At the current state of technology, it appears that embryo selection won't publicly offer selection on intelligence anytime soon, and the projected gains (of 2.5 IQ above mean) are pretty low for so much effort. However, Gwern's calculation of 9 IQ points above mean would be much more worth it, but that supposes much better IQ GWASs than are currently known to exist.
I wouldn't wait for 3-5 years - I think at least 10 years would be required for a better IQ PGS and for it to become even minimally widely available. A lot depends on how young your girlfriend is - geriatric pregnancy (age >=35) isn't fun, probably involves ova of lower genetic quality, and is not guaranteed to succeed, even using IVF, so if she's in late 20s and up, it doesn't seem worth it to wait. If she's mid-20s and below and you're willing to wait 10 years, it might be okay.
My philosophy is, have kids now (assuming you're ready), and then if embryo selection matures, you can select a superbaby at that point. Kids are not really that ruinous as long as they don't get into real trouble, especially if you don't have to pay for their university.
That being said, I this is currently a lot of hassle (read the lesswrong article … quite some steps needed), needs a lot of money and is definitely not available in most jurisdictions. I am also not sure how well it would work.
So waiting 2-5 years would probably make things easier (or harder because it’s been outlawed).
Generally, a nation that wanted to go all-in on “IVF eugenics” could probably make a lot of progress just by sequencing and cognitive-ability-testing + disease cataloguing a large part of their population. AFAIK one thing holding the technology back is that there is no good large scale database of DNA sequences with cognitive ability scores (instead,“educational attainment” is often recorded, which might not be exactly what you care about).
GWAS underestimates effect. If we can fully sequences embryo's genome, we can also factor number of less rare mutations in selection, even without any GWAS; this will raise IQ, as rare mutations are much more likely to be harmful, that is why they are rare, though they are very difficult to discover (as human genome is approx same magnitude as number of humans)
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
At the current state of technology, it appears that embryo selection won't publicly offer selection on intelligence anytime soon, and the projected gains (of 2.5 IQ above mean) are pretty low for so much effort. However, Gwern's calculation of 9 IQ points above mean would be much more worth it, but that supposes much better IQ GWASs than are currently known to exist.
I wouldn't wait for 3-5 years - I think at least 10 years would be required for a better IQ PGS and for it to become even minimally widely available. A lot depends on how young your girlfriend is - geriatric pregnancy (age >=35) isn't fun, probably involves ova of lower genetic quality, and is not guaranteed to succeed, even using IVF, so if she's in late 20s and up, it doesn't seem worth it to wait. If she's mid-20s and below and you're willing to wait 10 years, it might be okay.
My philosophy is, have kids now (assuming you're ready), and then if embryo selection matures, you can select a superbaby at that point. Kids are not really that ruinous as long as they don't get into real trouble, especially if you don't have to pay for their university.
According to the LessWrong writeup (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yT22RcWrxZcXyGjsA/how-to-have-polygenically-screened-children), one of the authors of OP article can fix you up with a startup that offers intelligence scores for embryo selection (Jonathan Anomaly…not sure how trustworthy someone with that last name is!).
That being said, I this is currently a lot of hassle (read the lesswrong article … quite some steps needed), needs a lot of money and is definitely not available in most jurisdictions. I am also not sure how well it would work.
So waiting 2-5 years would probably make things easier (or harder because it’s been outlawed).
Generally, a nation that wanted to go all-in on “IVF eugenics” could probably make a lot of progress just by sequencing and cognitive-ability-testing + disease cataloguing a large part of their population. AFAIK one thing holding the technology back is that there is no good large scale database of DNA sequences with cognitive ability scores (instead,“educational attainment” is often recorded, which might not be exactly what you care about).
More options
Context Copy link
GWAS underestimates effect. If we can fully sequences embryo's genome, we can also factor number of less rare mutations in selection, even without any GWAS; this will raise IQ, as rare mutations are much more likely to be harmful, that is why they are rare, though they are very difficult to discover (as human genome is approx same magnitude as number of humans)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link