimized for? A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human.

ALittleLight 5y ago
That's a good argument for not engineering all children all at once - we don't understand the consequences. It seems like a good argument for starting to engineer a few children so we can start to learn what the consequences are. As engineering becomes more palatable to the general population we will better able to deliver good results.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Engineering children would likely introduce horrible diseases because as you say, nobody understands the consequences. What's being proposed is selection, the selection of embryos which have already proven themselves to be viable and passed several steps of Nature's disease filtration.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    I'm using "engineering" in a sense that encompasses informed embryo selection. I don't think it's "likely" to have horrible results.
belval 5y ago
> A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. Disregarding the personal attack (I am well aware of downsides, but it's called having a discussion), higher median IQ is not really the point, it's about giving the same chances to everyone. We could use this to eradicate a wealth of issues that we do understand, there's no good reason to have babies born with Cystic Fibrosis, we know what genes are causing it.

Scarblac 5y ago

Blind or deaf people would probably feel pretty bad hearing "you don't want a blind or deaf kid".

whatshisface 5y ago
That's a phrasing-based argument, it disappears if you replace it with "you don't want your kid to be deaf or blind."
belval 5y ago
I don't think there's anything wrong with having a blind or deaf kid. I take issue with the idea that given the technology we would refuse to fix their disability before they are born. Try explaining to your son or daughter that they could've been able to see and hear, but you refused to avoid hurting the feelings of existing blind and deaf people...
- yeaman1231 5y ago
  > Try explaining to your son or daughter that they could've been able to see and hear, but you refused to avoid hurting the feelings of existing blind and deaf people... more like try explaining to your son or daughter that they wouldn't have been born at all
ThrowawayP 5y ago
> "Blind or deaf people would probably feel pretty bad hearing 'you don't want a blind or deaf kid'" I am legally blind. I would not want my children to have any disability whatsoever because it's difficult and miserable.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vsef 5y ago

Some people do choose to have deaf children: https://jme.bmj.com/content/28/5/283 https://jme.bmj.com/content/28/5/283 There was quite a bit of outrage around that case from hearing people, but it seems no different than two parents with genetic deafness choosing each other and then not trying to use genetic testing/embryo selection to have a hearing baby. I do think when this type of genetic manipulation becomes possible/mainstream there will be many traits chosen by parents that aren't considered universally desirable.

bobthechef 5y ago

krageon 5y ago

> I am curious as to why everyone always paints it as a negative Fear of the unknown and distrust of everyone else. This might give someone an advantage, so it must be bad for me. I view it kind of like metaphorical crabs trying to climb out of a bucket.