Slashdot Mirror
Scanning Embryos For Super-Intelligent Kids Is On the Horizon
An anonymous reader writes: Stephen Hsu, a professor in theoretical physics at Michigan State University, has an article discussing the genetic underpinnings of intelligence, and how our understanding of it will eventually lead to smarter children. Researchers have detected genes that influence cognitive ability, but the effect of any one gene is very small — less than 1 IQ point at best. Genetically modifying such genes is unlikely to happen any time soon, but our ability to analyze an embryo's genome is becoming quick and cheap. As we isolate more and more genes that affect intelligence, this means prospective parents will soon be able to analyze a batch of zygotes and figure out which ones are likely to be the smartest. Hsu says a batch of 10 zygotes will probably have an IQ range of 15 points or more. As our understanding of intelligence genetics grows, that range will only expand. He adds, "The corresponding ethical issues are complex and deserve serious attention in what may be a relatively short interval before these capabilities become a reality."
...what happens when they can detect which genes make you more likely to be a Republican.
Even if we do figure out even a few of the hundreds of factors that contribute to our (currently valued form of) intelligence, without a way to effectively cause the optimal configuration to happen, you're at best encouraging abortions of otherwise genetic-defect-free children in favor of another chance at one that would be smarter.
So pretty soon society will contain 60% autists with serious psychological problems, 20% aspergers and other forms of high functioning autism, and 10% normal human beings? Yep. We must really select on IQ only ...
Ah, but then we can also just select for embryos that will be apathetic about the ethical issues surrounding this procedure. In a few generations... problem solved!
We need a few more Einsteins, I say. But if we start designer babies... Let me be the first to say... Khaaaaan!!!!!!!!!
If I were to choose a child from a huge batch of zygotes, I'd want the one that's generally disposed to be happy - easy going, social, even tempered, and not too fussy growing up. But apparently, geneticists aren't working on identifying the genetic correlates of those traits, even though we know that they are just as heritable as intelligence.
I don't think that I'll have kids, but if I did, the thing I'd want most is that they grow up happy. I would work hard to make sure they grow up in an environment that encourages it. But genetics contributes a lot to happiness outcomes, and if I were offered well-tested genetic help, I wouldn't refuse it. Maxing out their intelligence would not be at all high on my list of priorities. Is this a weird attitude? I thought it was a kind of typical parent attitude, but apparently, geneticists have different ideas.
Gattaca was a cautionary tale, not a blueprint for future eugenics. What if someone like Newton or Einstein didn't have the perfect genetic signature for IQ (as we *think* we understand it), and instead the parents select for a more 'intelligent' specimen with a higher IQ, but one that lacks creativity and 'genius' or a million other factors that would be important for a child's success?
Example: Hawking: 150ish IQ, John Sununu 190. (Granted those are 'internet' numbers, so take with a grain of salt.) Point being, IQ is not everything.
Sure, the first thought most people have, consciously or subconsciously, is "Would my parents have kept me if they'd had this option?" and the whole concept thus makes us very uncomfortable...
However, looking at humanity as a whole and taking into account that we pretty much switched natural selection off... can we actually afford not to do this?
I mean, billions of sperm and thousands of eggs never get to be a fertilized anything. Of the fertilized eggs, about a third or so actually manage to become a clump of cells trying to become an embryo and of the actual embryos, quite a few never make it any further. Choosing them for looks isn't very ethical, seeing as look are very much dependent on the current fashion, but physical fitness and intelligence aren't quite the same thing. Seeing as most 'potential' human beings never make it, I don't quite share the moral dilemma in choosing the best of the best.
Raising not only humanities average intelligence but much more importantly the lower end seems a phenomenal gain to me.
What about killing off girl embryos...
You can already observe the effects of that one in India and China where female infanticide and selective abortion is practiced for all kinds of reasons such as the need to pay excessive dowries, inheritance traditions and religious beliefs. The problem of ending up with too many single men is usually solved by kidnapping women in other parts of the country or in neighboring countries where people are less obsessed with stupid traditions that lead them to have nothing but male offspring and force-marrying the unfortunate women to their precious sons. In some regions of India like Bengal and Assam, for example, where the gender imbalance is fairly small the kidnapping problem is so severe that girls and young women cannot go anywhere unescorted for fear of being kidnapped by bridal procurement possies from neighboring regions where they have a large surplus of sons.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Quantifying something as dubious as IQ ... and then linking to genes ... makes astrology look respectable.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Stuff like this is a pretty stark reminder that we're just a bag of chemicals, even though we've evolved the capability to do things like...post on Slashdot.
This kind of thing is done in a somewhat limited fashion with high-risk pregnancies/IVF to select for embryos that don't have Down syndrome or other profound mental handicaps. And if an ultrasound indicates something wrong further along, amniocentesis is performed. Those tests are easier because it's the absence or malformation of a chromosome, and they're less controversial because the difference between a kid with 10 fewer IQ points in the normal range and a Down syndrome or Fragile X kid is huge. Someone who is otherwise normal might not be as smart, but someone with a mental handicap is never going to have a full life and be a hardship on their family.
Given what we know about genetics now, I actually don't think selecting out traits that are clearly undesirable is a bad thing as long as there's some randomization and some things left to chance. 100 years ago, we only understood that "something" was responsible for traits, not that a particular sequence of nucleotides in your DNA causes the cells they create to behave differently. The problem is that there are still lots of religious people who reject all of this and blame diseases and defects on God's will. Not that Gattaca's a good example, but the main character's defects were a direct result of his parents rejecting genetic engineering and having kids the "old fashioned way," similar to religious people having a huge family, getting a couple of kids with issues, and just shrugging it off as unavoidable because, well, you know, God.
I knew someone would ask. All the sources I do have have links that are now broken to the studies(STOP REDESIGNING YOUR WEBSITES, YOU JERKS). Which is annoying.
I've tried searching google scholar on the various things I'm certain the study's properties: they measured galvanic skin response, eye movement, and used control groups with no threatening images, and evolutionary fears for the test group(spiders, snakes, large predators).
But the best I can do for an actual cite is a huffpo article buy a guy most would find to be pretty biased. Not exactly the level of quality I wanted
Here's one that establishes the same mechanisms in adults, but that's not what I promsied
When the country is owned and operated by the stupid, does it really help to be smart? If you're full of a room of people where the "leader" says that 1+1 = 3, and everyone else says "yes sir, you are correct". If you're the smart one and say that 1+1 actually equals 2 - in some sense you're actually going to be wrong. We don't respect the thinkers. We elect the charismatic ones with the team mentality that don't have half a brain in their head. Those who get ahead are the ones who actually follow the rules the best - not the ones that buck the trend and show that things aren't necessarily as they seem. I have school aged children, and I can tell you that success in school has to do more with conformity than it does with intelligence. The teachers reward the kids that sit there and take notes (even if they're useless). You get rewarded for doing the problem on the test exactly as the teacher outlined. If you were to solve the problem with some brilliant and novel approach, you might be penalized. If Einstein were alive today, he wouldn't even be recognized. he'd be some bum working on a team just like the rest of us. We've modified the system so that "anyone can do it" - whatever "it" may be - and if you don't follow the procedure, then you're not doing your job well.
The answer is, "nothing." There is absolutely never any excuse whatsoever to vote "straight ticket" anything, except coincidentally because you independently evaluated the candidates for each office and your favorite candidates in each case happened to all be from the same party.
Yes, there most certainly is a reason to do so--to affect the balance of power between the parties.
Prior to 2012, I always evaluated candidates individually. The last two elections, no. The last two elections, I felt it was more important to try to send a message to the Republican party about continuing to nominate idiots obsessed with irrelevant outdated right-wing religious beliefs.