Embryo selection is the killing of a human being. It is highly immoral. It will hasten the demise of what's left of Christendom, which always was the West. God is not mocked.
Given that Human embryos can split (identical twins) or combine (chimeras) and God made them to do that I am pretty sure he doesn't believe embryos are humans (unless you think identical twins have only one soul). Also he says as much literally in the bible, "I knew you BEFORE you where in the womb," implying preventing IFV is killing someone if a human would have come to exist from the process. Even the greatest Catholic philosophers didn't believe this nonsenses (see Thomas Aquinas). It was made up by Pope Pious the 9th (the guy who ripped penis off statutes).
Not that any of this matters because due to super low ferity rates Catholics are going extinct.
You'll only get a few embryos from a given egg selection, so the possible effects of embryo selection don't seem that great? There may also be morphological reasons for selecting a given embryo that would increase likelihood of live birth that would trump any polygenic score concerns. Or am I missing something?
Yep my wife just did an egg collection at 34. She got 16 eggs but she has pcos so they aren't all of great quality. We ended up only getting 2 usable embryos and of those one was faster growing so is the clearer choice for implantation. If we have to do another collection we'd try ICSI and hopefully have a better embryo yield.
Still think these articles about the technologies might give people a false sense of the choices you actually get with IVF. Most people are just aiming for a healthy live birth!
I dont like developments in embryo selection. Certain non-western societies are more willing to use embryo selection than western, which means this gives ammo to people who hate us.
You better start convincing the Westerners then. I think this will come fast, as it did for regular IVF. No one wants to be left behind, and non-Westerns in general are too poor to use this.
"Certain non-western societies are more willing to use embryo selection than western, which means this gives ammo to people who hate us."
First of all, I do not believe East Asians hate us, despite the efforts of those who control the West to instill hatred across the planet. Second, the non-Western societies you speak of are more forward-looking. Much of the West is hindered by religious dogma.
One issue is that people using embryo selection and gene editing will probably wish to select only for physical traits and intelligence (can you imagine parents selecting for greater humility or compassion?). We might end up with intelligent people who do not have the prosocial traits usually correlated with high intelligence. What could be more dangerous than that?
Also, selfish take warning: We regular humans are going to eventually end up in the dust, lol.
It is sort of lame too, in a life fulfillment kind of sense. If you are a couple that knows about these developments, for example, you might just delay having kids until way later, just to wait for better technology that can give you way smarter kids or something.
10 euploid embryos is definitely not "typical" for a couple, that's very optimistic. Of course there's individual variation and high responders but the average for a 30-35 year old woman is 2-5 per cycle and it gets worse with age. That will definitely attenuate the results to some degree.
I don't get this firm's estimate that if the parents average 115 IQ, then the embryos average 115 IQ as well, which seems high. Your calculation takes into account regression toward the mean, but their widget doesn't seem to.
"The mean IQ you put in is actually the genotypic mean IQ of the parents (as we state) as we didn't want to get into the complexities of modeling regression to the mean in this widget, although we do of course model regression to the mean in our customer reports."
Okay, but leaving "the complexities of modeling regression to the mean" to the casual user of the widget to deal with seems guaranteed to mislead a lot of people.
Right, and this was a potential worry in deciding to display the IQ gains as we have. However, this approach precludes the needs to specify the heritability controlling the degree of regression, which is still a point of particular controversy among skeptical statistical geneticists in this area.
I was going to post a screenshot of the IQ widget as the most broadly interesting aspect, but then I realized I can't because of their failure to deal with regression toward to the mean.
The current work focuses on the broad improvements we've made to PGSs for disease and highlights the substantial risk reductions achievable through their application in embryo screening. Surely that is exciting enough as it is!
We've done the same for our IQ PGS and will shortly release its validation paper containing several screenshot-able figures.
Embryo selection is the killing of a human being. It is highly immoral. It will hasten the demise of what's left of Christendom, which always was the West. God is not mocked.
In autistic Catholic philosophy, yes. Not really though.
Interesting phrase: Autistic Catholic philosophy. Actually, just Catholic morality, God's morality. God's structure of the universe. You'll see.
Given that Human embryos can split (identical twins) or combine (chimeras) and God made them to do that I am pretty sure he doesn't believe embryos are humans (unless you think identical twins have only one soul). Also he says as much literally in the bible, "I knew you BEFORE you where in the womb," implying preventing IFV is killing someone if a human would have come to exist from the process. Even the greatest Catholic philosophers didn't believe this nonsenses (see Thomas Aquinas). It was made up by Pope Pious the 9th (the guy who ripped penis off statutes).
Not that any of this matters because due to super low ferity rates Catholics are going extinct.
You'll only get a few embryos from a given egg selection, so the possible effects of embryo selection don't seem that great? There may also be morphological reasons for selecting a given embryo that would increase likelihood of live birth that would trump any polygenic score concerns. Or am I missing something?
You can look up typical results, but there is a lot of between woman variation. I know some 30 year olds who got 20 eggs.
Yes, morphological scores are routinely used by IVF staff. https://www.asrm.org/asrm-academy/asrm-academy-on-the-go/embryo-data-grading--evaluation/grading-scales/ You will want 6AA.
Yep my wife just did an egg collection at 34. She got 16 eggs but she has pcos so they aren't all of great quality. We ended up only getting 2 usable embryos and of those one was faster growing so is the clearer choice for implantation. If we have to do another collection we'd try ICSI and hopefully have a better embryo yield.
Still think these articles about the technologies might give people a false sense of the choices you actually get with IVF. Most people are just aiming for a healthy live birth!
The true revolutionary breakthrough will come with genetic enhancement. This will provide a serious effort for the ascendency of humanity.
I dont like developments in embryo selection. Certain non-western societies are more willing to use embryo selection than western, which means this gives ammo to people who hate us.
You better start convincing the Westerners then. I think this will come fast, as it did for regular IVF. No one wants to be left behind, and non-Westerns in general are too poor to use this.
IVF is dysgenic, though.
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/is-ivf-dysgenic
It allows people to breed who would otherwise not be able to. It overrides natural selection. It cannot be anything but dysgenic.
"Certain non-western societies are more willing to use embryo selection than western, which means this gives ammo to people who hate us."
First of all, I do not believe East Asians hate us, despite the efforts of those who control the West to instill hatred across the planet. Second, the non-Western societies you speak of are more forward-looking. Much of the West is hindered by religious dogma.
One issue is that people using embryo selection and gene editing will probably wish to select only for physical traits and intelligence (can you imagine parents selecting for greater humility or compassion?). We might end up with intelligent people who do not have the prosocial traits usually correlated with high intelligence. What could be more dangerous than that?
Also, selfish take warning: We regular humans are going to eventually end up in the dust, lol.
It is sort of lame too, in a life fulfillment kind of sense. If you are a couple that knows about these developments, for example, you might just delay having kids until way later, just to wait for better technology that can give you way smarter kids or something.
10 euploid embryos is definitely not "typical" for a couple, that's very optimistic. Of course there's individual variation and high responders but the average for a 30-35 year old woman is 2-5 per cycle and it gets worse with age. That will definitely attenuate the results to some degree.
Great news. It is always good to learn of advancements to improve the human genome.
You assume we can improve faster than genes can mutate and evolve. It smacks of hubris to me.
"You assume we can improve faster than genes can mutate and evolve. It smacks of hubris to me."
It is not hubris, just a fact. Humanity can improve either through selective breeding or genetic engineering.
I've read somewhere else that increasing the number of embryos doesn't result in a higher IQ child due to diminishing returns. Is this true?
Did it have to slant rhyme with 'heresy'?
I don't get this firm's estimate that if the parents average 115 IQ, then the embryos average 115 IQ as well, which seems high. Your calculation takes into account regression toward the mean, but their widget doesn't seem to.
What am I overlooking?
This was a deliberate simplification for the purposes of this display: https://x.com/alextisyoung/status/1950607326060429517?s=61
Thanks.
"The mean IQ you put in is actually the genotypic mean IQ of the parents (as we state) as we didn't want to get into the complexities of modeling regression to the mean in this widget, although we do of course model regression to the mean in our customer reports."
Okay, but leaving "the complexities of modeling regression to the mean" to the casual user of the widget to deal with seems guaranteed to mislead a lot of people.
Right, and this was a potential worry in deciding to display the IQ gains as we have. However, this approach precludes the needs to specify the heritability controlling the degree of regression, which is still a point of particular controversy among skeptical statistical geneticists in this area.
I was going to post a screenshot of the IQ widget as the most broadly interesting aspect, but then I realized I can't because of their failure to deal with regression toward to the mean.
The current work focuses on the broad improvements we've made to PGSs for disease and highlights the substantial risk reductions achievable through their application in embryo screening. Surely that is exciting enough as it is!
We've done the same for our IQ PGS and will shortly release its validation paper containing several screenshot-able figures.
OK, but why not incorporate regression toward the mean?
It is. Look at the tool tip.
Prestigious 🥰