Basically, realistically, only through extensive gene editing to alter the polygenic score. Something highly unlikely to happen any time soon because of how poorly we understand the possible consequences of egregious minor changes, much less major changes to a trait that underlies our very consciousness and identity. A polygenic trait like intelligence can rely on more than a thousand different genes that can all interact in complex ways known as combinatorial epistasis or epistatic complexity—a form of combinatorial explosion that arises when hundreds or thousands of genes contribute to a complex trait like human cognition. These genes don’t act independently or additively; instead, they interact in highly non-linear ways. Each gene can influence and be influenced by three, four, or more others, which themselves have cascading effects across the genome. This creates a web of interdependencies that scales exponentially or even hyper-exponentially as more genes are involved.
Because of this immense complexity, we currently lack the computational tools or biological insight to model these interactions with any confidence. We simply cannot predict the downstream effects of altering even a single component in such a system, let alone attempting to redesign or enhance cognition through direct genomic manipulation. The risks of unintended consequences—neurological, behavioral, or otherwise—are profound and completely unknowable at this stage.
For that reason, any effort to edit the genome to modify human intelligence would be considered deeply unethical, both scientifically and morally. No reputable institution or regulatory body in the modern Western world would allow it. Before anything remotely like that could even be considered, it would require decades of research, extensive functional genomics, and untold volumes of animal testing to begin mapping out the risk landscape.
If such experiments were ever conducted in the near future, it would almost certainly happen illegally or in a country with looser oversight and weaker ethical constraints—for instance, China, which has already demonstrated a willingness to bypass international norms in human gene editing. But within Western nations, such interventions are not only unthinkable but flatly illegal and prohibited under current bioethics and human research standards.
Non-genetic interventions outside of basic education and nutrition make no significant difference on adult IQ and it remains constrained by your genetic ceiling.
As we’ve already discussed, gene editing is off the table for the foreseeable future due to the extreme complexity and ethical concerns involved. So setting that aside, the short answer is that there are no known or likely alternatives coming in the next 20–40 years that could meaningfully or safely enhance human intelligence.
Nootropics and pharmaceutical stimulants like modafinil or Adderall can boost alertness, focus, or short-term working memory, but they don’t raise baseline intelligence. Their effects are temporary, task-specific, and often come with side effects or diminishing returns over time.
Tech-based approaches like brain-computer interfaces (e.g., Neuralink) are still in their infancy. While they may eventually help restore function in people with injuries or neurological conditions, the leap to enhancing cognition in healthy individuals is huge and unlikely to happen within our lifetimes. The same goes for neurostimulation techniques like tDCS or TMS—research is inconsistent, and even the best studies show only minor, short-lived improvements in very specific tasks.
Even using AI tools as cognitive aids—like digital memory extension or advanced tutoring—may improve productivity or learning efficiency, but they don’t actually make you smarter. They’re external tools, not internal enhancements.
So realistically, there’s no safe, legal, or effective way on the horizon to boost innate cognitive ability in healthy humans. We’re stuck with what we’ve got, and any meaningful advances would require breakthroughs far beyond what’s currently possible.
So apologies for me asking stupid questions but why isn't the government billions into genes research this seems far more important in the long term for helping humans which is the states role
Great article, David. The one minor thing that got under my skin a little was the orchestra analogy. Sound is logarithmic, not linear. So eg 10 people playing slightly louder would only increase the apparent sound level by something like 2x rather than 10x that individual increase.
I found the stride length analogy to be perfect, even if it doesn't have the same artistic panache as the orchestra.
I tried to think of other additive analogies, but nothing really better than your runner off the top of my head.
I asked the AI and this analogy stood out as both additive and artistically beautiful:
"Each thread in a tapestry adds only a sliver of color—but when thousands of threads are aligned just right, a complex, coherent image emerges. If just one thread changes color, the difference is imperceptible. But if thousands of them shift slightly, the whole image transforms."
Why it works: Additive, intuitive, beautiful. It gets across both accumulation and pattern, just like polygenic traits.
Especially strong for traits like IQ or personality, where what emerges is qualitative from many quantitative increments.
Thanks and yes, the orchestra analogy isn't the best, but it has visual appeal. The stride length analogy is better. The threads analogy works well too. I want to do another post based on these analogies to explain the concept further
Can we raise IQ eventually then or what's the current hurdles apologies if it sounds stupid I'm not a geneticist
Basically, realistically, only through extensive gene editing to alter the polygenic score. Something highly unlikely to happen any time soon because of how poorly we understand the possible consequences of egregious minor changes, much less major changes to a trait that underlies our very consciousness and identity. A polygenic trait like intelligence can rely on more than a thousand different genes that can all interact in complex ways known as combinatorial epistasis or epistatic complexity—a form of combinatorial explosion that arises when hundreds or thousands of genes contribute to a complex trait like human cognition. These genes don’t act independently or additively; instead, they interact in highly non-linear ways. Each gene can influence and be influenced by three, four, or more others, which themselves have cascading effects across the genome. This creates a web of interdependencies that scales exponentially or even hyper-exponentially as more genes are involved.
Because of this immense complexity, we currently lack the computational tools or biological insight to model these interactions with any confidence. We simply cannot predict the downstream effects of altering even a single component in such a system, let alone attempting to redesign or enhance cognition through direct genomic manipulation. The risks of unintended consequences—neurological, behavioral, or otherwise—are profound and completely unknowable at this stage.
For that reason, any effort to edit the genome to modify human intelligence would be considered deeply unethical, both scientifically and morally. No reputable institution or regulatory body in the modern Western world would allow it. Before anything remotely like that could even be considered, it would require decades of research, extensive functional genomics, and untold volumes of animal testing to begin mapping out the risk landscape.
If such experiments were ever conducted in the near future, it would almost certainly happen illegally or in a country with looser oversight and weaker ethical constraints—for instance, China, which has already demonstrated a willingness to bypass international norms in human gene editing. But within Western nations, such interventions are not only unthinkable but flatly illegal and prohibited under current bioethics and human research standards.
Non-genetic interventions outside of basic education and nutrition make no significant difference on adult IQ and it remains constrained by your genetic ceiling.
What about if we could successfully sequence sperm without destroying them and then use IVF to create an embryo.
Well i'm never gonna reverse aging is there anything you predict might come out for the future that could enhance neural Intelligence on an adult ?
As we’ve already discussed, gene editing is off the table for the foreseeable future due to the extreme complexity and ethical concerns involved. So setting that aside, the short answer is that there are no known or likely alternatives coming in the next 20–40 years that could meaningfully or safely enhance human intelligence.
Nootropics and pharmaceutical stimulants like modafinil or Adderall can boost alertness, focus, or short-term working memory, but they don’t raise baseline intelligence. Their effects are temporary, task-specific, and often come with side effects or diminishing returns over time.
Tech-based approaches like brain-computer interfaces (e.g., Neuralink) are still in their infancy. While they may eventually help restore function in people with injuries or neurological conditions, the leap to enhancing cognition in healthy individuals is huge and unlikely to happen within our lifetimes. The same goes for neurostimulation techniques like tDCS or TMS—research is inconsistent, and even the best studies show only minor, short-lived improvements in very specific tasks.
Even using AI tools as cognitive aids—like digital memory extension or advanced tutoring—may improve productivity or learning efficiency, but they don’t actually make you smarter. They’re external tools, not internal enhancements.
So realistically, there’s no safe, legal, or effective way on the horizon to boost innate cognitive ability in healthy humans. We’re stuck with what we’ve got, and any meaningful advances would require breakthroughs far beyond what’s currently possible.
So apologies for me asking stupid questions but why isn't the government billions into genes research this seems far more important in the long term for helping humans which is the states role
Great article, David. The one minor thing that got under my skin a little was the orchestra analogy. Sound is logarithmic, not linear. So eg 10 people playing slightly louder would only increase the apparent sound level by something like 2x rather than 10x that individual increase.
I found the stride length analogy to be perfect, even if it doesn't have the same artistic panache as the orchestra.
I tried to think of other additive analogies, but nothing really better than your runner off the top of my head.
I asked the AI and this analogy stood out as both additive and artistically beautiful:
"Each thread in a tapestry adds only a sliver of color—but when thousands of threads are aligned just right, a complex, coherent image emerges. If just one thread changes color, the difference is imperceptible. But if thousands of them shift slightly, the whole image transforms."
Why it works: Additive, intuitive, beautiful. It gets across both accumulation and pattern, just like polygenic traits.
Especially strong for traits like IQ or personality, where what emerges is qualitative from many quantitative increments.
Thanks and yes, the orchestra analogy isn't the best, but it has visual appeal. The stride length analogy is better. The threads analogy works well too. I want to do another post based on these analogies to explain the concept further
But is it increase able ?