I suspect it will be. We are already detecting genetic illnesses, and most of the scientists working on these problems with the goal of bettering human existence.

I won't make any assumptions about you, but I've suffered due to the poorly constructed features of the human genetic structure failing. My life would be much better if those could be fixed.

Same here. I was born ugly, so bring on genetic enhancement

I'm not sure if you're joking or not (it did make me chuckle), but as dystopian as it sounds, I would prefer to live in a world where everyone is beautiful, since it would eliminate barriers for less attractive folks, and eliminate advantages for the more attractive ones. Of course, if we do ever learn how to change our physical appearance with genetics, the fashion industry will just change the definition of "beautiful" every five years anyway.

I was half-joking, but you do have a point. Nothing guarantees the standards of beauty will remain the same.

A lot of the factors have been very stable for a long time and are unlikely to change too much, e.g. symmetry, hair and skin in good condition, etc.

Haven't you seen The Fairly OddParents S1E12 "The Same Game"?

I’m flagging this for the racism of “inner city kids” and their supposed lack of intelligence.

I reject the premise: I don't think it is possible to predict intelligence accurately from DNA. While some degree of intelligence is heritable, perhaps even a substantial degree, environmental factors still play a big role in intelligence. A poor prenatal environment, malnutrition, toxins like lead, and disease all negatively impact intelligence, none of which you could measure or account for from just DNA.

But let's suppose this hypothetical test also accounts for environmental factors, and it can even calculate what the child's future intelligence would be based on how much financial support is provided. I don't think such a thing is actually possible, but I won't fight the hypothetical. Then I would say to allocate the money to provide the best net increase in intelligence: prioritize those with the most IQ points gained per dollar. I'd rather get 10 kids from 80 IQ to 100 IQ than 1 kid from 80 IQ to 140 IQ.

Though I think you'll find that, if the goal is improving the intelligence of the average population, putting funds into prenatal care and lead abatement programs will probably have the same impact for a lot less money than college scholarships.

I don't think you're very informed on the current state of IQ research (which is totally fine, not many people are, it's a very taboo subject). Perhaps you would gain from reading a bit on the subject (wikipedia has good articles on IQ). But I'll try to address your points.

>I reject the premise: I don't think it is possible to predict intelligence accurately from DNA. While some degree of intelligence is heritable, perhaps even a substantial degree, environmental factors still play a big role in intelligence. A poor prenatal environment, malnutrition, toxins like lead, and disease all negatively impact intelligence, none of which you could measure or account for from just DNA

That's true, but the degree of heritability here is important. If intelligence was 10 percent heritable, then I would agree that trying to predict intelligence from DNA would be an absurd endeavor since most of the variance in intelligence would be caused by environmental factors.

But in fact, most recent studies converge towards the fact that IQ is 80 percent heritable. This leaves a lot of wiggle room for the 20 percent of environmental factors to either increase or decrease this genetic component, but I think you really overestimate the effect of environmental factors. Intelligence is predominantly determined by genes, with the environment having mild influences. In the USA they are especially mild since most children thankfully do not grow up starving or suffering from tropical parasites.

>Then I would say to allocate the money to provide the best net increase in intelligence

You can't influence intelligence through education. Study after study has shown that effect of education on adult IQ is exactly zero. The point would not be to increase a kid's intelligence, but rather to identify kids with potential and transfer them to an environment where they could flourish.

>Though I think you'll find that, if the goal is improving the intelligence of the average population, putting funds into prenatal care and lead abatement programs will probably have the same impact for a lot less money than college scholarships.

Oh definitely, my hypothetical scenario would not increase the average intelligence in the least, that was not the point of it. I agree that prenatal care and policies for a clean environment would probably raise the general intelligence.

I am aware of the current state of IQ research, and I think you overstate some of the conclusions. The biggest is that heritability of IQ is 80%, but that does not mean that it is entirely the consequences of genetics. Parents raise their children, and thus affect their child's environment, both in the womb and early life. That can't be accounted for in DNA.

Yes. Who said those with the highest IQ should be educated with priority?

If anything, those with lowest IQs could use quality education some more...

Low IQ people can only be educated to the extent of their abilities. If anything, they need specialized education which is more rote-learning based and slower than that of the general population.

Maybe you think that education increases intelligence? Education increases intelligence about as much as playing basketball makes you taller.

You'd be surprised.

"A new meta-analysis blends the results of 28 studies that all took measures to mitigate this problem. Based on data from more than 600,000 participants, all told, psychologists Stuart Ritchie and Elliot Tucker-Drob have arrived at a rough estimate of how much an added year of education lifted participants’ IQ scores, on average: between 1 and 5 points."

"The new report does reaffirm the conclusion of psychologists that intelligence—despite being heavily influenced by genetics—is subject to change. The public may not yet be on the same page, according to Ritchie, despite previous research reviews in tune with his paper. “I think the idea that IQ is completely set in stone is still hanging around,” he says. “I think, in this case, we have some of the strongest evidence that it’s not.”"

> would you oppose an NGO whose mission statement would be to administer this test to low income inner city kids, and offer scholarships or vouchers to good schools to those exhibiting the highest "genetic IQ"?

I'd think it was flawed even before any ethical considerations, since the environmental factors that the poor tend to be more exposed to that lead to downward deviations from genetic potential have had significant impact before schooling starts (in many cases even in utero), and school performance numbers today basically just reflect the student body (and in very large part the engagement and socioeconomic background of the parents) they are dealt more than outcome differences produced by the school. So, mostly, you'd be spending money to give kids a longer commute.

> since the environmental factors that the poor tend to be more exposed to that lead to downward deviations from genetic potential have had significant impact before schooling starts (in many cases even in utero),

It's true that adverse environmental conditions can lower IQ, but not whole standards of deviation. There are many people who grew up dirt poor and yet managed to achieve academically, which if intelligence was really irreparably impaired by a poor environment would not be possible.

> and school performance numbers today basically just reflect the student body (and in very large part the engagement and socioeconomic background of the parents) they are dealt more than outcome differences produced by the school

Which is exactly why a genetic test would be more accurate! It would not take into account differences due to quality of schooling.

> Which is exactly why a genetic test would be more accurate!

Accurate at...what?

They'd be less accurate at measuring IQ than actual IQ tests, and they'd be less accurate than IQ tests plus evaluating parental socioeconomic background at predicting academic performance.

I mean this is basically done now, but with standardized testing as a proxy for what a "genetic IQ" would measure better.

That said, I don't think it will ever catch on because the associations with eugenics and the like is too strong.

Not entirely true, standardized testing kind of breaks down for really low income populations. It's a good proxy for a population living in a functional environment and attending school regularly, but a poor one in highly dysfunctional environments.

On the contrary; given education's effect on fertility, you'd want to offer scholarships to those with the lowest "genetic iq."

Correlation does not imply causation.