One of the defining characteristics of aristocracies throughout history is their belief in their hereditary birthright to rule; whether through their descent from the Sun God, or their documented pedigree reaching back to Norman nobility, or their membership in the Brahmin caste. Whether or not this tech works as advertised (I personally have my doubts), it's absolutely 100% being set up as a legitimating signifier of nobility for our not-so-brave new world.
Genetic screening for illnesses and the like is a big plus, but "Gattaca babies" does give people a gut revulsion to the process - perhaps its the element of chance and the trial and tribulation of childbirth that give our relations the meaning they have, as opposed to tailoring our descendants to a checklist and then "scrapping" the product if it doesn't measure up.
Relatively speaking, not every fertilisation ends in a viable embryo, women have a lot of unseen miscarriages where the body already terminates a non-viable embryo on its own criteria in the first trimester. If we continue to tinker with the system outside of the natural processes, do we not risk the situation where future humans won't be able to conceive naturally, due to how atrophied those abilities become?
Also, the element of chance in natural reproduction ensures that we do not have a permanent case of genetic nobility, where society starts to separate into two, biologically separate layers - it spells nothing but instability.
Our opinions on genetic screening are pretty much irrelevant. Trump's and Musk's are too. The reason is that the incentives to cheat on any protocol against such screening are massive and, more importantly, have the positive feedback cycle that gives any good engineer nightmares. Basically the more cheating, the more incentive to cheat. There's no stable Schelling point against preimplantation genetic diagnosis available. It's been used for years now to prevent passing on Tay Sachs with pretty much no opposition at all. Now that it can be used to effectively inspect the attribute generating function of a number of potential implanted embryos, there's no bright line rule available that is going to have overwhelming consensus support.
The dividing line is going to be whether we have individual choice or “state mandated genetics”. I don’t know about you but the idea of a career bureaucrat making proclamations on genetics is a much more terrifying thought.
It will be an AI system whose rulings on the matter will be inscrutable even if it generates reasons for that ruling along with the ruling itself, not an actual human bureaucrat who decides. Might be a human who tells it to decide or not, but not a human making the decision or analysis.
There are all sorts of dystopian possibilities. One is just that preimplantation genetic diagnosis gets better and any child born as a result of it is basically getting the best of 30 or so 'rolls' of the dice. That's a massive disadvantage to any child who is born otherwise as anyone with a reasonable number of biological children can attest.
Another possibility is that the process is banned entirely except for serious remediation (like Tay Sachs and similarly impactive things) but that a fair number cheat, so to speak.
Yet another is that the State chooses the die roll, so to speak, and it's mandatory. There are plenty of dystopic options.
Another dystopic possibility is that over generations most people lose the ability to conceive naturally, because in creating children in labs we remove selection for fertility, which is possibly the most important trait of all for our continuity as a species.
And think of all the things that go into fertility: physical attractiveness, reproductive health, immune health, sexual function and much more...
A world without selection for fertility would literally be uglier, sicker and less sexy. Probably a lot less fun and passionate as well. That would be a real dystopia.
Who would willingly self-domesticate? Terrible idea.
I personally know people who did genetic screening of embryos. Didn't turn out all that well...
I'm advising my kids to avoid pairing up with artificials. I know, that sounds horrible and mean, but there are too many questions about fitness when the people were made in labs and conceived unnaturally.
Naturally conceived and born is the best choice for continuity.
One of the defining characteristics of aristocracies throughout history is their belief in their hereditary birthright to rule; whether through their descent from the Sun God, or their documented pedigree reaching back to Norman nobility, or their membership in the Brahmin caste. Whether or not this tech works as advertised (I personally have my doubts), it's absolutely 100% being set up as a legitimating signifier of nobility for our not-so-brave new world.
Very frightening
We are lying to ourselves if we think Trumpism or Muskism or whatever follows will be a Christian utopia.
It will be different from the present and probably better than our ancien regime, but like all "Cities of Man" it will be fallen and evil in its own pernicious ways, as I attempt to argue here: https://grainofwheat.substack.com/p/the-future-is-muddle-pilled?r=1mcpmt
Genetic screening for illnesses and the like is a big plus, but "Gattaca babies" does give people a gut revulsion to the process - perhaps its the element of chance and the trial and tribulation of childbirth that give our relations the meaning they have, as opposed to tailoring our descendants to a checklist and then "scrapping" the product if it doesn't measure up.
Relatively speaking, not every fertilisation ends in a viable embryo, women have a lot of unseen miscarriages where the body already terminates a non-viable embryo on its own criteria in the first trimester. If we continue to tinker with the system outside of the natural processes, do we not risk the situation where future humans won't be able to conceive naturally, due to how atrophied those abilities become?
Also, the element of chance in natural reproduction ensures that we do not have a permanent case of genetic nobility, where society starts to separate into two, biologically separate layers - it spells nothing but instability.
Our opinions on genetic screening are pretty much irrelevant. Trump's and Musk's are too. The reason is that the incentives to cheat on any protocol against such screening are massive and, more importantly, have the positive feedback cycle that gives any good engineer nightmares. Basically the more cheating, the more incentive to cheat. There's no stable Schelling point against preimplantation genetic diagnosis available. It's been used for years now to prevent passing on Tay Sachs with pretty much no opposition at all. Now that it can be used to effectively inspect the attribute generating function of a number of potential implanted embryos, there's no bright line rule available that is going to have overwhelming consensus support.
The dividing line is going to be whether we have individual choice or “state mandated genetics”. I don’t know about you but the idea of a career bureaucrat making proclamations on genetics is a much more terrifying thought.
It will be an AI system whose rulings on the matter will be inscrutable even if it generates reasons for that ruling along with the ruling itself, not an actual human bureaucrat who decides. Might be a human who tells it to decide or not, but not a human making the decision or analysis.
There are all sorts of dystopian possibilities. One is just that preimplantation genetic diagnosis gets better and any child born as a result of it is basically getting the best of 30 or so 'rolls' of the dice. That's a massive disadvantage to any child who is born otherwise as anyone with a reasonable number of biological children can attest.
Another possibility is that the process is banned entirely except for serious remediation (like Tay Sachs and similarly impactive things) but that a fair number cheat, so to speak.
Yet another is that the State chooses the die roll, so to speak, and it's mandatory. There are plenty of dystopic options.
Another dystopic possibility is that over generations most people lose the ability to conceive naturally, because in creating children in labs we remove selection for fertility, which is possibly the most important trait of all for our continuity as a species.
And think of all the things that go into fertility: physical attractiveness, reproductive health, immune health, sexual function and much more...
A world without selection for fertility would literally be uglier, sicker and less sexy. Probably a lot less fun and passionate as well. That would be a real dystopia.
Who would willingly self-domesticate? Terrible idea.
I personally know people who did genetic screening of embryos. Didn't turn out all that well...
I'm advising my kids to avoid pairing up with artificials. I know, that sounds horrible and mean, but there are too many questions about fitness when the people were made in labs and conceived unnaturally.
Naturally conceived and born is the best choice for continuity.
Wow, disturbing.
IVF and genetic selection is awesome. Probably one of the greatest goods humanity will ever see.
Opposing it is a terrible evil.
What if it’s state mandated. What if the state decided what genetics you are allowed to have?