I think once IVF + polygenic embryo screening/prediction becomes broadly used to aid in selecting healthier people, we will see the results swing in favour of things like selecting for intelligence.
The Orthodoxy of absolute human sameness will not survive widespread gene editing and embryo selection. If (1) certain demographics are overwhelmingly in favor of selecting or editing for socially valued traits and actually do it and (2) selection and editing successfully increase the propensity of genes associated with socially valued traits, then eventually those demographics will have more of the socially valued traits and it will be for genetic reasons. This will be undeniable for people who accept (1) and (2), even if all groups are exactly the same in the frequency of their genes associated with socially desirable traits at this very moment.
Imagine the French ban genetic enhancement and Indians embrace it. Imagine they start from exact genetic sameness on intelligence. Given some equal environment, imagine this is 100. If 50% of Indians select for intelligence and have an average gain of 30 points, while 0% of French select for intelligence. It will soon be the case that in that equal environment, the French will have an IQ of 100, and Indians will have an average IQ of 100 * 50% + 130 * 50% = 115. This difference will express itself in all the socioeconomic advantageous that high IQ confers. While this may be able to be banned within countries, it is unlikely to have a global ban.
> Given some equal environment, imagine this is 100.
If it is the loaded term Indian vs French, the IQ basis is already different (~80 compared to ~100). The problem with this line of thought is that other genetic factors, like personality, will have positive effect in so far as there is genetic diversity, or there is some kind of beneficial heterophily.
Catholics are an odd case. Abortion is explicitly prohibited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception” (CCC 2270); “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion” (CCC 2271); “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (CCC 2273). Despite this, 56% believe it should be legal in most cases which is more than white evangelical protestants [1]. Since the Catholic church is so explicit and does not leave interpretation up to the individual Bible readers, there isn't much theological wiggle room, which makes it odd. IVF is also explicitly condemned by the Catholic church and regarded as never acceptable. It seems many either don't fully know the church's teachings or don't really care enough. I think a lot of Catholics are that way.
It is likely traits of other Catholic beliefs are genetically correlated to both "pickiness" and conscientiousness, in a "selectivity starts not at copulation" kind of way. Weirdly enough this could relate to eugenics through mating selection, which Catholics should be fond of as picking people who are pious.
So young liberal Asian men from half of the "cradles of civilization"? And that their religious tendencies (Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, "materialism") are opposed to Buddhism, Hinduism, and Protestantism?
P.S. The autodidacts may have a point in this, and that eugenics are specifically a "tight" (low openness) and "collectivist" (low emotional stability) cultural trait as the stereotypical "farmer" (high pro-social traits). Might need to refine the culture map in relation to personality factors though. https://the-big-ger-picture.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-evolution-of-western-culture-and.html
It's a shame, since it seems like the only way the liberal fantasy of ending disparities could actually be achieved. It also seems like it may be the only hope for a brighter future for humanity in the long run, since it appears that modernity was the product of specific selection pressures on certain populations that modernity has subsequently abolished.
But I think it may be inevitable, and the more favorable attitudes in India and China are a hopeful sign. If they start doing it, and what everyone fears happens does happen: people feel pressured to do it out of fear their kids won't be able to compete otherwise (which seems especially likely for Indians and Chinese)... Eventually it will become obvious that Chinese and Indians are just better looking, smarter, healthier, more successful, etc. and the West will become a backwater, like the 3rd world, at which point people in the West will probably start changing their tune.
It always struck me as really dumb how so many people are like, "eugenics? ... OMG NAZIS!" Yes, eugenics has a bad name because it was in the past pursued with the only practical means that were then available, which were coercive (forced sterilization) or murderous (gas chambers) or just...weird (the program where young women were recruited to inseminated by SS officers). Forced sterilization and euthanasia are horrific for obvious reasons. It doesn't in any way follow that giving people the choice to make their own children more intelligent etc. with genetic engineering is somehow just like gas chambers or having secret police drag people away to get forcibly sterilized or raped. Nor does there seem to be any plausible way that doing one would somehow make the latter more likely to happen. (Other than requiring the admission that the principle behind the coercive policies was basically sound and that in principle they could be effective, despite being immoral.) Seriously, WTF is wrong with people's ability to think?
Rather depressing results. If you are enhancing a person and causing harm to no-one, then it's beyond me why anyone would oppose it. I was surprised that opposition was so strong in Japan. Maybe if people were more educated on heredity they would be more supportive of enhancement. But at any rate I do not believe that genetic editing for intelligence is anywhere near; the trait is too polygenic and the genes are highly pleiotropic. The easiest way to improve an additive trait like intelligence is through selective breeding.
For Japan, the hypothesis would be that their stated preference is different from their behavioral preference, seen through mating selection and likelihood of selective child abuses.
a huge pattern that jumps out at me from the first graph is that countries with more unequal innate human capital are more favorable towards biotech. India, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Russia are way more unequal than the median country on the list.
Eh. I wouldn't put too much stock in this polling one way or the other. You could probably get any answer you want by focusing on different aspects of eugenics or by phrasing the q differently. The reality is that the tech is coming and once in wide use will be universally respected.
I'm also not sure about the narrative you describe in terms of left and right wing. True, Sanger type progs were pro eugenic decades ago, but a more recent and current effect = Leon Kass type conservatives who don't want to mess with Nature and God's Plan.
Positive vs negative eugenics would be a good starting point. Positive genetics are more likely to be a Protestant, Dharmic, or Taoist trait (virtue-oriented individual behavioral change), whilst negative eugenics are more likely to be a Roman Catholic, Islamic, or Legalist trait (centralized governance with the usage of power).
I think once IVF + polygenic embryo screening/prediction becomes broadly used to aid in selecting healthier people, we will see the results swing in favour of things like selecting for intelligence.
The Orthodoxy of absolute human sameness will not survive widespread gene editing and embryo selection. If (1) certain demographics are overwhelmingly in favor of selecting or editing for socially valued traits and actually do it and (2) selection and editing successfully increase the propensity of genes associated with socially valued traits, then eventually those demographics will have more of the socially valued traits and it will be for genetic reasons. This will be undeniable for people who accept (1) and (2), even if all groups are exactly the same in the frequency of their genes associated with socially desirable traits at this very moment.
Imagine the French ban genetic enhancement and Indians embrace it. Imagine they start from exact genetic sameness on intelligence. Given some equal environment, imagine this is 100. If 50% of Indians select for intelligence and have an average gain of 30 points, while 0% of French select for intelligence. It will soon be the case that in that equal environment, the French will have an IQ of 100, and Indians will have an average IQ of 100 * 50% + 130 * 50% = 115. This difference will express itself in all the socioeconomic advantageous that high IQ confers. While this may be able to be banned within countries, it is unlikely to have a global ban.
> Given some equal environment, imagine this is 100.
If it is the loaded term Indian vs French, the IQ basis is already different (~80 compared to ~100). The problem with this line of thought is that other genetic factors, like personality, will have positive effect in so far as there is genetic diversity, or there is some kind of beneficial heterophily.
Catholics are an odd case. Abortion is explicitly prohibited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception” (CCC 2270); “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion” (CCC 2271); “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (CCC 2273). Despite this, 56% believe it should be legal in most cases which is more than white evangelical protestants [1]. Since the Catholic church is so explicit and does not leave interpretation up to the individual Bible readers, there isn't much theological wiggle room, which makes it odd. IVF is also explicitly condemned by the Catholic church and regarded as never acceptable. It seems many either don't fully know the church's teachings or don't really care enough. I think a lot of Catholics are that way.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/#CHAPTER-h-views-on-abortion-2021-a-detailed-look
As with contraception. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/09/28/4-very-few-americans-see-contraception-as-morally-wrong/ 8% of Catholics in 2016 see contraception as morally wrong, but the church is very clear on the matter (Onan story).
It is likely traits of other Catholic beliefs are genetically correlated to both "pickiness" and conscientiousness, in a "selectivity starts not at copulation" kind of way. Weirdly enough this could relate to eugenics through mating selection, which Catholics should be fond of as picking people who are pious.
What does 0.70 logits mean here? logit(0.7) = log(0.7 / (1 - 0.7)) = log(2.333) ≈ 0.847
It maps 0.7 to 1 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logit, whatever that means.
Probability of supporting eugenics mapped on age. But would it map *any* age to a probability of 0.7?
And 1 logit maps to a huge range of values...
So young liberal Asian men from half of the "cradles of civilization"? And that their religious tendencies (Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, "materialism") are opposed to Buddhism, Hinduism, and Protestantism?
If by Lewis' model of culture, then they are most likely the ones who are "multi-active", or emotionally sociable and non-meritocratic and non-principled types. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-lewis-model-2013-9 https://en.empowerment-coaching.com/post/cultural-types-the-lewis-model
P.S. The autodidacts may have a point in this, and that eugenics are specifically a "tight" (low openness) and "collectivist" (low emotional stability) cultural trait as the stereotypical "farmer" (high pro-social traits). Might need to refine the culture map in relation to personality factors though. https://the-big-ger-picture.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-evolution-of-western-culture-and.html
It's a shame, since it seems like the only way the liberal fantasy of ending disparities could actually be achieved. It also seems like it may be the only hope for a brighter future for humanity in the long run, since it appears that modernity was the product of specific selection pressures on certain populations that modernity has subsequently abolished.
But I think it may be inevitable, and the more favorable attitudes in India and China are a hopeful sign. If they start doing it, and what everyone fears happens does happen: people feel pressured to do it out of fear their kids won't be able to compete otherwise (which seems especially likely for Indians and Chinese)... Eventually it will become obvious that Chinese and Indians are just better looking, smarter, healthier, more successful, etc. and the West will become a backwater, like the 3rd world, at which point people in the West will probably start changing their tune.
It always struck me as really dumb how so many people are like, "eugenics? ... OMG NAZIS!" Yes, eugenics has a bad name because it was in the past pursued with the only practical means that were then available, which were coercive (forced sterilization) or murderous (gas chambers) or just...weird (the program where young women were recruited to inseminated by SS officers). Forced sterilization and euthanasia are horrific for obvious reasons. It doesn't in any way follow that giving people the choice to make their own children more intelligent etc. with genetic engineering is somehow just like gas chambers or having secret police drag people away to get forcibly sterilized or raped. Nor does there seem to be any plausible way that doing one would somehow make the latter more likely to happen. (Other than requiring the admission that the principle behind the coercive policies was basically sound and that in principle they could be effective, despite being immoral.) Seriously, WTF is wrong with people's ability to think?
Rather depressing results. If you are enhancing a person and causing harm to no-one, then it's beyond me why anyone would oppose it. I was surprised that opposition was so strong in Japan. Maybe if people were more educated on heredity they would be more supportive of enhancement. But at any rate I do not believe that genetic editing for intelligence is anywhere near; the trait is too polygenic and the genes are highly pleiotropic. The easiest way to improve an additive trait like intelligence is through selective breeding.
For Japan, the hypothesis would be that their stated preference is different from their behavioral preference, seen through mating selection and likelihood of selective child abuses.
a huge pattern that jumps out at me from the first graph is that countries with more unequal innate human capital are more favorable towards biotech. India, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Russia are way more unequal than the median country on the list.
Eh. I wouldn't put too much stock in this polling one way or the other. You could probably get any answer you want by focusing on different aspects of eugenics or by phrasing the q differently. The reality is that the tech is coming and once in wide use will be universally respected.
I'm also not sure about the narrative you describe in terms of left and right wing. True, Sanger type progs were pro eugenic decades ago, but a more recent and current effect = Leon Kass type conservatives who don't want to mess with Nature and God's Plan.
Positive vs negative eugenics would be a good starting point. Positive genetics are more likely to be a Protestant, Dharmic, or Taoist trait (virtue-oriented individual behavioral change), whilst negative eugenics are more likely to be a Roman Catholic, Islamic, or Legalist trait (centralized governance with the usage of power).