Hacker News Reader

Comment by Emma_Goldman | Hacker News Reader

I agree that when the genetic markers of intelligence become better understood and gene-editing becomes cheaper, balance-of-power considerations will tend over time to push states to sanction gene-editing.

Two other options though:

(i) states will realise that a global competition in human enhancement is collectively irrational, and proscribe it through a robust international convention, e.g. as they have with chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons through the non-proliferation treaty

(ii) states will sanction, pressure - and even attack - those who launch mass human enhancement programmes, e.g. as they sometimes do with countries breaking out of the non-proliferation regime

View on HN

i) states will realise that a global competition in human enhancement is collectively irrational, and proscribe it through a robust international convention, e.g. as they have with chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons through the non-proliferation treaty

(ii) states will sanction, pressure - and even attack - those who launch mass human enhancement programmes, e.g. as they sometimes do with countries breaking out of the non-proliferation regime

Possible, but I think this will be very hard, as it is ultimately a knowledge problem. Biology is like software in a way.

In the limit, I think we will know the causal variants (which we don't know now it is not necessary for selection but is for genetic engineering) and then it will be difficult to contain such information or capabilities.

Regardless, China does not appear to be interested in playing that game. As long as this is the case, the point is moot.

>"It will be difficult to contain such information or capabilities."

But it is not the information that would be proscribed. The information by itself is harmless.

A state-sanctioned human enhancement programme would be a huge health and infrastructural commitment.

There is no way that a state could do this on a large scale and evade detection.

The difference is that unlike nuclear weapons you won't get broad majority support that this technology shouldn't be widely adopted.

When genetic therapies allow underperforming kids at schools to increase their test scores, or small kids to grow taller and play basketball with their peers, you'll have parents rioting to get those therapies for their kids.

It's not even in the same ballpark as chemical weapons. Everyone can agree chemical weapons are bad. Nobody is protesting in the street demanding their legalization. People who can benefit from gene therapy will be highly motivated and politically active.

Speaking only for myself, if you want to leave your kids behind that's fine but I'll pay every penny I have for them to have every advantage possible.

I think there's a difference between a gene-editing programme focused on giving everyone the genetic basis of a decently healthy life, and one that goes beyond that and has major geopolitical consequences. It's the latter that risks spiralling into a global bioengineering arms race, and which states might want to proscribe.

Do you want to live in a world where some societies are genetically superior to others, or where there's a constant pressure to upgrade the human species as quickly and to the greatest advantage possible?

It's interesting that you use an arms race framing for this, rather than a scientific one.

Let me ask you this. Universities and private schooling give a constant pressure for families to provide the best possible education for their kids, leading to constant competition for the best education since that gives a huge advantage in the job market over everyone else.

Why haven't we banned universities and private schooling then, since it gives just as much advantage as any hypothetical near term genetic engineering would?

Several possible answers:

1) education has been around for millennia, genetic engineering hasn't

2) there is a deep and wide-ranging taboo about modifying the human species, which there isn't about education

3) the gains from genetic engineering are potentially rapid and far in excess of what can be achieved through education

4) there is a potential for states to enter into a human enhancement arms races, and the possible consequences of this - unsafe testing, the complete transformation of the human species, gene-based weapons - are terrible

5) gene editing will amplify inequalities and create eugenic-racist politics, in a way that education doesn't

I think (4) and (5) are the most important reasons why we should be more careful about genetic engineering than education. Competition in education is harmless compared to a race to create the best superhumans.

If genetic engineering is outlawed, that will make AI automation even more disruptive for human workers.

Automation won’t be outlawed simply because it’s too economically advantageous. China is going all in on AI already.

Why on earth would countries want to limit improvements? We don’t see countries engaging in vaccine non-proliferation agreements, even though those are unevenly distributed. Non-proliferation is for destructive technologies.

However, as stated in a sibling comment, I think the advantages gained from IQ gene editing are quite exaggerated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com