/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16013662
https://gwern.net/embryo-editing

>>15294038
>There is good evidence that existing genetic variants in the human population (i.e., alleles affecting intelligence that are found today in the collective world population, but not necessarily in a single person) can be combined to produce a phenotype which is far beyond anything yet seen in human history. This would not surprise an animal or plant breeder -- experiments on corn, cows, chickens, drosophila, etc. have shifted population means by many standard deviations relative to the original wild type. Take the case of John von Neumann, widely regarded as one of the greatest intellects in the 20th century, and a famous polymath. He made fundamental contributions in mathematics, physics, nuclear weapons research, computer architecture, game theory and automata theory. In addition to his abstract reasoning ability, von Neumann had formidable powers of mental calculation and a photographic memory. Genotypes exist that correspond to phenotypes as far beyond von Neumann as he was beyond a normal human. The quantitative argument for why there are many SD’s to be had from tuning genotypes is straightforward. Suppose variation in cognitive ability is 1. highly polygenic (i.e., controlled by N loci, where N is large, such as 10k), and 2. approximately linear (note the additive heritability of g is larger than the non-additive part).
>Then the population SD for the trait corresponds to an excess of roughly N^(1/2)vpositivevalleles (for simplicity we suppress dependence on minor allele frequency). A genius like von Neumann might be +6 SD, so would have roughly 6N^(1/2) more positive alleles than the average person (e.g.,∼600 extra positive alleles if N = 10k). But there are roughly +N^(1/2) SDs in phenotype (∼100 SDs in the case N ∼ 10k) to be had by an individual who has essentially all of the N positive alleles! As long as N^(1/2) >> 6, there is ample extant variation for selection to act on to produce a type superior to any that has existed before.

>>15117930
Where do you live? You probably have to go where the genetic laws aren't as strict.
Personally I advise to look up for Genomic Prediction/LifeViewor Dr. John Zhang.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-05-26/dna-testing-for-embryos-promises-to-predict-genetic-diseases
https://www.wired.com/story/genetic-screening-ivf-healthiest-embryos/

>>14862983
Biotech - Spacer-Nick and other tools already allow for the modification of pre-natal humans and the medicine is nearer to the transhuman design than other fields of study.

>>14544901
The corresponding ethical issues of genetic engineering are complex and deserve serious attention in what may be a relatively short interval before these capabilities become a reality. Each society will decide for itself where to draw the line on human genetic engineering, but we can expect a diversity of perspectives. Almost certainly, some countries will allow genetic engineering, thereby opening the door for global elites who can afford to travel for access to reproductive technology. As with most technologies, the rich and powerful will be the first beneficiaries. Eventually, though, I believe many countries will not only legalize human genetic engineering, but even make it a (voluntary) part of their national healthcare systems. The alternative would be inequality of a kind never before experienced in human history.
I believe that in the end all will benefit from such universal program, guaranteeing everyone being born healthy, fit and intelligent.
Another question what should be the limit of the genetic engineering, and I in my opinion we should only modify non-positional traits.
A positional good benefit you only because others lack it. Height may be an advantage in men, but if everybody were three inches taller, nobody would be better off. Attractiveness may be another example of a positional good. A gain for one person implies a relative loss for others. I would contrast that with a trait like health. Your life is better when you are healthy, even if others are also healthy. Cognitive enhancements are a complex topic, but they have aspects that are intrinsically valuable. It is good if we can understand the world better.

>>12705939
The cost for such gene edits will also be very low and save a lot of money, so that it is imaginable that such treatments will be part of the health care system as the goverment could save a lot of tax money they would otherwise would have to spend on bad health, low intelligent people and mentally ill.

>>12670923
Eugenics bad cuz morals, its more of a grey area like abortion
Crispr is shit, cant really edit much and we still dont know what we can edit and not fuck shit up
Pic related is a general overview of emryo editing there is out there