New article on in vitro iterated embryo selection

CarlShulman

The article by Robert Sparrow:

A series of recent scientific results suggest that, in the not-too-distant future, it will be possible to create viable human gametes from human stem cells. This paper discusses the potential of this technology to make possible what I call ‘in vitro eugenics’: the deliberate breeding of human beings in vitro by fusing sperm and egg derived from different stem-cell lines to create an embryo and then deriving new gametes from stem cells derived from that embryo. Repeated iterations of this process would allow scientists to proceed through multiple human generations in the laboratory. In vitro eugenics might be used to study the heredity of genetic disorders and to produce cell lines of a desired character for medical applications. More controversially, it might also function as a powerful technology of ‘human enhancement’ by allowing researchers to use all the techniques of selective breeding to produce individuals with a desired genotype.

Quote:

However, to my knowledge, the current paper is the first to explicitly discuss the possibility of the iterative use of this technology for reproductive purposes

The possibility was discussed in MIRI's "Uncertain Future" toy forecasting model back in 2009, and the analysis formulated a few years before that.

ETA: And further discussed in James Miller's recent book, "Singularity Rising."

The article by Robert Sparrow:

A series of recent scientific results suggest that, in the not-too-distant future, it will be possible to create viable human gametes from human stem cells. This paper discusses the potential of this technology to make possible what I call ‘in vitro eugenics’: the deliberate breeding of human beings in vitro by fusing sperm and egg derived from different stem-cell lines to create an embryo and then deriving new gametes from stem cells derived from that embryo. Repeated iterations of this process would allow scientists to proceed through multiple human generations in the laboratory. In vitro eugenics might be used to study the heredity of genetic disorders and to produce cell lines of a desired character for medical applications. More controversially, it might also function as a powerful technology of ‘human enhancement’ by allowing researchers to use all the techniques of selective breeding to produce individuals with a desired genotype.

Quote:

However, to my knowledge, the current paper is the first to explicitly discuss the possibility of the iterative use of this technology for reproductive purposes

Have people thought much about the social consequences of this?

I mean, people produced through mature iterated embryo selection (or actual genetic editing) would be geniuses and more athletic and conscientious. Now this in itself is not necessarily that new. We have geniuses today. But there would be more and they might be smarter than today's geniuses, so the variance in the population would rise. Steve Hsu has speculated that in theory you could make someone with a 900 IQ!

Edit: Actually, the correct figure was 100 + 30*15 = 550.

Edit 2: Still wrong. 100+30*10=400 seems true to Hsu's idea, though I agree with Carl below that it's likely to overestimate.

William Gardner thinks that credentials would probably reflect ability more since innate differences would be more obvious. So you would get less social mobility.

There is another side effect that John Maxwell IV points out and which I haven't seen discussed much: these people might not be genetically related to anyone else. What does society look like when Harvard is filled with genius "adopted" kids, and people who want genetically related children can no longer hope for them to lead? Does today's social elite just accept kids with a lower rank? Also, do religious or other traditional folks accept a social agenda maybe set by people who relate less, or not at all, to the kinship bonds that many religions emphasize? Or do we get separatism or war?

The big potential pluses of these technologies for people alive today look to me like network effects and externalities from being geographically near enhanced populations. But with separatism these effects go away and you are left with probably lesser impacts like gains from international trade.

In general I'd like to make a list of pros and cons. I have a feeling that many Less Wrong folks take the "pro" side. (Or am I wrong and most just think this is completely inevitable and so not worth debating or having a position on?)

For someone on the "pro" side: is your biggest reason wealth for (young) people alive today? Or is it altruism--creating minds that would be capable of better experiences or more meaningful pleasures from a utilitarian viewpoint? How do you answer my other questions here?

Steve Hsu has speculated that in theory you could make someone with a 900 IQ!

Hsu cited genetic distance measures suggesting that with respect to common additive genetic effects on IQ, there were 30-40 SNP differences per standard deviation of measured IQ difference. Since the standard deviation should go with the square root of the number of sites, he speculated that one might theoretically get 30-40 deviations of additive genetic effects, citing animal breeding successes that produced changes like that for milk production or the like.

But you should not... (read more)

18

New article on in vitro iterated embryo selection

18

18

18

New article on in vitro iterated embryo selection

18

18