Putting aside the ethics for a moment, this is fairly close to Clinton’s Hope Scholarships. He set up a system where students got their college fees payed for in exchange for a percentage of future earnings—a doctor would repay a lot to the fund, a teacher would repay much less. Overall it would all average out. This plan failed because future teachers were much more motivated to accept the deal than future doctors. Only those who expected to earn comparatively little will take a deal that takes a percentage of future earnings—if you have a reason to expect you are going to be wealthy, you go for the fixed rate student loans.
As a minor problem, it seems like you might face something like the same problem here. If there are two companies offering these services then parents who plan on high-income kids will avoid the profit-sharing plan. Of course, parents may not be able to plan on this reliably and in secret—if all you are ordering is a kid with 200 IQ and a competitive nature, predicting their outcomes is difficult for anyone.
But as a major problem, if we can get just a little more specific in the genes we tweak.… GenEng Corp will be highly disincentivized from activating the altruism gene; the last thing they want is a contract entitling them to 2% of a world-renowned brain surgeon who works pro bono for Doctors Without Boarders. Genes for greed and competitiveness, if identified, suddenly become an investment strategy. Genes for empathy, altruism, and moral reflection are poor business. I would also expect any genes relating to musical ability and artistic expression to be considered ‘risky’; if you have a potential billionaire in the works, the last thing you want is for her to be distracted by a muse.
Oh, also, intelligence is not really so very good a predictor for lifetime earnings, but longevity and a strong work ethic should do pretty well. Even a teacher’s salary starts to look good after getting a small yearly raise for 100 years. If longevity turns out to be profitable—and surely it would be? -- then lower intelligence and motivation might even be a good idea. You don’t want people who will get bored because they are not challenged. You want people who will work two jobs reliably for many decades, and who will order up a new batch of GenEng kids with their own contracts, without questioning the system.
Putting aside the ethics for a moment, this is fairly close to Clinton’s Hope Scholarships. He set up a system where students got their college fees payed for in exchange for a percentage of future earnings—a doctor would repay a lot to the fund, a teacher would repay much less. Overall it would all average out. This plan failed because future teachers were much more motivated to accept the deal than future doctors. Only those who expected to earn comparatively little will take a deal that takes a percentage of future earnings—if you have a reason to expect you are going to be wealthy, you go for the fixed rate student loans.
As a minor problem, it seems like you might face something like the same problem here. If there are two companies offering these services then parents who plan on high-income kids will avoid the profit-sharing plan. Of course, parents may not be able to plan on this reliably and in secret—if all you are ordering is a kid with 200 IQ and a competitive nature, predicting their outcomes is difficult for anyone.
But as a major problem, if we can get just a little more specific in the genes we tweak.… GenEng Corp will be highly disincentivized from activating the altruism gene; the last thing they want is a contract entitling them to 2% of a world-renowned brain surgeon who works pro bono for Doctors Without Boarders. Genes for greed and competitiveness, if identified, suddenly become an investment strategy. Genes for empathy, altruism, and moral reflection are poor business. I would also expect any genes relating to musical ability and artistic expression to be considered ‘risky’; if you have a potential billionaire in the works, the last thing you want is for her to be distracted by a muse.
Oh, also, intelligence is not really so very good a predictor for lifetime earnings, but longevity and a strong work ethic should do pretty well. Even a teacher’s salary starts to look good after getting a small yearly raise for 100 years. If longevity turns out to be profitable—and surely it would be? -- then lower intelligence and motivation might even be a good idea. You don’t want people who will get bored because they are not challenged. You want people who will work two jobs reliably for many decades, and who will order up a new batch of GenEng kids with their own contracts, without questioning the system.