News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Comparing ancient and modern genomes for cognitive abilit... by gwern on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @11:57AM (#13765495)
I always regarded myself as being a left libertarian sort of type. My reaction to learning about individual differences being so profoundly driven by genetics - never mind racial differences - was simple: research and subsidize genetic engineering. For everyone. To the point of being free. Level the genetic playing field. There is not the slightest bit of justice, fairness, or economic optimality to many people being born with high genetic risk for stupidity, schizophrenia, heart attacks, or anything! Anymore than there is in being born with a silver spoon in your mouth or being born female. No different from Headstart or any other program; if we can do it safely and cost-effectively, we should.

If there are racial differences, then that simply means it would be more efficient to allocate more of those funds to people in that group. (Actually, if there are racial differences, this might even be good news; the massive efforts in the USA to close the black-white difference have largely failed over the past half-century, and I have more faith in genetic engineering becoming practical than I do in another half-century of trying the same thing suddenly succeeding. Wouldn't it be great if the black-white gap was just a few genes or insufficient iodine or something? We can fix that - all it would take is money and science! Maybe not even more than a few billions, chump change! Whereas if it's structural racism...)

Re:Comparing ancient and modern genomes for cognitive abilit... by redsummer on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @12:25PM (#13765888)
(Subsidising equality via the state doesn't sound 'libertarian', and Headstart has been ineffective, but I'll leave that aside)

I think your solution cannot happen because those with money and tech, and who don't have a cultural squeamishness with the idea, will get the genetic engineering first. The ultrarich. Probably the Chinese, maybe others. Then it will be a case of making the rest of the world amenable to these enhanced people. Elites don't want chaos and nor do they want anyone to threaten their dominance. So a functioning, intelligent, but malleable mass will be controlled by an elite who have the tech. Just as today the average joe doesn't have access to nuclear weapons.

Re:Comparing ancient and modern genomes for cognitive abilit... by gwern on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @01:03PM (#13766392)
I never said I was a doctrinaire libertarian and I think it's fine for the government to spend on things which pass a stringent cost-benefit test, which genetic engineering would be able to considering the many positive externalities; and I know Headstart doesn't work, but if it did.

"I think your solution cannot happen because those with money and tech, and who don't have a cultural squeamishness with the idea, will get the genetic engineering first. The ultrarich."

In some scenarios, not in others. With embryo selection, the gain is small enough that it will not create new elite classes with high solidarity, and in iterated/synthesis scenarios, an elite could try but the core technologies are widespread now and the end result gametes are easily stolen and replicated (imagine trying to do nuclear arms control if every single atomic bomb was walking around, having kids, and regularly shed skin cells which could be turned into new atomic bombs).

That said, this is of course good reason to oppose regulation, as regulatory capture is common and we already see a lot of self-serving hypocritical behavior by elites.

Re:Comparing ancient and modern genomes for cognitive abilit... by samirillian on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @02:24PM (#13767280)
So, eugenics. Foss eugenics. I'm viscerally repulsed by this, but, then again, enh.