Mostly, a useless dead end. The big problem is even assuming it’s socially acceptable to do it, the stuff genetic engineering can do is either locked behind massive time and children investments, or is way too weak/harmful to be of much use. It’s an interesting field, with a whole lot of potential, but I’d only support expand it’s social acceptability and doing basic research right now, given that I see very few options for genetics.
Also, how much somatic gene editing, not how much gamete gene editing is the key taut constraint.
locked behind massive time and children investments
Maybe not as long as you’re thinking; people can be very intelligent and creative at young ages (and this may be amplified with someone gene-edited to have high intelligence). ‘Adolescence’ is mostly a recent social construction, and a lot of norms/common beliefs about children exist more to keep them disempowered.
The bigger issue is that the stronger genetic modifications requires children at all, and this time still matters even under optimistic circumstances of how much we can cut the maturity process away, and there’s a far greater problem with this type of modification:
It only works if we assume population growth or life extension, and one is a huge challenge in itself, and the population growth assumptions is probably wrong, and the big problem here is the fertility rate is essentially way down from several decades ago or several centuries ago, and this is a big problem, as it sinks schemes of intelligence augmentation that rely on new children. In particular, the world population will stop growing, and we might only have 30 billion new humans born, according to new models.
So yeah, I am still pessimistic around gamete genetic strategies for human enhancement.
The population growth problem should be somewhat addressed by healthspan extension. A big reason as to why people aren’t having kids now is that they lack the resources—be it housing, money, or time. If we could extend the average healthspan by a few decades, then older people who have spent enough time working to accumulate those resources, but are too old to raise children, should now be able have kids. Moreover, it means that people who are already have many kids but have just become too old will also be able to have more. For those reasons, I don’t think a future birth limit of 30 billion is particularly reasonable.
However, I don’t think it will make a difference, at least for addressing AI. Once computing reaches a certain level of advancement, it will simply be unfeasible for something the size of a human brain, no matter how enhanced, to compete with a superintelligence running on a supercomputer the size of a basketball court. And that level of computing/AI advancement will almost certainly be achieved before the discussed genetic enhancement will ever bear fruit, probably even before it’s made legal. Moreover, it’s doubtful we’ll see any significant healthspan extensions particularly long before achieving ASI, so that makes it even less relevant, although I don’t think any of these concerns were particularly significant in the first place as it also seems like we’ll see ASI long before global population decline.
Hm, can you explain more about this? Sorry that I’ve come late here, but I don’t understand what your comment is referring to or why you think the way you do.
Well, I interpret “children investments” here as “children who will be involved in the augmentation experiments”. I don’t expect germline modification to be something that would succeed at first attempt (it’s one of the reason why it’s considered ethically problematic to begin with). Basically point B might be better than point A, but the path from A to B almost surely involves some very low lows as we learn from trial and error, etc. I found the clinical nature of the expression dryly funny as I think it would realistically hide quite a hefty human cost. That’s not even including the obvious political complications and general societal second order risks.
Well, it wasn’t a complete look at the issues of gamete/germline modification, but you pointed out another problem which I didn’t include to save space and time, though thankfully if you want to avoid extreme modifications, it’s a lot safer to do it, thanks to an important insight by GeneSmith:
Another crucial insight from these studies is that nearly all of the genetic differences between humans can be explained by additive effects; there are very few gene-gene interactions going on; If gene A makes you taller, it doesn’t depend on gene B being present to work its magic. It’s a strong, independent gene that don’t need no help.
This fact is extremely important because it makes both evolution and embryo selection possible. There is a common misconception that genes are tied together in a hopelessly complex web and that if we mess with one part of it the whole thing will come crashing down. While that may be true for genes that are universally present in the human population, it is very rarely true for genes that commonly vary between people.
Ah, that makes sense. I guess if interactions were too complex it’d take some miraculous multi-step coincidence to produce a useful mutation, and there would be a lot more genetic illnesses.
Mostly, a useless dead end. The big problem is even assuming it’s socially acceptable to do it, the stuff genetic engineering can do is either locked behind massive time and children investments, or is way too weak/harmful to be of much use. It’s an interesting field, with a whole lot of potential, but I’d only support expand it’s social acceptability and doing basic research right now, given that I see very few options for genetics.
Also, how much somatic gene editing, not how much gamete gene editing is the key taut constraint.
Maybe not as long as you’re thinking; people can be very intelligent and creative at young ages (and this may be amplified with someone gene-edited to have high intelligence). ‘Adolescence’ is mostly a recent social construction, and a lot of norms/common beliefs about children exist more to keep them disempowered.
The bigger issue is that the stronger genetic modifications requires children at all, and this time still matters even under optimistic circumstances of how much we can cut the maturity process away, and there’s a far greater problem with this type of modification:
It only works if we assume population growth or life extension, and one is a huge challenge in itself, and the population growth assumptions is probably wrong, and the big problem here is the fertility rate is essentially way down from several decades ago or several centuries ago, and this is a big problem, as it sinks schemes of intelligence augmentation that rely on new children. In particular, the world population will stop growing, and we might only have 30 billion new humans born, according to new models.
So yeah, I am still pessimistic around gamete genetic strategies for human enhancement.
The population growth problem should be somewhat addressed by healthspan extension. A big reason as to why people aren’t having kids now is that they lack the resources—be it housing, money, or time. If we could extend the average healthspan by a few decades, then older people who have spent enough time working to accumulate those resources, but are too old to raise children, should now be able have kids. Moreover, it means that people who are already have many kids but have just become too old will also be able to have more. For those reasons, I don’t think a future birth limit of 30 billion is particularly reasonable.
However, I don’t think it will make a difference, at least for addressing AI. Once computing reaches a certain level of advancement, it will simply be unfeasible for something the size of a human brain, no matter how enhanced, to compete with a superintelligence running on a supercomputer the size of a basketball court. And that level of computing/AI advancement will almost certainly be achieved before the discussed genetic enhancement will ever bear fruit, probably even before it’s made legal. Moreover, it’s doubtful we’ll see any significant healthspan extensions particularly long before achieving ASI, so that makes it even less relevant, although I don’t think any of these concerns were particularly significant in the first place as it also seems like we’ll see ASI long before global population decline.
I mean, that makes the likely death and suffering toll sound more acceptable I guess as PR expressions go, yeah.
Hm, can you explain more about this? Sorry that I’ve come late here, but I don’t understand what your comment is referring to or why you think the way you do.
Well, I interpret “children investments” here as “children who will be involved in the augmentation experiments”. I don’t expect germline modification to be something that would succeed at first attempt (it’s one of the reason why it’s considered ethically problematic to begin with). Basically point B might be better than point A, but the path from A to B almost surely involves some very low lows as we learn from trial and error, etc. I found the clinical nature of the expression dryly funny as I think it would realistically hide quite a hefty human cost. That’s not even including the obvious political complications and general societal second order risks.
Well, it wasn’t a complete look at the issues of gamete/germline modification, but you pointed out another problem which I didn’t include to save space and time, though thankfully if you want to avoid extreme modifications, it’s a lot safer to do it, thanks to an important insight by GeneSmith:
Ah, that makes sense. I guess if interactions were too complex it’d take some miraculous multi-step coincidence to produce a useful mutation, and there would be a lot more genetic illnesses.