A Room with a Blog

We can do genetic enhancement now, by doing IVF with donor eggs and donor sperm from parents with high IQ, good executive function, strong athleticism, and other genetically-mediated traits. We could do enhancement on a mass scale if folks wanted it, but contrary to some predictions, few want it enough to pay the costs. 

That many so-called advocates (and opponents) of enhancement seem to pay no attention to what we can already do is a signal that much of their futurist talk is just hot air. Here I want to consider only proven technologies.

I am not a fan of widespread genetic enhancement, because it would disrupt the institution of the family. I think people should be able to aspire to having a lineage that is genetically related to them, a line of descendants that resembles them. With genetic enhancement, children become adopted. Heredity ceases to exist. 

We might consider the case of Wellington R. Burt: 

Wellington R. Burt (August 26, 1831 – March 2, 1919) was a wealthy industrial baron from Saginaw, Michigan… For a time in the early 1900s, Burt ranked as one of the eight wealthiest men in America.^[6] 

Burt had an unusual will, “as bizarre but as finely-wrought as any in U.S. court annals”.^[5] It contained a “spite clause” conceived by Burt to avenge a family feud… In May 2011, twelve of Burt’s descendants finally received the estate, worth about $100 million.^[6]

Whatever we may think of this “spite clause,” I do support the option of passing down wealth through generations. Mr. Burt is an extraordinary case but one which illustrates the point.

I think that folks should be able to hope to boost their natural kids and later descendants into the top out-of-sight class or even adopt a philosophy (kind of) like Tywin Lannister’s! I am not saying that is my hope or my philosophy; I just think folks should be able to have those aspirations if they want them.

We are already seeing rises in IQ of a few points per decade across the US population due to the mysterious Flynn effect. As far as we know, that has not disrupted families, but I am wary of increasing the rate of change further, or of manipulating other traits like personality, or even continuing the current rate of change another century.

But there is a consideration that might override all this: like The Long Now Foundation, I want human civilization to exist in 10,000 years.

Human society is unstable and faces many threats like global warming, dysgenics, and nuclear war. Based on Cold War data, Stanford scholar Martin Hellman estimated a 1% per year chance of nuclear war. Even one-tenth that chance is far too high to permit us to last ten millennia. 

Higher IQs might better equip us to address such threats. This is not a given but it’s plausible enough that I would not favor curtailing enhancement from its present levels. It might be our only shot at surviving into the far-distant future.  

Another reason not to ban enhancement is that for a few unsuccessful people, having a successful child might be a rare bright spot in an otherwise lackluster life. But these technologies are expensive, and for the few who do want enhanced kids, we should make access fairer. 

Action is also less suitable when we are ignorant. We (apparently) do not know what proportion of IVF births involve significant enhancement, or whether the enhancement functions to increase or decrease inequality. We should learn more about how these technologies are being used so we can make good decisions.

P.S. I don’t understand the viewpoint of other people on these questions as well as I want to. I would especially like to hear concrete proposals for how much genetic enhancement should be happening, using known science, from people who claim to favor (or oppose) enhancement.