A lot of negative-sum selection for height perhaps. The genetic architecture is already known well enough for major embryo selection, and the rest is coming quickly.
Height’s contribution to CEO status is perhaps half of IQ’s, and in addition to substantial effects on income it is also very helpful in the marriage market for men.
But many of the benefits are likely positional, reflecting the social status gains of being taller than others in one’s social environment, and there are physiological costs (as well as use of selective power that could be used on health, cognition, and other less positional goods).
Choices at actual sperm banks suggests parents would use a mix that placed serious non-exclusive weight on each of height, attractiveness, health, education/intelligence, and anything contributing to professional success. Selection on personality might be for traits that improve individual success or for compatibility with parents, but I’m not sure about the net.
Selection for similarity on political and religious orientation might come into use, and could have disturbing and important consequences.
Presumably many other traits would be selected for as well. Increasing intelligence has knee-jerk comparisons to eugenics & racism, so perhaps physical attractiveness/fitness would be selected for more strongly. Since personality traits are partially genetic, these may be selected for too. Homosexuality is partially genetic, so many gay rights movements would move to ban embryo selection (although some people would want bi kids because they don’t want to deprive their kids of any options in life). Sexuality is correlated with other personality traits, so whatever choices are made will have knock-on effects. Some would advocate selecting against negative traits such as schizophrenia, ADHD and violence. Unfortunately, these traits are thought to provide an advantage in certain situations, or in combination with other genes, so we might also lose the creatively that comes with subclinical psychosis (poets are 20x more likely to go insane than average), the beneficial novel behaviour that comes with ADHD, and the ability to stand up for yourself (if aggression correlates with assertiveness).
I know one should not generalise from fictional evidence, but it reminds me of the film ‘demolition man’ where society has evolved to a point where there is no violence, so when a murderer awakes from cryonic suspension they cannot defend themselves. Far better film than Gattaca.
Increasing intelligence has knee-jerk comparisons to eugenics & racism, so perhaps physical attractiveness/fitness would be selected for more strongly
If ture, this would be somewhat surprising from a certain angle. As if saying “selecting for what’s on the inside is too superficial and prejudiced, so we should be sure our selection is only skin-deep.”
I would bet against selection for things like sexual orientation or domesticity, and in favor of selection for general correlates of good health and successful life outcomes (which may in turn come along with other unintended characteristics).
If ture, this would be somewhat surprising from a certain angle. As if saying “selecting for what’s on the inside is too superficial and prejudiced, so we should be sure our selection is only skin-deep.”
This is, admittedly, a bizarre state of affairs. But if we were to admit that IQ is meaningful, and could be affected by genes, then this gives credence to the ‘race realists’! But we can’t concede a single argument to the hated enemy, therefore intelligence is independent of genes. QED.
Attractiveness OTOH is obviously genetic, because people look like their parents.
I would bet against selection for things like sexual orientation or domesticity, and in favour of selection for general correlates of good health and successful life outcomes (which may in turn come along with other unintended characteristics).
I concur. I would however bet in favour of a large argument over sexual orientation.
If parents had strong embryo selection available to them, how would the world be different, other than via increased intelligence?
A lot of negative-sum selection for height perhaps. The genetic architecture is already known well enough for major embryo selection, and the rest is coming quickly.
Height’s contribution to CEO status is perhaps half of IQ’s, and in addition to substantial effects on income it is also very helpful in the marriage market for men.
But many of the benefits are likely positional, reflecting the social status gains of being taller than others in one’s social environment, and there are physiological costs (as well as use of selective power that could be used on health, cognition, and other less positional goods).
Choices at actual sperm banks suggests parents would use a mix that placed serious non-exclusive weight on each of height, attractiveness, health, education/intelligence, and anything contributing to professional success. Selection on personality might be for traits that improve individual success or for compatibility with parents, but I’m not sure about the net.
Selection for similarity on political and religious orientation might come into use, and could have disturbing and important consequences.
Presumably many other traits would be selected for as well. Increasing intelligence has knee-jerk comparisons to eugenics & racism, so perhaps physical attractiveness/fitness would be selected for more strongly. Since personality traits are partially genetic, these may be selected for too. Homosexuality is partially genetic, so many gay rights movements would move to ban embryo selection (although some people would want bi kids because they don’t want to deprive their kids of any options in life). Sexuality is correlated with other personality traits, so whatever choices are made will have knock-on effects. Some would advocate selecting against negative traits such as schizophrenia, ADHD and violence. Unfortunately, these traits are thought to provide an advantage in certain situations, or in combination with other genes, so we might also lose the creatively that comes with subclinical psychosis (poets are 20x more likely to go insane than average), the beneficial novel behaviour that comes with ADHD, and the ability to stand up for yourself (if aggression correlates with assertiveness). I know one should not generalise from fictional evidence, but it reminds me of the film ‘demolition man’ where society has evolved to a point where there is no violence, so when a murderer awakes from cryonic suspension they cannot defend themselves. Far better film than Gattaca.
If ture, this would be somewhat surprising from a certain angle. As if saying “selecting for what’s on the inside is too superficial and prejudiced, so we should be sure our selection is only skin-deep.”
I would bet against selection for things like sexual orientation or domesticity, and in favor of selection for general correlates of good health and successful life outcomes (which may in turn come along with other unintended characteristics).
This is, admittedly, a bizarre state of affairs. But if we were to admit that IQ is meaningful, and could be affected by genes, then this gives credence to the ‘race realists’! But we can’t concede a single argument to the hated enemy, therefore intelligence is independent of genes. QED.
Attractiveness OTOH is obviously genetic, because people look like their parents.
I concur. I would however bet in favour of a large argument over sexual orientation.
Yvain has a biodeterministic guide to parenting. Some people would do the same things: http://squid314.livejournal.com/346391.html
Gattaca, except everyone is actually superhuman and nobody cares about whether you’ll have a heart attack at thirty except your doctor.