65 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Likewise, we do not know enough about the genes involved with intelligence to assume that we can give someone both the ability for rote memorization or creativity of thought... or any other facet of performance related to the mind. There are many genes involved with intelligence and changing one can have unknown cascading effects throughout the genome. Even if it were possible to make a child generally "good" in each category of physical and mental performance, is it not likely that this person would end up simply being mediocre? Could a generally "good" genetic profile really compete against someone created to be "perfect" for a specific task?

I'd like to go with your train of thought here and pull things back from the realm of wild speculation to the realm of reasonable speculation. As you're stating, trying to make a solid determination on the specificity of physical traits to genes and their various interactions is, to a large extent, not currently possible. There are exceptions, especially when it comes to straight forward traits like eye color, but obviously the connection between cognition and genetics is unclear (to put it mildly).

As a result of this condition, in the short term (next decade or so) private enterprise which does venture into the field of "new eugenics" is going to favor the more conservative approach of genetic screenings over risky experimentation with genetic engineering. Now the blase transhumanist may be unimpressed by such developments. Yet when viewed in light of the rapidly improving price performance of genotyping technologies, such developments could create profound, even revolutionary, changes in our societal dynamics. Privacy is going to be a major concern, but I believe this concern will be counter balanced by financial incentives resulting from market demand created by genomics databases and their need for "content". The resulting content will be used to create sophisticated screening algorithms which would then provide valuations on the viability of embryos. Again, privacy (both for donors and recipients) and the potential for discrimination become major issues at this point.

Edited by N0NZER0, 19 February 2009 - 06:34 PM.

[Skötkonung]

Likewise, we do not know enough about the genes involved with intelligence to assume that we can give someone both the ability for rote memorization or creativity of thought... or any other facet of performance related to the mind. There are many genes involved with intelligence and changing one can have unknown cascading effects throughout the genome. Even if it were possible to make a child generally "good" in each category of physical and mental performance, is it not likely that this person would end up simply being mediocre? Could a generally "good" genetic profile really compete against someone created to be "perfect" for a specific task?

I'd like to go with your train of thought here and pull things back from the realm of wild speculation to the realm of reasonable speculation. As you're stating, trying to make a solid determination on the specificity of physical traits to genes and their various interactions is, to a large extent, not currently possible. There are exceptions, especially when it comes to straight forward traits like eye color, but obviously the connection between cognition and genetics is unclear (to put it mildly).

As a result of this condition, in the short term (next decade or so) private enterprise which does venture into the field of "new eugenics" is going to favor the more conservative approach of genetic screenings over risky experimentation with genetic engineering. Now the blase transhumanist may be unimpressed by such developments. Yet when viewed in light of the rapidly improving price performance of genotyping technologies, such developments could create profound, even revolutionary, changes in our societal dynamics. Privacy is going to be a major concern, but I believe this concern will be counter balanced by financial incentives resulting from market demand created by genomics databases and their need for "content". The resulting content will be used to create sophisticated screening algorithms which would then provide valuations on the viability of embryos. Again, privacy (both for donors and recipients) and the potential for discrimination become major issues at this point.

What you say seems very plausible, especially in light of current attitudes (fears) surrounding the creation of completely designer babies. Genetic predetermination / discrimination of embryos, while not an entirely natural process, is still a degree more conventional (and feasible) than custom tailoring a genome. Although I speculate that predetermination is merely the beginning of a slippery slope leading to fully designed genomes unless otherwise given heavy regulation and oversight. Perhaps I have read too much science fiction and futurist op-ed pieces in Scientific American, but my fear is that given the short sightedness of humanity, there is potential to recklessly alter our genome into a true caste based society. Or at the very least, deluge our society with specific types of skill sets resulting in devaluation of once important professions.

My worries are reinforced by my own anecdotal experiences growing up in a predominantly Ukrainian and Russian community, where parents typically had high and often specific expectations for their children: “You WILL become a doctor. You WILL become a salesman.” Parents want their children to be successful, but not all of them define success in the same way. If these types of parents were given the choice, I see them as choosing a genetic advantage towards a niche specialty. The presumption that parents will prefer generalized improvements seems naive to me given that most people lack the cultural background, intelligence or foresight to favor “general” enhancement over niche specialization.

[DJS]

(Edit note: I typed this before reading your above post)

So, based on these very realistic possibilities, are we looking at a run-up to Gattaca? As usual, it's difficult to say for certain. I don't think privacy rights are going to have much effect at all on the trend towards reprogenetic stratification once advance genetic screening techniques are developed. The reason should be obvious enough. We humans, by our very nature, are competitive. Consequently we'll use any and every means available to gain a competitive advantage in life. This would include the broadcasting of "superior" genetics... Or perhaps not, perhaps this behavior would be kept in check by the bio-conservative meme known as the "yuck factor". Individuals who mention their grade A genetics might be seen as uncouth, or even freaky.

Regardless, I think such consideration would quickly become a mute point anyway. Once available, mature genetic screening services will more than likely create a strong demand for genetic modifications/upgrades through somatic gene therapy (which may be much closer to fruition in 10 or 15 years).

And that, really, is the solution to the problem. Societies tend to destabilize when they become overly stratified. Give everyone an opportunity to partake in beneficial technologies and you keep the playing field level.

Edited by N0NZER0, 19 February 2009 - 08:01 PM.

[DJS]

My worries are reinforced by my own anecdotal experiences growing up in a predominantly Ukrainian and Russian community, where parents typically had high and often specific expectations for their children: “You WILL become a doctor. You WILL become a salesman.” Parents want their children to be successful, but not all of them define success in the same way. If these types of parents were given the choice, I see them as choosing a genetic advantage towards a niche specialty. The presumption that parents will prefer generalized improvements seems naive to me given that most people lack the cultural background, intelligence or foresight to favor “general” enhancement over niche specialization.

Again though, regardless of one's intuitions on the subject, what it really comes down to is a matter of feasibility. I'm highly skeptical that there will ever be a genetic screening which selects for the "ultimate sales person"!

Edited by N0NZER0, 19 February 2009 - 08:09 PM.

[solbanger]

So basically, with rich parents demanding much more docile characteristics for their children the whole nation will become Finland.

Edited by solbanger, 27 February 2009 - 07:57 PM.

[Live Forever]

So basically, with rich parents demanding much more docile characteristics for their children the whole nation will become Finland.

Because that easy to get sunburn is oh-so-sexy.