Even small differences in the details could lead to very different futures for humanity.
I don’t super agree with this. But also, I’d view that as somewhat of a failure. Part of why I want the technology to be wideley available is that I think that decreases the path-dependence. Lots of diverse GE kids means a more universalist future, hopefully.
it might be worth writing a post about your stance on the morality and politics of this.
My view on this is that even when individuals and countries are not under tight “adapt or die” competition constraints such as during wartime or poverty, everyone faces incentive gradients. Free choices aren’t exactly free. For instance I was “free” to not learn software development and pick a lower paying job, but someone from the outside could still predict with high likelihood I was going to learn software anyway.
I take the general point that making this technology partially removes a barrier, where previously human influence on children is limited, and afterward there is at least somewhat more influence. E.g. this could lead to:
One point of comparison is the default. There is a human-evolution that is always happening. Do we like its results? Do we trust it?
Another thing to point out is that the barrier is only somewhat eroded. Except for whole genome synthesis, the amount of control that germline engineering is fairly small compared to the total genetic and phenotypic variation in humans. You and I have 5 or 10 million differing alleles between us; GV would have an effect that’s comparable to, say, 1000s of alleles. (This doesn’t directly make sense for selection, but morally speaking.) In terms of phenotypes, most of the variation would still be in uncontrolled genomic differences and non-genetic differences. Current IQ PGSes explain <20% of the variance in IQ. Now, to some extent I can’t have it both ways; either the benefits of GE are enormous because we’re controlling traits somewhat, or we aren’t controlling traits much and the benefits can’t be that big. But think, for example, of shifting the mean of your kid’s expected IQ, without much shifting the variance. (For some disease traits you can drive the probability of the disease far down, which is a lot of phenotypic control; but that seems not so bad!)
I would still encourage you to forecast what capabilities look like not just as of 2025, but after a trillion dollars of R&D enter this space. Mobilising a trillion dollars for a field of such importance is not difficult, once successful clinical results are out. All your claims about mean and variance, or about whole genome synthesis being possible, will no longer apply afaik.
I don’t super agree with this. But also, I’d view that as somewhat of a failure. Part of why I want the technology to be wideley available is that I think that decreases the path-dependence. Lots of diverse GE kids means a more universalist future, hopefully.
Yeah. I have several articles I want to write, though IDK which will become high-priority enough. Some thoughts on genomic liberty are here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DfrSZaf3JC8vJdbZL/how-to-make-superbabies?commentId=ZeranH3yDBGWNxZ7h
Cool!
Have you read meditations on moloch?
My view on this is that even when individuals and countries are not under tight “adapt or die” competition constraints such as during wartime or poverty, everyone faces incentive gradients. Free choices aren’t exactly free. For instance I was “free” to not learn software development and pick a lower paying job, but someone from the outside could still predict with high likelihood I was going to learn software anyway.
I have read it (long ago).
I take the general point that making this technology partially removes a barrier, where previously human influence on children is limited, and afterward there is at least somewhat more influence. E.g. this could lead to:
Sacrificing wellbeing for competitiveness
Social pressure / “soft eugenics”
Competitive selection (where I mentioned the Meditations)
One point of comparison is the default. There is a human-evolution that is always happening. Do we like its results? Do we trust it?
Another thing to point out is that the barrier is only somewhat eroded. Except for whole genome synthesis, the amount of control that germline engineering is fairly small compared to the total genetic and phenotypic variation in humans. You and I have 5 or 10 million differing alleles between us; GV would have an effect that’s comparable to, say, 1000s of alleles. (This doesn’t directly make sense for selection, but morally speaking.) In terms of phenotypes, most of the variation would still be in uncontrolled genomic differences and non-genetic differences. Current IQ PGSes explain <20% of the variance in IQ. Now, to some extent I can’t have it both ways; either the benefits of GE are enormous because we’re controlling traits somewhat, or we aren’t controlling traits much and the benefits can’t be that big. But think, for example, of shifting the mean of your kid’s expected IQ, without much shifting the variance. (For some disease traits you can drive the probability of the disease far down, which is a lot of phenotypic control; but that seems not so bad!)
I’m glad you’re thinking about it.
I would still encourage you to forecast what capabilities look like not just as of 2025, but after a trillion dollars of R&D enter this space. Mobilising a trillion dollars for a field of such importance is not difficult, once successful clinical results are out. All your claims about mean and variance, or about whole genome synthesis being possible, will no longer apply afaik.