When I first stumbled upon George Church's fascinating genetic list in an X post, I realized I had discovered what could be described as a blueprint for creating superhuman beings.
"GWAS studies have revolutionized our understanding of human genetics by revealing that the vast majority of complex traits are highly polygenic."
Logical thinking should have revealed the fact that intelligence and height were polygenic, since both manifest themselves as a spectrum. If they were monogenic, humans would be either brilliant or stupid, short or tall.
The most crucial genetic enhancement is intelligence. An increase in human intelligence would provide people with the ability to solve a myriad of problems.
Another question: What has prevented these variants from becoming common? If it's something particular to past environment (e.g., increased calories requirement, which wouldn't be a problem now), fine. But there could be other things we don't know about.
"okay but why not? Sleeping less and having strong bones should be beneficial, unless there are trade-offs."
Some traits are not easy to select for. If you are married, did you select your wife for strong bones and because she sleeps less, or conversely did your wife select you because of strong bones and that you sleep less? Some traits are pretty obvious; height and intelligence are a couple. Without research, it is hard to know if there are trade-offs.
"Selection" doesn't have to be done by reproductive partners. If I sleep less, I have more time for other things that would surely help me survive and reproduce. Strong bones help me survive.
"If I sleep less, I have more time for other things that would surely help me survive and reproduce. Strong bones help me survive."
That is undoubtedly true. But surviving past the reproductive years does little for selection. A large number of people with normal bones and sleep necessities survive through reproductive years.
Anecdotally, I remember reading about short-sleepers being well-represented in major business and political figures, but with regard to bones, if an overwhelming majority of first-worlders do not make their living on the basis of their physical conditions, then there's probably no strong selection for strong bones. Africans have denser bones, likely because the selection pressure for this trait has remained stronger there than in Europe or Asia.
"Should there be limits on how many enhancements one person can receive? Would enhanced individuals have unfair advantages that could fracture society? How do we ensure equitable access to these technologies?"
No, there should not be limits on how many enhancements one person can receive. Enhancements should be available to all who want them.
The idea that genetic engineering will erase racial and socioeconomic-based IQ gaps doesn't make sense to me. Families with a higher average will simply "keep their lead" by further increasing their progeny's IQ, if those with average IQs use gene editing to select for the highest IQ they can. Two parents with 120 IQs will have a higher range of possibility than two parents with 97 IQs.
How would you envision what I mentioned in my comment working out? Do you think families with high IQ would agree to not do gene-editing for higher IQ while letting families with below average or average IQ select for higher IQs?
"How would you envision what I mentioned in my comment working out?"
I should have worded my response differently. Gene enhancement has the potential to reduce the IQ differential. But the point is not to make everyone have the same cognitive ability, but to raise everyone's IQ.
That seems fair, although wouldn't the process of raising everyone's IQ still lead to the gaps that exist today being conserved ( although now the difference won't be between 97 and 120, it will be between 107 and 130 and so forth)? The only way of closing the gaps( I'm not sure that I agree with it) would be a situation where those at the top can't select to increase their IQ through gene therapy, which of course would never happen because elites wouldn't accept this limitation.
"The only way of closing the gaps( I'm not sure that I agree with it) would be a situation where those at the top can't select to increase their IQ through gene therapy, which of course would never happen because elites wouldn't accept this limitation."
You seem overly concerned with the equality of intelligence. That is not a concern for me. I am looking for genetic enhancement to provide for the ascension of humanity.
Great article, I very much enjoyed it.
"GWAS studies have revolutionized our understanding of human genetics by revealing that the vast majority of complex traits are highly polygenic."
Logical thinking should have revealed the fact that intelligence and height were polygenic, since both manifest themselves as a spectrum. If they were monogenic, humans would be either brilliant or stupid, short or tall.
The most crucial genetic enhancement is intelligence. An increase in human intelligence would provide people with the ability to solve a myriad of problems.
Another question: What has prevented these variants from becoming common? If it's something particular to past environment (e.g., increased calories requirement, which wouldn't be a problem now), fine. But there could be other things we don't know about.
"What has prevented these variants from becoming common?"
One reason is that they are not selected for.
okay but why not? Sleeping less and having strong bones should be beneficial, unless there are trade-offs.
"okay but why not? Sleeping less and having strong bones should be beneficial, unless there are trade-offs."
Some traits are not easy to select for. If you are married, did you select your wife for strong bones and because she sleeps less, or conversely did your wife select you because of strong bones and that you sleep less? Some traits are pretty obvious; height and intelligence are a couple. Without research, it is hard to know if there are trade-offs.
"Selection" doesn't have to be done by reproductive partners. If I sleep less, I have more time for other things that would surely help me survive and reproduce. Strong bones help me survive.
"If I sleep less, I have more time for other things that would surely help me survive and reproduce. Strong bones help me survive."
That is undoubtedly true. But surviving past the reproductive years does little for selection. A large number of people with normal bones and sleep necessities survive through reproductive years.
Anecdotally, I remember reading about short-sleepers being well-represented in major business and political figures, but with regard to bones, if an overwhelming majority of first-worlders do not make their living on the basis of their physical conditions, then there's probably no strong selection for strong bones. Africans have denser bones, likely because the selection pressure for this trait has remained stronger there than in Europe or Asia.
"Should there be limits on how many enhancements one person can receive? Would enhanced individuals have unfair advantages that could fracture society? How do we ensure equitable access to these technologies?"
No, there should not be limits on how many enhancements one person can receive. Enhancements should be available to all who want them.
The idea that genetic engineering will erase racial and socioeconomic-based IQ gaps doesn't make sense to me. Families with a higher average will simply "keep their lead" by further increasing their progeny's IQ, if those with average IQs use gene editing to select for the highest IQ they can. Two parents with 120 IQs will have a higher range of possibility than two parents with 97 IQs.
Gene enhancement has the ability to close the IQ differential.
How would you envision what I mentioned in my comment working out? Do you think families with high IQ would agree to not do gene-editing for higher IQ while letting families with below average or average IQ select for higher IQs?
"How would you envision what I mentioned in my comment working out?"
I should have worded my response differently. Gene enhancement has the potential to reduce the IQ differential. But the point is not to make everyone have the same cognitive ability, but to raise everyone's IQ.
That seems fair, although wouldn't the process of raising everyone's IQ still lead to the gaps that exist today being conserved ( although now the difference won't be between 97 and 120, it will be between 107 and 130 and so forth)? The only way of closing the gaps( I'm not sure that I agree with it) would be a situation where those at the top can't select to increase their IQ through gene therapy, which of course would never happen because elites wouldn't accept this limitation.
"The only way of closing the gaps( I'm not sure that I agree with it) would be a situation where those at the top can't select to increase their IQ through gene therapy, which of course would never happen because elites wouldn't accept this limitation."
You seem overly concerned with the equality of intelligence. That is not a concern for me. I am looking for genetic enhancement to provide for the ascension of humanity.
the short sleep variants failed to produce more than trivial effects in weedon 2022 with abt 200k people https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36137075/
yea most of these associations need to be replicated