This doesn’t help directly, but I just wanted to note that, as stronger reprogenetics in general is developed, most tradeoffs will go away. (Cf. https://berkeleygenomics.org/articles/Methods_for_strong_human_germline_engineering.html#strong-gv-and-why-it-matters )
Many / most of the traits of interest (disease traits, cognitive capacities) are uncorrelated / weakly correlated with each other, and most of the weak correlations are in the non-antagonistic direction (e.g. low disease risk usually correlates slightly positively between different diseases). That means you can just get very low disease risk across the board, and whatever cognitive capacities can be upregulated, all at the same time.
There would still be some tradeoffs:
It might be very hard to know all of the important effects of genes. There might therefore be some downside risk to affecting too many genes (hence moving outside of the envelope of natural human genomes). If you push some trait around, you could be causing some weird bad effect that wasn’t measured or that only shows up when you’re pushing fairly far.
Some traits are intrinsically pleiotropic for life outcomes. E.g. if you increase a future child’s likely degree of interest in math, you’re kinda necessarily slightly relatively decreasing their interest in other things.
This doesn’t help directly, but I just wanted to note that, as stronger reprogenetics in general is developed, most tradeoffs will go away. (Cf. https://berkeleygenomics.org/articles/Methods_for_strong_human_germline_engineering.html#strong-gv-and-why-it-matters ) Many / most of the traits of interest (disease traits, cognitive capacities) are uncorrelated / weakly correlated with each other, and most of the weak correlations are in the non-antagonistic direction (e.g. low disease risk usually correlates slightly positively between different diseases). That means you can just get very low disease risk across the board, and whatever cognitive capacities can be upregulated, all at the same time.
There would still be some tradeoffs:
It might be very hard to know all of the important effects of genes. There might therefore be some downside risk to affecting too many genes (hence moving outside of the envelope of natural human genomes). If you push some trait around, you could be causing some weird bad effect that wasn’t measured or that only shows up when you’re pushing fairly far.
Some traits are intrinsically pleiotropic for life outcomes. E.g. if you increase a future child’s likely degree of interest in math, you’re kinda necessarily slightly relatively decreasing their interest in other things.