The Beginning of A Genetic Elite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Next they will grow them in plastic wombs and buy the best looking smartest eggs to mix with the oddest looking genius weirdo moneyed elonesque makes. I fear for the future and women.

Reminds me of that (probably apocryphal) story about Isadora Duncan saying to George Bernard Shaw “We should have a baby together; imagine my beauty with your brains!”

Shaw replied “Yes, but what if the child had my beauty and your brains?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So apparently rich people are screening embryos for IQ now and picking the smartest ones. https://investigations.hopenothate.org.uk/superbaby-factory/
Do people think that the early adopter families will pull away from the rest of society and create a permanent group of genetic elites over time? It seems that this would quickly entrench the advantages of the wealthy as they presumably will be less likely to get diseases, be smarter and less likely to get mental illnesses. What are peoples thoughts on the long-term social implications of this practice? Also, do you think it’s a scam or are you interested in using it?

Something like this was posted awhile ago--it was in the news in Oct. Very oversold.

[Anonymous]

I got my mom's hair color (brunette) and my dad's hair texture (fine and thin). My sister got my dad's color (gorgeous auburn) and my mom's texture (you could barely get your fingers around her hair in a braid or ponytail). SO unfair.

[Anonymous]

NIH paper suggests 2.5 IQ point gain with a very, very wide CI. So good chance of losing IQ points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that trauma can make IQ functionally unusable, and having Nazis for parents is traumatic. I doubt this will work out the way the “genetically elite” think.

How is this any different than marrying someone that has a similar personality or is good looking. Both traits have a genetic component and people don’t pick their spouses randomly. Not sure how this is functionally any different. It’s dramatic to call this being a nazi.

That’s some very poor analysis there. There’s no comparison between two people choosing each other and scientifically modifying embryos. I’m not the PP though, and think the nazi thing is bogus.

Read the article. No one is modifying or editing embryos. They are just choosing among the embryos that couples already have.

Oh ok, I thought there was modification going on. There is some places that are modifying embryos.

[Anonymous]

IVF is a crapshoot and the odds decrease with age. Most prospective parents going through IVF are happy to get even one viable embryo, never mind 10. Presumably the couples doing this are young and have no fertility issues, but it doesn’t seem nearly as fun as making babies the old fashioned way.

Usually the most robust, actively dividing embryo is chosen for transferral, since it’s the most likely to implant and result in a successful pregnancy. That embryo may not necessarily be the smartest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NIH paper suggests 2.5 IQ point gain with a very, very wide CI. So good chance of losing IQ points.

Apparently, they got access to the UK biobank data and used some other methods to enhance the the results, so the expected gain out of ten embryos is now around 7 points. If you have 50 embryos the gain is around 11 points. I scheduled a call with them because I was curious about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AI will make this moot. You're not gonna be the smartest no matter how much you IQ discriminate. Some clown with an AI doodad will out stoichiometry you in a heartbeat.

Hmm that’s a good point. Maybe, but we don’t know whether AI is likely to plateau at some point or if it will continue increasing exponentially. Even then I would think that more intelligent people would still be able to use AI more effectively and efficiently. So it might confer a long-term advantage to family social status.

If we run out of water, no AI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that trauma can make IQ functionally unusable, and having Nazis for parents is traumatic. I doubt this will work out the way the “genetically elite” think.

How is this any different than marrying someone that has a similar personality or is good looking. Both traits have a genetic component and people don’t pick their spouses randomly. Not sure how this is functionally any different. It’s dramatic to call this being a nazi.

That’s some very poor analysis there. There’s no comparison between two people choosing each other and scientifically modifying embryos. I’m not the PP though, and think the nazi thing is bogus.

Read the article. No one is modifying or editing embryos. They are just choosing among the embryos that couples already have.

Oh ok, I thought there was modification going on. There is some places that are modifying embryos.

Where are the places that are editing embryos? I have not heard of this other than the infamous He Jiankui.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IVF is a crapshoot and the odds decrease with age. Most prospective parents going through IVF are happy to get even one viable embryo, never mind 10. Presumably the couples doing this are young and have no fertility issues, but it doesn’t seem nearly as fun as making babies the old fashioned way.

Usually the most robust, actively dividing embryo is chosen for transferral, since it’s the most likely to implant and result in a successful pregnancy. That embryo may not necessarily be the smartest.

Rich people are going to pay for multiple rounds of egg freezing or iVF when their kids are in their 20s to boost the odds that this is successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So apparently rich people are screening embryos for IQ now and picking the smartest ones. https://investigations.hopenothate.org.uk/superbaby-factory/
Do people think that the early adopter families will pull away from the rest of society and create a permanent group of genetic elites over time? It seems that this would quickly entrench the advantages of the wealthy as they presumably will be less likely to get diseases, be smarter and less likely to get mental illnesses. What are peoples thoughts on the long-term social implications of this practice? Also, do you think it’s a scam or are you interested in using it?

One problem is that the people who are seriously into this are, at best, neurodivergent in ways that make them incompatible with living normal lives. These people are likely to end up with bright but crazy kids, then rear those kids in crazy, dysfunctional ways.

It seems as if this is how you produce the future generation of serial killers, not how you produce the corporate titans and political leaders of the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IQ doesn't make elite. Look at Trump and Musk

I’m not sure that Trumps is very high. Also he’s like 80 now so past his prime.

I doubt Trump's Is Q is more than. 140.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IQ doesn't make elite. Look at Trump and Musk

I’m not sure that Trumps is very high. Also he’s like 80 now so past his prime.

As Democrats, we believe that our oppressor, the outsider who keeps thumping us at our own chosen game of politics, must be stupid.

[Anonymous]

This is a classic Democrat thread. We should make eugenics and AI discussions a part if our brand with voters. I think they will like it!

[Anonymous]

IQ is not a fixed trait. If you’ve taken an IQ test you can see cultural bias in some of the questions. IQ is essentially unmeasurable in reality.