This topic holds a special place in my heart. I am a firm believer that the advancement of humanity hinges on genetic enhancement, a path we should choose willingly, not be forced upon. I am excited to read your review of 'Creating Future People '. It has only strengthened my resolve to join your blog and order the book.
"Perhaps even more important would be the ability to precisely edit the genes of embryos, permitting exceptionally large returns on polygenic traits. Since many traits are highly polygenic and no one is within the absolute limits of genotypic traits, we could expect to create healthier, happier, and smarter people than anyone who has ever lived."
Humanity has a bright future through psychometric studies of human traits and genetic enhancement. Here are a few beneficial traits: Integrity, intelligence, inquisitiveness, intuitiveness, industriousness, insight, inspiration, imagination, inventiveness, and intentness.
I've seen your comments on Aporia and Steve Hsu's blog. Yes, I think all of those are valuable and we need good psychometrics measures (better than we have now). One of the unfortunate tendencies of egalitarianism is the resistance to the objective study of human traits--something Jensen discusses in The g Factor. I recommend this article of mine: https://www.parrhesia.co/p/the-effective-altruist-case-for-using
Thank you for an excellent review. Frankly speaking, however, the book's take on biology is quite naïve. Note that we cannot even come up with a good-looking, tasty chicken that never gets sick. It's an interesting thought experiment, though… if it just wasn't for epigenetics, gene interactions, and the nonergodic complexities of the central nervous system and developmental biology. Thanks again for the interesting read. My best, Frederick
GM mr Parr: i followed your work form "distance" (i.e. never subscribed) because I find two huge hole in the non-health human enhancement.
First, why no one ever thought abouth Khan Noonien Singh? In the Star Trek universe, the enhanced humans were defective because enhancement itself makes them so: what if non-health enhancement does the same to humans? E.g. ashkenazim and parsis have an above-average IQ because they chose a dangerouse cheat code, i.e. the heterozygote advantage that make them also prone to Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's, Niemann-Pick, Mucolipidosis Type IV, reduced sperm motility, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and breast cancer.
Second: how do we choose the proper edit? E.g. high-testosterone, low-corthisol males are aggressive but also highly social, and ethnocentrism is one of the many reason Jews themselves (e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Phenomenon-Enduring-Wealth-People/dp/1590771540) give to their success. Simply saying "inform the parents" is not an answer, is a litteral non-answer.
The human repertoire of moral sentiments is best understood as adaptive for group level action. Just one example is altruistic punishment. A person who scores high on this trait might seem to others like an unforgiving jerk. But the trait is adaptive as a counter to the free rider problem.
So, on the emergent level of social organizational complexity what has likely evolved for group level cooperation is the shape of the distribution of traits. This idea that we can improve humanity by selecting for “better” phenotypes seems, I dunno--- simplistic? hubristic? fraught with unintended consequences?
"Selection for other cognitive traits like personality poses an even more difficult problem than selection for intelligence. There are advantages and disadvantages to different personalities, and the interconnected nature of society makes this a collective action problem. For example, extraversion in a world of only introverts may make life difficult if it is hard to find people who want to socialize with you. A cognitively diverse society may be for the best since a well-functioning society consists of a balance of people with perspectives and traits. For example, conservatives and progressives may bring unique political views that balance each other out in a beneficial way."
A way to handle personality traits is to center them, i.e., narrow the spectrum to the center. Of course, this would be elective.
If we allow for selecting "positive" or "normative" traits, will we not also have to allow for "non-normative" traits, such as disease, deformaties, immorality, etc? Aren't we going to have to be equitable and allow for queering of genetically "enhanced" babies?
I don't think that it is ethical to increase the probability of disease, deformity, and immorality in children. I think that in the future providers or regulation may prohibit those sorts of choices. The extent to which coercion can be used to prevent that depends on your ethical point of view.
The question is challenging, but it is not particularly unique to enhancement because society has lots of perspectives and even legal restrictions on what sort of (environmental) actions a parent can make.
Most parents would decrease disease, deformity, and immorality in their children, so we are talking about a very strange subset of the population that would deliberately reduce their child's welfare. I don't think we should let that sway us toward prohibition.
One of the early defenses of the transgender movement was that it was just a tiny subset of people, but the numbers quickly metastasized. There's a scary number of people interested in having their bodies destroyed and doctors willing to facilitate. Especially if the power of the state gets involved providing financial incentives (mandating insurance coverage and taxpayer subsidies), we have to think of worst case scenarios. Lots of demented people would probably find it fulfilling and/or transgressive to create a disabled or otherwise non-normative offspring.
Democrats are already trying to remove all safeguarding from Assisted Reproductive Technologies via their Right to Build Families Act.
"Every American seeking to exercise their fundamental right to family building should have unhindered access to assisted reproductive technologies..."
American Society for Reproductive Medicine
The “Right to Build Families Act of 2022” will:
Prohibit states from limiting any individual’s right to access ART;
Prohibit states from regulating reproductive genetic materials, including gametes;
Protect healthcare providers who provide ART or related counseling;
Allow the Department of Justice to pursue civil action against states that violate the legislation; and
Allow the U.S. Attorney General, individuals, and healthcare providers to pursue civil action regarding violation of the legislation.
I think we're already at a pivotal moment here on this issue and the extent of our medical ethics is: If we can do something and some people want to do that thing, then it's not only good, but a right.
On the one hand, this scenario is very challenging to me. I can see there being riots in the streets if there were to soon be millions of people walking around who had thousands of very similar, very optimal (for the mid C21st) alleles. On the other hand, evolution is cruel and I don’t see why billions of people have to suffer because their genes aren’t well suited to life today. I may have to buy the book.
Excellent review. The Biosingularity is programmed! 💯
And this is largely a guide to the alignment problem.
This topic holds a special place in my heart. I am a firm believer that the advancement of humanity hinges on genetic enhancement, a path we should choose willingly, not be forced upon. I am excited to read your review of 'Creating Future People '. It has only strengthened my resolve to join your blog and order the book.
"Perhaps even more important would be the ability to precisely edit the genes of embryos, permitting exceptionally large returns on polygenic traits. Since many traits are highly polygenic and no one is within the absolute limits of genotypic traits, we could expect to create healthier, happier, and smarter people than anyone who has ever lived."
Humanity has a bright future through psychometric studies of human traits and genetic enhancement. Here are a few beneficial traits: Integrity, intelligence, inquisitiveness, intuitiveness, industriousness, insight, inspiration, imagination, inventiveness, and intentness.
I welcome comments.
I've seen your comments on Aporia and Steve Hsu's blog. Yes, I think all of those are valuable and we need good psychometrics measures (better than we have now). One of the unfortunate tendencies of egalitarianism is the resistance to the objective study of human traits--something Jensen discusses in The g Factor. I recommend this article of mine: https://www.parrhesia.co/p/the-effective-altruist-case-for-using
Thank you for your comment.
Kind Regards,
Ives
Thank you for an excellent review. Frankly speaking, however, the book's take on biology is quite naïve. Note that we cannot even come up with a good-looking, tasty chicken that never gets sick. It's an interesting thought experiment, though… if it just wasn't for epigenetics, gene interactions, and the nonergodic complexities of the central nervous system and developmental biology. Thanks again for the interesting read. My best, Frederick
GM mr Parr: i followed your work form "distance" (i.e. never subscribed) because I find two huge hole in the non-health human enhancement.
First, why no one ever thought abouth Khan Noonien Singh? In the Star Trek universe, the enhanced humans were defective because enhancement itself makes them so: what if non-health enhancement does the same to humans? E.g. ashkenazim and parsis have an above-average IQ because they chose a dangerouse cheat code, i.e. the heterozygote advantage that make them also prone to Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's, Niemann-Pick, Mucolipidosis Type IV, reduced sperm motility, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and breast cancer.
Second: how do we choose the proper edit? E.g. high-testosterone, low-corthisol males are aggressive but also highly social, and ethnocentrism is one of the many reason Jews themselves (e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Phenomenon-Enduring-Wealth-People/dp/1590771540) give to their success. Simply saying "inform the parents" is not an answer, is a litteral non-answer.
The human repertoire of moral sentiments is best understood as adaptive for group level action. Just one example is altruistic punishment. A person who scores high on this trait might seem to others like an unforgiving jerk. But the trait is adaptive as a counter to the free rider problem.
So, on the emergent level of social organizational complexity what has likely evolved for group level cooperation is the shape of the distribution of traits. This idea that we can improve humanity by selecting for “better” phenotypes seems, I dunno--- simplistic? hubristic? fraught with unintended consequences?
"Selection for other cognitive traits like personality poses an even more difficult problem than selection for intelligence. There are advantages and disadvantages to different personalities, and the interconnected nature of society makes this a collective action problem. For example, extraversion in a world of only introverts may make life difficult if it is hard to find people who want to socialize with you. A cognitively diverse society may be for the best since a well-functioning society consists of a balance of people with perspectives and traits. For example, conservatives and progressives may bring unique political views that balance each other out in a beneficial way."
A way to handle personality traits is to center them, i.e., narrow the spectrum to the center. Of course, this would be elective.
Imagine people with no genetic disease, with a super ability to resist pathogens.
Imagine people who can compose complex musical works and play 15 or more instruments at a professional level.
Imagine people who can write poetry and prose at the highest level.
Imagine people who can write, speak, and read 30 or more languages at the highest level.
Imagine people with an intelligence level three or more times the current highest level.
Imagine people with impeccable integrity.
Imagine people with all these traits and more.
If we allow for selecting "positive" or "normative" traits, will we not also have to allow for "non-normative" traits, such as disease, deformaties, immorality, etc? Aren't we going to have to be equitable and allow for queering of genetically "enhanced" babies?
I don't think that it is ethical to increase the probability of disease, deformity, and immorality in children. I think that in the future providers or regulation may prohibit those sorts of choices. The extent to which coercion can be used to prevent that depends on your ethical point of view.
The question is challenging, but it is not particularly unique to enhancement because society has lots of perspectives and even legal restrictions on what sort of (environmental) actions a parent can make.
Most parents would decrease disease, deformity, and immorality in their children, so we are talking about a very strange subset of the population that would deliberately reduce their child's welfare. I don't think we should let that sway us toward prohibition.
One of the early defenses of the transgender movement was that it was just a tiny subset of people, but the numbers quickly metastasized. There's a scary number of people interested in having their bodies destroyed and doctors willing to facilitate. Especially if the power of the state gets involved providing financial incentives (mandating insurance coverage and taxpayer subsidies), we have to think of worst case scenarios. Lots of demented people would probably find it fulfilling and/or transgressive to create a disabled or otherwise non-normative offspring.
Okay, then ban making your child deliberately disabled. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Democrats are already trying to remove all safeguarding from Assisted Reproductive Technologies via their Right to Build Families Act.
"Every American seeking to exercise their fundamental right to family building should have unhindered access to assisted reproductive technologies..."
American Society for Reproductive Medicine
The “Right to Build Families Act of 2022” will:
Prohibit states from limiting any individual’s right to access ART;
Prohibit states from regulating reproductive genetic materials, including gametes;
Protect healthcare providers who provide ART or related counseling;
Allow the Department of Justice to pursue civil action against states that violate the legislation; and
Allow the U.S. Attorney General, individuals, and healthcare providers to pursue civil action regarding violation of the legislation.
I think we're already at a pivotal moment here on this issue and the extent of our medical ethics is: If we can do something and some people want to do that thing, then it's not only good, but a right.
On the one hand, this scenario is very challenging to me. I can see there being riots in the streets if there were to soon be millions of people walking around who had thousands of very similar, very optimal (for the mid C21st) alleles. On the other hand, evolution is cruel and I don’t see why billions of people have to suffer because their genes aren’t well suited to life today. I may have to buy the book.
I hope that was facetious LOL.