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.
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.