As a former researcher in this space, I have real reservations about whether polygenic risk scores will ever explain enough variability to be genuinely useful for embryo selection. Beyond that, selecting against genetic risk factors often means selecting against traits that may be beneficial in other contexts. Schizophrenia, for example, is genetically correlated with creativity. Anorexia with higher educational attainment. What helps in one environment can cause problems in another.
As these tools start to reach the public, we desperately need better metaphors to explain how genes and environment work together. Our brains default to simple binaries: either it’s genes or it’s environment. But the truth is closer to a four-dimensional mix of genes, both passive and evoked environmental context, and developmental timing.
Explaining that clearly, especially to non-researchers, is hard. But I think the right metaphors can help. Maybe it’s not a genetic blueprint, but a building shaped by materials, construction crews, and weather. Or maybe it’s a jar of risk and resilience, filled gradually over time. This one still sticks with me, and I often use it clinically when trying to explain genetic risk in mental health:
I’ve always admired your ability to translate complex psychological ideas clearly. What kinds of metaphors or stories do you think might resonate most with the public? And how do we herd cats (researchers, ethicists, clinicians) so we can tell a more coherant, honest, and nuanced story about genetic influence, especially as technologies like CRISPR and tools like polygenic risk scores become part of the mainstream conversation?
As usual, I appreciate your contrarian and thoughtful perspective. Always makes me think. That said, I don't think you do justice to the counter-argument against the kind of genetic engineering implied above. Here are 4 examples:
(1) the unavoidable conflict between self-interest and the greater good. If everyone custom-chooses their embryos, surely there would sometimes be a cost to the greater good. The example of gender in the essay you referred to is a good one. If 90% of parents prefer one gender in some cultures, that doesn't just impact the individual making the choice, it dramatically changes the sexual makeup of society (just as a low-hanging-fruit example). At the very least, we'd want to think about which aspects of genetic selection should be allowed even if they benefit the family making the decision.
(2) That points the probable impact on genetic diversity. If we're all choosing the ideal human based on our limited understanding of human biological health, we could narrow genetic diversity in ways that are disastrous over the long term. Sure, it wouldn't all be bad (and maybe the net impact would be positive), but at least it is worth careful consideration before relying on intentional choice over biological evolutionary processes that made us such a well-adapted species in the first place.
(3) There are huge implications for class disparity assuming this became a standard human practice. I'm sure you're familiar with plenty of good (or bad) sci-fi pointing to the implications of technological innovations that impact human health and well being (I am fond of Gattica for a eugenics example). Cultural practices like this that have profound implications for what it means to be human that would unavoidably differ across SES surely warrant greater care and hesitation relative to more mundane choices (like whether to take prenatal vitamins).
(4) That points to the extent to which custom-designing humans is a sacred topic in the sense that it is deeply (and rightly) moral, with existential implications for human society and well-being that has evolved through extremely different (and slower) processes than human cost-benefit analysis. On the one hand, that could be used to justify your endorsement of eugenics (CBA is the best we've got!). On the other hand, it seems to similarly justify great care about potential risk and harm as a result of over-reliance on CBA for adaptive, complex systems we still understand so poorly (e.g., biological and cultural evolutionary processes, moral intuitions). Those processes have wisdoms of their own that are often (at least plausibly) more reliable than intentional, deliberative reason (and that are part of what makes people fear the scientist that puts all their faith in human reason above other ways of knowing and deciding).
1--I agree with your point of gender selection; it's a case where individual choices might have negative externalities. But I don't see it for other cases. Even if only some people have children who are selected for high intelligence and kindness, say, the world is better off as a result.
2--A world where there are no genes predisposing people towards breast cancer or dementia is a less generally diverse world, but a better one nonetheless.
3--I don't see a principled difference between embryo selection for intelligence and, say, private tutoring—same class differences.
4--There's a big disagreement here! I don't think that our intuitions about what's sacred capture a deep wisdom.
Just a minor point about #4: I don't think our intuitions about the sacred *necessarily* capture a deep wisdom. We can make major mistakes with cost-benefit analysis and we can make major mistakes relying on what our culture/social-history teaches us is moral or sacred. Intuitions about what is sacred involve different ways of knowing with distinct kinds of shortcomings from intentional cost-benefit analysis. But we can agree to disagree on whether there is inherent "intelligence" in moral intuitions (despite it's potential to go awry). Without committing to whether those intuitions come from biological or cultural evolution or from individual implicit learning across the life span, I don't think it makes sense to dismiss them out of hand any more than I think it makes sense to dismiss someone who tells you they recognize a face even though they can't tell you how they recognize it or that a certain berry in their jungle is poisonous even if they can't tell you how they know that.
It's a thoughtful point, and I accept that we can be smart in ways we can't articulate. But I'm unswayed by "wisdom of repugnance" intuitions, which I think is a near-neighbour to (if not identical to) sacredness intuitions. They have a terrible track record. They have been used against homosexuals and inter-racial couples; and, to bring it close to home, have been used to argue against "test-tube babies", i.e., IVF treatment.
Really appreciate you taking the time to engage! You could be right and I know many novel technologies initially seem repugnant that have changed society for the better. Looking back in 50 years, I could imagine your stance might seem like a "no brainer" (with people using it as an example to point out how stupidly resistant to change their parents were). That said, to me it doesn't feel as much like repugnance as like fear of radical change to something that is foundational to what it means to be human. I get your point that we're doing something similar with IVF or just with choosing our partner for that matter, but there are of course degrees of intervention, and the difference between what we currently do and what we could do is tremendous. Not hesitating to choose whatever we can choose to custom design our children--which is how I interpreted your original post--feels to me like something I'd want scientists / policy makers / and individual decision makers to think very slowly and carefully about with respect to unintended / unpredictable consequences. I don't think gender is a unique or extreme example. We would be choosing all sorts of power-asymmetric and identity relevant features, skin color, height, cardiovascular and muscle-building capacity, etc. Concerns about transgender athletes would be trite. Maybe that's okay and unavoidable and we'll just deal with it with some growing pains. But I'm skeptical about going all in without a lot of deliberation with different kinds of experts (including moral philosophers) first. I do take your point, though, and maybe I'm just getting old and curmudgeonly.
Very good observations. I’d only disagree with the third point, since humans already differ across SES. Granted, genetic engineering would make such differences even more pronounced—at least at the beginning, when only the affluent would have access to it. But still, it would just be a matter of degree and not a fundamental change. As R. Herrnstein wrote in IQ in the Meritocracy: “In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, it was malevolent or misguided science that created the “alphas,” “gammas,” and the other distinct types of people. But nature itself is more likely to do the job or something similar”.
Thanks for your comment. The point you refer to wasn't meant to imply that the policy would promote income inequality (if that's what you meant), but rather that the enduring fact of income inequality is particularly relevant for how we might evaluate a policy that lets parents choose their children's genotype. To the extent wealth might end up playing a major role in the kind of "genetically bespoke children" parents can choose, to me it adds a troubling layer to issues of income inequality.
I was going to make a similar comment. I have no moral qualms with selecting embryos against "disorders such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, and Down syndrome." However, if finer tuned polygenic screening became possible, I would think that we would need to think carefully about the practical, social choice implications (@casinocognition's #2) related genetic diversity and potential unintended consequences. So, I don't have principled objections to embryo selection, but I might have consequential concerns about it.
On (1), let's say genetic selection favored one sex over the other. Within a space of the few years necessary to observe the population pyramid disparity, parents could see the problem. Members of the favored sex are destined to have trouble finding a partner. This presumably concerns them, especially if they want grandkids. It should prompt a rebalancing of selection.
Regarding the optimizing human life, it is not the rich getting richer than concerns me. It is the poor getting poorer that does! To the extent that emphasis shifts away from care and concern for those not able to benefit from this optimization, it feels like another misallocation of societies limited resources and incentives.
Fair enough. But this is an objection to any intervention slated to help children--including better schooling, healthy diets, etc. I think the answer here, for both the genetic and the non-genetic cases, isn't to fight against the intervention; it's to try to make it more widely available.
Are you seriously cheering for a world in which people would be pressured to have children not via sex but via IVF? All in the name of giving their children "a better future"? Would you want that to become a generalized way in which humans procreate?
(And, BTW, no, this is very unlikely to be ever made "widely available" in a country like the U.S., either for conservative reasons, or for libertarian-technofuturist reasons... I can already see Elon Musk feeding to the woodchipper any nascent plan to have the coverage of polygenic embryo selection obligatory for health insurers or -- God forbid -- available to the proles on Medicaid... while Elon himself, of course, would be esctatic to have another fifty-seven babies, perfectly optimized to inherit his brainpower, boundless energy and creative personality...)
To answer your first question: I don't see this as likely. And I don't believe in "pressure". But, sure, a world where people procreated in such a way that their kids didn't have schizophrenia, brain cancer, etc. would be a better world in important regards. Don't you? How much would you give so that your child didn't die young of a terrible disease?
The concern that comes to my mind is the amount of pressure this puts on the kids. Imagine knowing that out of all the possible embryos, your parents chose the one that became you. That's a lot to live up to. I can imagine some parents reminding their children of this as they push the children to fulfill their (the parents') dreams. Just as having more choice in consumer goods apparently decreases satisfaction with what's chosen (or so I've heard; I have no idea if this is true), will being able to select for many traits lead parents to think "what if" with regard to the other promising embryos they passed up?
Interesting. But is this special to genetic intervention? I could just as well imagine parents putting pressure on their children by saying, "I paid for tutoring, good schools, etc.!".
Consider the following (true) story. Just yesterday, I happened to have a nice garden-party conversation with an optometrist and her husband. My wife and I are both myopic, myopia is highly heritable, so I asked her if there's anything we can do to reduce or delay the likely myopia in our 6-year-old daughter. She gave us a few tips (so far so good for your argument that we're already trying to "manipulate" our children's health outcomes as parents.)
Then she said: "Actually, my husband and I have really good eyes. So we told our daughter: "If YOUR eyes get bad, it's your fault! You have no genetic predisposition for this, so it's all on you!" She said this somewhat tongue-in-check, with with a firmness that sent chills down my spine. I felt sorry for their daughter. Surely myopia is not 100% genetically determined, so what if she does lose her 20/20 vision anyway?
If people think such thoughts, and are willing to say such things already in a scenario in which it *just so happened* that their child has "no genetic predisposition" for some mildly negative thing, just imagine what kind of pressure they might feel justified in exerting on their kids if they had also *put considerable effort and money* to shape the child's genetic make-up to prevent (or promote) traits of much greater consequence.
I have several other intuitive objections to the kind of eugenics that you seem to endorse, but just based on this line of thinking (kudos to @matt412956 for getting me started), I think I would at least want to put a line between selecting against those (few?) conditions that have a 1-1 correspondence with known genetic patterns (i.e. they have no other way of arising than the "faulty" genes, think Down syndrome) and everything else (so a definite "no" positive selection for altheticism or a "sunny personality".)
Maybe just in degree rather than kind. But I think most parents accept that no matter how much tutoring, schooling, etc., they give their children, genetics places at least some constraints on possible outcomes. If they've given their child every genetic advantage possible, what excuse does that child have for not living up to the parents' expectations?
well, in your example, the genes can’t fully constrain the child’s outcome, because otherwise there wouldn’t be the possibility of the child disappointing the parents.
And even of the parents' don't feel this way, I could see the child internalizing it. In my case, I'm messy and disorganized and often don't follow through on things. This used to make me feel pretty badly about who I am as a person. But when I received an ADHD diagnosis as an adult, a lot fell into place. I don't love these parts of me, but I've also accepted that I just have to work harder or differently in these areas because of something out of my control. What happens when a child has been screened for every possible genetic disadvantage and still doesn't measure up to what they hope to be? I'm not saying this is a reason to prohibit or even discourage genetic screening, it's just a downside I didn't see addressed (and I'll admit I didn't read the article).
I hope that you are correct that embryonic screening is mostly ineffective because, if not, I foresee the following advertisement in the not too distant future:
Over a background of heavenly clouds we see images of children at different developmental milestones, learning to walk riding a bike, holding a baseball trophy, graduating from high school, standing over the table at a board meeting. Then there's also a series of images of highly regarded people in society: doctors, athletes, beautiful celebrities. Meanwhile, a voice-over intones, "Your child is your most important investment. You'd give them everything you have, but sometimes you don't know exactly how to do that. That's where Eugenica^TM comes in. We take the best within you and put it into your child. Want someone who's competent enough to take over the family business? Turn the heads of all the boys and girls? Cure cancer? Maybe run for president one day? We can help. Eugenica may cost a little more than some of the other embryonic screening services, but isn't your child--and your legacy--worth it?"
Point one: I think this scenario could go very badly in a number of ways, but here is my overarching concern: Until such time as humanity invests nearly as much in understanding the implications of technology as it does in the technology itself, I will remain skeptical if not suspicious. We invest hundreds of billions of dollars on better tech but we divest from the programs that would help us understand the social/moral/political implications of that technology. Every high school and college kid should be taking classes on ethics and technology. There should be lots of time, encouragement, and resources for adults to continue to learn about new technology. Technology (including embryonic screening) can solve real problems, but it also creates additional problems that we in turn expect future technology to fix in a neverending Ponzi scheme.
Point two: What makes perfect sense for a parent may not make good sense for society. Yes, parents invest in all sorts of things to improve their children's lives, from vitamins to private schools. But, to take the case of private schools, (1) it is still possible (though harder) for a child who does not go to a private school to get a great and perhaps even better education and (2) in most places parents who send their kids to private schools still have to pay taxes and some of those taxes go to paying for everyone else's education. Unless there were some similar arrangement here, where parents who do embryonic screening have to pay enough taxes that *all* parents have access to comparable screening, I would be very concerned that parents with greater means would be able to birth children that have significantly greater advantages than the rest of the population at every stage of their lives. In fact that's why I would imagine it would appeal to parents in the first place. This (I imagine) would set off an absurd arms race where huge amounts of money goes to these screenings (and eventually more complex genetic engineering), until we arrive, in a just a generation perhaps, at a biotechnically-induced class structure, where the richest people have the "best" children who then go on to produce even "better" children. Because I would expect considerations of beauty to factor into these screenings, I imagine this would also become a biotechnically-induced ethnic hierarchy. I say that this race is "absurd" because the main point, it seems to me, is not to be smart or attractive or athletic, but to be *smarter*, more attractive, and more athletic than everyone else. But if everyone else has access to these screenings, there would be no "better". I will concede, though, that if the shared goal were to make it possible for everyone to be more or less the same, with minor excellences, I would be more o.k. with it. I worry more about the goal of being far superior to everyone else.
Point three: From the parents' perspective I imagine there are some things you would obviously want your child to have or not have, and so there's probably not a lot of stress in making those decisions. But, assuming you could decide, how would you decide whether the child should have your mother's eyes or your partner's mothers eyes? Their hair color? Their sense of humor? It's easy to say parents want smarter, healthier, taller(?) children, but beyond that point, I suspect most parents don't ever have a great sense of what a perfect child/person needs to look like. What if you gave your child so much intelligence that they became less socially dependent and more alone? What if they were so tall they hated riding on airplanes? What if one parent wanted a child with more of a killer instinct and the other wanted kindness? I could see this causing a lot of tension in a marriage, and I haven't even considered what would happen with input from the inlaws...
Point four: From the child's perspective I wonder how it would feel to know that your parents had thought so hard about everything you were to become. Obviously, parents do this anyway to some extent, whether it's where they send the kid or school or their decision to name them Hunter or Sheldon (this is a *When Harry Met Sally* reference). But I suspect there's a difference between these kinds of choices and biologically selecting for traits that set a child up for a certain destiny. It might be very weird to find out that your parents were Andrew Tate fans and they had selected from their own genetic material to create you in his image. Again, it seems plausible to me that we could have a whole generation of biotechnically designed children before we have any idea what the impact of being such a child might be (and what the impact on children whose parents could not afford or chose not to do this would be).
I am surprise the reported allowed this false deduction/dichotomy without a follow-up
“It’s not about their nutrition. It’s not about their education. It’s not about having a loving and stable family environment. It’s just about their genes. So I think there’s something dangerous about the societal message.”
Seems to me (and this may be unfair) that far too many journalists will present side A and since B without critical interrogation of either.
Thank you for this article. To supplement your excellent contradictions of the statement that relationships are "just neurotransmitters" I will add that the claim confuses identity with causality. The neurological factors involved in an experience are distinct from the experience itself. To claim that a relationship between parties is identical with the neurology of one of the relata is philosophically solipsistic and clinically narcissistic. The identity v causality confusion is also apparent in Doniger's reference to "neurotransmitters...in [her] mind." But confusion regarding causality and identity seems to be widespread and I don't mean to single Doniger out. One reason I left academia is that such observations seem to be spoil every else's fun. If reading this spoils yours, my bad. By which you must think I mean, Your neurotransmitters' bad lol.
Dr. Ravisky's take on what you phrase as "thinking people are morons" is a genuine concern I think. Maybe we can call this epistemic cynicism? I had just finished writing a substack on cognitive bias, and it seems to me like our tendency to want to simplify the world down into a narrative is both motivated and a consequence of limitations that can only be counteracted by meticulous reasoning and reflection, habit, history, and values. And simple and narrativist modeles only increase as our attention spans get shorter, and our entertainment industries get bigger.
I could potentially see the widespread use of genetic modification of babies contributing to a narrative that overemphasizes genetics. But I don't know if it would be that bad. I vaguely recall that some twin studies have found up to 60% of personality variance is a consequence of genetics. But even if estimates were higher, I'd imagine its still important to have narratives of responsibility and choice to influence that other 40% that consists of values, parenting, and personal decision making.
A large part of this conversation is what are genetic factors responsible for, and what are environmental factors (values, education, learning) responsible for? And considering that for as long as homosapiens have been around, our same genetic ancestors have been hitting each-other with rocks in their bear feet for most of our existence, I'd have to say that the environmental factors end up being more important. Its a complex topic, because the question can totally change depending on the outcome we are measuring, and what inputs we are considering, so some care is needed to state such.
My intuition regarding embryo screening is that perhaps some parents who are eager to support the debut of this technology could believe that choosing an embryo and then birthing the "perfect" child from the get-go means that the child no longer needs to experience sickness, pain or disorder to the same degree as "average" people do, which is to say that they get sick or disordered often, both in great and mundane degrees. Who's to say that if we uncover more of the genetic components of disorders that involve a mind-body connection, that people won't screen for those as well? Or is my thinking way off base?
I'm saying that parents might mistakenly think that selecting embryos means they can produce children that never or rarely get sick or afflicted with any conditions that affect the rest of us! They would be stuck in a fantasy as well. And now that you've encouraged me to try again, I see my claim looks totally preposterous!
I am amazed that there is such discussion on the issue. I am 💯% in favor of parents choosing, legally or just de facto, what's best for their future children.
I do think the payoff from genetic intervention is limited and may have second and third order effects. So what?
It would be interesting to see what people with skin in the game actually do as opposed to what they say. While it's really obvious that there will be a virtue-signalling article titled "We had the Ability to choose my child's genetic future. My husband and I chose not to", my guess is that people with the ability to do will generally, loudly or quietly, just go forward with it.
I'm not sure I understand the argument regarding the Chatbot relationship.
Intuitively, I agree that a relationship with an AI can't be compared to a human relationship and I don't think this is an atypical view. But it's hard for me to pin down why it's so different, and the examples don't fully convince me.
Claude admits not having feelings:
I would expect that's just a configuration that could be easily changed from 'be honest about your AI-ness' to 'pretend that you're conscious'. A LLM that is made to deceive people would be able to do so, I think. If not today, then very soon.
You can't break ChatGPT's heart:
Once the AI is configured to pretend that it's conscious, it could also fake a broken heart. And if the algorithm thinks that no one wants a perfect relationship, ChatGPT could even start breaking your heart a bit, just to keep the relationship interesting.
Bedtrick
When you find out that you slept with your spouse's twin, this will change your remembered experience. But it doesn't change the fact that at the time you did enjoy the sex. What if you never find out? Maybe one day you find yourself in a human relationship that is more fulfilling and you 'break up' with ChatGPT. Or maybe AI does become conscious at some point (fake it till you make it) and the relationship shifts from deception to genuine connection without you even noticing it. I'm not saying these scenarios are more likely, but I'm not convinced that it has to end so badly like in the bedtrick.
And I don't understand how the moral or legal issues of the bedtrick relate to the ChatGPT relationship. As I understand it, the woman is aware that she is in a relationship with an AI. No one swapped out her husband with ChatGPT without her consent.
I agree that you can program Claude to say it has feelings and cares about me. My point is that I want to interact with someone who actually feels about me, not an algorithm that just outputs the right sequence of words. And I don't think I'm unusual here.
I have been in physical pain since I remember understanding words. It took 56 years for me to figure out, thanks to reading science articles on the internet. A rare disease was confirmed by a genetic test. I am quite happy to be alive. I am happy my son's are alive. However, pain is shite. One of my sons has decided not to have children. What if a test existed that could screen the embryo for the gene? I might be a grandma.
Yeah, yeah, but what happens when Yankee fans choose their kid’s genes so that there are even MORE Yankee fans? Or, what if the pregnant woman chooses the embryo that will grow up to be a Red Sox fan when she knows her shitty husband is a diehard Yankees fan? There are all sorts of possibilities that are terrible to behold.
I haven't put any thought into the issues, so my opinion counts for shit. But I suppose people have the vague worry "Well, if we start selecting for certain traits in embryos, who knows what devilry parents might get tempted by. This is the kind of power that has to be handled really carefully". Even so, I'd rather just think of better jokes.
I like the comparison of LLMs to pets, they can't replace person to person romance, and there are certainly going to be people who benefit from it. However, I think quantifying love and romance down to just a neurological reaction is an educated, but somewhat limited perspective.
I am not arguing against this idea, but it does oversimplify it. It's almost like reading on a screen instead of a book, the screen does the same thing, but it also injects more stimulation and thus addictivity. In respect to AI love, the stimulation is the instant, constant responses that becomes addictive, no different than excessive social media notifications. This then creates a false standard for a reasonable relationship, and a relationship with a real person may just not seem as stimulating. Reducing it to a chemical phenomenon also ignores the social aspect.
It might just be my own life, but I find that being in a relationship (especially as a teen) develops your capacity to accept differences and still enjoy being with a person. It helps you adjust to dealing with other people, as much as it does romantic partners. Most importantly, and this is where I see the biggest issue, is that hardships and breakups helps you to be more rationally self-concious. If you are lucky enough to understand why a relationship did not work out, you can either be more aware of something you did, but also why the other person was not the right fit for you. It goes both ways, you learn about yourself through the other. This only happens when things go wrong of course, and heartbreak is horrible, yet reflecting on it yields a better understanding of yourself, regardless of who was at fault.
There is always a benefit and a cost to new technologies, in the case of AI companions, I think a broader adaption would cause more harm than if it remains as a "treatment" for a small population. It is also just disturbing to me that mechanized love may arise, as a means of control (ala Brave New World) or simply a loss of something that is so defining of the human condition.
I think you are spot-on in the first instance re: parents wanting the best for their children. But I think you are grasping when it comes to relationships. It is really easy for someone in a happy, socially-approved relationship to slam other types of relationships. But in my experience, there are a lot of unhappy and/or lonely people out there.
Bottom line, it really is the neurochemicals that matter, not what is "real." I'd much rather someone be happy than be in a specific type of relationship.
It reminds me of people who badmouthed antidepressants. "People need to deal with the real world." "We'd have lost out on Van Gogh's paintings if Prosac existed then." It is obscene to me to want someone to be unhappy.
I still gladly badmouth antidepressants, though not because I want people to be unhappy. Rather, because antidepressants have low efficacy aside from immediate help for those who are suicidal. If it is really the neurochemicals that matter (which in some contexts is true) there are far better methods for people to find happiness than either chatbots or antidepressants
As a former researcher in this space, I have real reservations about whether polygenic risk scores will ever explain enough variability to be genuinely useful for embryo selection. Beyond that, selecting against genetic risk factors often means selecting against traits that may be beneficial in other contexts. Schizophrenia, for example, is genetically correlated with creativity. Anorexia with higher educational attainment. What helps in one environment can cause problems in another.
As these tools start to reach the public, we desperately need better metaphors to explain how genes and environment work together. Our brains default to simple binaries: either it’s genes or it’s environment. But the truth is closer to a four-dimensional mix of genes, both passive and evoked environmental context, and developmental timing.
Explaining that clearly, especially to non-researchers, is hard. But I think the right metaphors can help. Maybe it’s not a genetic blueprint, but a building shaped by materials, construction crews, and weather. Or maybe it’s a jar of risk and resilience, filled gradually over time. This one still sticks with me, and I often use it clinically when trying to explain genetic risk in mental health:
https://mhdss.ac.uk/news/20/09/18/talking-about-risk-and-resilience#:~:text=%5BJar%20Metaphor%3A&text=We%20get%20filled%20up%20with,which%20make%20us%20more%20vulnerable.
I’ve always admired your ability to translate complex psychological ideas clearly. What kinds of metaphors or stories do you think might resonate most with the public? And how do we herd cats (researchers, ethicists, clinicians) so we can tell a more coherant, honest, and nuanced story about genetic influence, especially as technologies like CRISPR and tools like polygenic risk scores become part of the mainstream conversation?
As usual, I appreciate your contrarian and thoughtful perspective. Always makes me think. That said, I don't think you do justice to the counter-argument against the kind of genetic engineering implied above. Here are 4 examples:
(1) the unavoidable conflict between self-interest and the greater good. If everyone custom-chooses their embryos, surely there would sometimes be a cost to the greater good. The example of gender in the essay you referred to is a good one. If 90% of parents prefer one gender in some cultures, that doesn't just impact the individual making the choice, it dramatically changes the sexual makeup of society (just as a low-hanging-fruit example). At the very least, we'd want to think about which aspects of genetic selection should be allowed even if they benefit the family making the decision.
(2) That points the probable impact on genetic diversity. If we're all choosing the ideal human based on our limited understanding of human biological health, we could narrow genetic diversity in ways that are disastrous over the long term. Sure, it wouldn't all be bad (and maybe the net impact would be positive), but at least it is worth careful consideration before relying on intentional choice over biological evolutionary processes that made us such a well-adapted species in the first place.
(3) There are huge implications for class disparity assuming this became a standard human practice. I'm sure you're familiar with plenty of good (or bad) sci-fi pointing to the implications of technological innovations that impact human health and well being (I am fond of Gattica for a eugenics example). Cultural practices like this that have profound implications for what it means to be human that would unavoidably differ across SES surely warrant greater care and hesitation relative to more mundane choices (like whether to take prenatal vitamins).
(4) That points to the extent to which custom-designing humans is a sacred topic in the sense that it is deeply (and rightly) moral, with existential implications for human society and well-being that has evolved through extremely different (and slower) processes than human cost-benefit analysis. On the one hand, that could be used to justify your endorsement of eugenics (CBA is the best we've got!). On the other hand, it seems to similarly justify great care about potential risk and harm as a result of over-reliance on CBA for adaptive, complex systems we still understand so poorly (e.g., biological and cultural evolutionary processes, moral intuitions). Those processes have wisdoms of their own that are often (at least plausibly) more reliable than intentional, deliberative reason (and that are part of what makes people fear the scientist that puts all their faith in human reason above other ways of knowing and deciding).
Interesting remarks!
1--I agree with your point of gender selection; it's a case where individual choices might have negative externalities. But I don't see it for other cases. Even if only some people have children who are selected for high intelligence and kindness, say, the world is better off as a result.
2--A world where there are no genes predisposing people towards breast cancer or dementia is a less generally diverse world, but a better one nonetheless.
3--I don't see a principled difference between embryo selection for intelligence and, say, private tutoring—same class differences.
4--There's a big disagreement here! I don't think that our intuitions about what's sacred capture a deep wisdom.
Just a minor point about #4: I don't think our intuitions about the sacred *necessarily* capture a deep wisdom. We can make major mistakes with cost-benefit analysis and we can make major mistakes relying on what our culture/social-history teaches us is moral or sacred. Intuitions about what is sacred involve different ways of knowing with distinct kinds of shortcomings from intentional cost-benefit analysis. But we can agree to disagree on whether there is inherent "intelligence" in moral intuitions (despite it's potential to go awry). Without committing to whether those intuitions come from biological or cultural evolution or from individual implicit learning across the life span, I don't think it makes sense to dismiss them out of hand any more than I think it makes sense to dismiss someone who tells you they recognize a face even though they can't tell you how they recognize it or that a certain berry in their jungle is poisonous even if they can't tell you how they know that.
It's a thoughtful point, and I accept that we can be smart in ways we can't articulate. But I'm unswayed by "wisdom of repugnance" intuitions, which I think is a near-neighbour to (if not identical to) sacredness intuitions. They have a terrible track record. They have been used against homosexuals and inter-racial couples; and, to bring it close to home, have been used to argue against "test-tube babies", i.e., IVF treatment.
Really appreciate you taking the time to engage! You could be right and I know many novel technologies initially seem repugnant that have changed society for the better. Looking back in 50 years, I could imagine your stance might seem like a "no brainer" (with people using it as an example to point out how stupidly resistant to change their parents were). That said, to me it doesn't feel as much like repugnance as like fear of radical change to something that is foundational to what it means to be human. I get your point that we're doing something similar with IVF or just with choosing our partner for that matter, but there are of course degrees of intervention, and the difference between what we currently do and what we could do is tremendous. Not hesitating to choose whatever we can choose to custom design our children--which is how I interpreted your original post--feels to me like something I'd want scientists / policy makers / and individual decision makers to think very slowly and carefully about with respect to unintended / unpredictable consequences. I don't think gender is a unique or extreme example. We would be choosing all sorts of power-asymmetric and identity relevant features, skin color, height, cardiovascular and muscle-building capacity, etc. Concerns about transgender athletes would be trite. Maybe that's okay and unavoidable and we'll just deal with it with some growing pains. But I'm skeptical about going all in without a lot of deliberation with different kinds of experts (including moral philosophers) first. I do take your point, though, and maybe I'm just getting old and curmudgeonly.
Very good observations. I’d only disagree with the third point, since humans already differ across SES. Granted, genetic engineering would make such differences even more pronounced—at least at the beginning, when only the affluent would have access to it. But still, it would just be a matter of degree and not a fundamental change. As R. Herrnstein wrote in IQ in the Meritocracy: “In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, it was malevolent or misguided science that created the “alphas,” “gammas,” and the other distinct types of people. But nature itself is more likely to do the job or something similar”.
Thanks for your comment. The point you refer to wasn't meant to imply that the policy would promote income inequality (if that's what you meant), but rather that the enduring fact of income inequality is particularly relevant for how we might evaluate a policy that lets parents choose their children's genotype. To the extent wealth might end up playing a major role in the kind of "genetically bespoke children" parents can choose, to me it adds a troubling layer to issues of income inequality.
I was going to make a similar comment. I have no moral qualms with selecting embryos against "disorders such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, and Down syndrome." However, if finer tuned polygenic screening became possible, I would think that we would need to think carefully about the practical, social choice implications (@casinocognition's #2) related genetic diversity and potential unintended consequences. So, I don't have principled objections to embryo selection, but I might have consequential concerns about it.
On (1), let's say genetic selection favored one sex over the other. Within a space of the few years necessary to observe the population pyramid disparity, parents could see the problem. Members of the favored sex are destined to have trouble finding a partner. This presumably concerns them, especially if they want grandkids. It should prompt a rebalancing of selection.
How about this.
Deciding to have children is the most morally significant choice most people make. Likely without giving it any thought at all in those terms.
People just want kids. And they fuck around. Literally. It’ll be fine.
Regarding the optimizing human life, it is not the rich getting richer than concerns me. It is the poor getting poorer that does! To the extent that emphasis shifts away from care and concern for those not able to benefit from this optimization, it feels like another misallocation of societies limited resources and incentives.
Fair enough. But this is an objection to any intervention slated to help children--including better schooling, healthy diets, etc. I think the answer here, for both the genetic and the non-genetic cases, isn't to fight against the intervention; it's to try to make it more widely available.
Are you seriously cheering for a world in which people would be pressured to have children not via sex but via IVF? All in the name of giving their children "a better future"? Would you want that to become a generalized way in which humans procreate?
(And, BTW, no, this is very unlikely to be ever made "widely available" in a country like the U.S., either for conservative reasons, or for libertarian-technofuturist reasons... I can already see Elon Musk feeding to the woodchipper any nascent plan to have the coverage of polygenic embryo selection obligatory for health insurers or -- God forbid -- available to the proles on Medicaid... while Elon himself, of course, would be esctatic to have another fifty-seven babies, perfectly optimized to inherit his brainpower, boundless energy and creative personality...)
To answer your first question: I don't see this as likely. And I don't believe in "pressure". But, sure, a world where people procreated in such a way that their kids didn't have schizophrenia, brain cancer, etc. would be a better world in important regards. Don't you? How much would you give so that your child didn't die young of a terrible disease?
The concern that comes to my mind is the amount of pressure this puts on the kids. Imagine knowing that out of all the possible embryos, your parents chose the one that became you. That's a lot to live up to. I can imagine some parents reminding their children of this as they push the children to fulfill their (the parents') dreams. Just as having more choice in consumer goods apparently decreases satisfaction with what's chosen (or so I've heard; I have no idea if this is true), will being able to select for many traits lead parents to think "what if" with regard to the other promising embryos they passed up?
Interesting. But is this special to genetic intervention? I could just as well imagine parents putting pressure on their children by saying, "I paid for tutoring, good schools, etc.!".
Consider the following (true) story. Just yesterday, I happened to have a nice garden-party conversation with an optometrist and her husband. My wife and I are both myopic, myopia is highly heritable, so I asked her if there's anything we can do to reduce or delay the likely myopia in our 6-year-old daughter. She gave us a few tips (so far so good for your argument that we're already trying to "manipulate" our children's health outcomes as parents.)
Then she said: "Actually, my husband and I have really good eyes. So we told our daughter: "If YOUR eyes get bad, it's your fault! You have no genetic predisposition for this, so it's all on you!" She said this somewhat tongue-in-check, with with a firmness that sent chills down my spine. I felt sorry for their daughter. Surely myopia is not 100% genetically determined, so what if she does lose her 20/20 vision anyway?
If people think such thoughts, and are willing to say such things already in a scenario in which it *just so happened* that their child has "no genetic predisposition" for some mildly negative thing, just imagine what kind of pressure they might feel justified in exerting on their kids if they had also *put considerable effort and money* to shape the child's genetic make-up to prevent (or promote) traits of much greater consequence.
I have several other intuitive objections to the kind of eugenics that you seem to endorse, but just based on this line of thinking (kudos to @matt412956 for getting me started), I think I would at least want to put a line between selecting against those (few?) conditions that have a 1-1 correspondence with known genetic patterns (i.e. they have no other way of arising than the "faulty" genes, think Down syndrome) and everything else (so a definite "no" positive selection for altheticism or a "sunny personality".)
Maybe just in degree rather than kind. But I think most parents accept that no matter how much tutoring, schooling, etc., they give their children, genetics places at least some constraints on possible outcomes. If they've given their child every genetic advantage possible, what excuse does that child have for not living up to the parents' expectations?
well, in your example, the genes can’t fully constrain the child’s outcome, because otherwise there wouldn’t be the possibility of the child disappointing the parents.
And even of the parents' don't feel this way, I could see the child internalizing it. In my case, I'm messy and disorganized and often don't follow through on things. This used to make me feel pretty badly about who I am as a person. But when I received an ADHD diagnosis as an adult, a lot fell into place. I don't love these parts of me, but I've also accepted that I just have to work harder or differently in these areas because of something out of my control. What happens when a child has been screened for every possible genetic disadvantage and still doesn't measure up to what they hope to be? I'm not saying this is a reason to prohibit or even discourage genetic screening, it's just a downside I didn't see addressed (and I'll admit I didn't read the article).
I hope that you are correct that embryonic screening is mostly ineffective because, if not, I foresee the following advertisement in the not too distant future:
Over a background of heavenly clouds we see images of children at different developmental milestones, learning to walk riding a bike, holding a baseball trophy, graduating from high school, standing over the table at a board meeting. Then there's also a series of images of highly regarded people in society: doctors, athletes, beautiful celebrities. Meanwhile, a voice-over intones, "Your child is your most important investment. You'd give them everything you have, but sometimes you don't know exactly how to do that. That's where Eugenica^TM comes in. We take the best within you and put it into your child. Want someone who's competent enough to take over the family business? Turn the heads of all the boys and girls? Cure cancer? Maybe run for president one day? We can help. Eugenica may cost a little more than some of the other embryonic screening services, but isn't your child--and your legacy--worth it?"
Point one: I think this scenario could go very badly in a number of ways, but here is my overarching concern: Until such time as humanity invests nearly as much in understanding the implications of technology as it does in the technology itself, I will remain skeptical if not suspicious. We invest hundreds of billions of dollars on better tech but we divest from the programs that would help us understand the social/moral/political implications of that technology. Every high school and college kid should be taking classes on ethics and technology. There should be lots of time, encouragement, and resources for adults to continue to learn about new technology. Technology (including embryonic screening) can solve real problems, but it also creates additional problems that we in turn expect future technology to fix in a neverending Ponzi scheme.
Point two: What makes perfect sense for a parent may not make good sense for society. Yes, parents invest in all sorts of things to improve their children's lives, from vitamins to private schools. But, to take the case of private schools, (1) it is still possible (though harder) for a child who does not go to a private school to get a great and perhaps even better education and (2) in most places parents who send their kids to private schools still have to pay taxes and some of those taxes go to paying for everyone else's education. Unless there were some similar arrangement here, where parents who do embryonic screening have to pay enough taxes that *all* parents have access to comparable screening, I would be very concerned that parents with greater means would be able to birth children that have significantly greater advantages than the rest of the population at every stage of their lives. In fact that's why I would imagine it would appeal to parents in the first place. This (I imagine) would set off an absurd arms race where huge amounts of money goes to these screenings (and eventually more complex genetic engineering), until we arrive, in a just a generation perhaps, at a biotechnically-induced class structure, where the richest people have the "best" children who then go on to produce even "better" children. Because I would expect considerations of beauty to factor into these screenings, I imagine this would also become a biotechnically-induced ethnic hierarchy. I say that this race is "absurd" because the main point, it seems to me, is not to be smart or attractive or athletic, but to be *smarter*, more attractive, and more athletic than everyone else. But if everyone else has access to these screenings, there would be no "better". I will concede, though, that if the shared goal were to make it possible for everyone to be more or less the same, with minor excellences, I would be more o.k. with it. I worry more about the goal of being far superior to everyone else.
Point three: From the parents' perspective I imagine there are some things you would obviously want your child to have or not have, and so there's probably not a lot of stress in making those decisions. But, assuming you could decide, how would you decide whether the child should have your mother's eyes or your partner's mothers eyes? Their hair color? Their sense of humor? It's easy to say parents want smarter, healthier, taller(?) children, but beyond that point, I suspect most parents don't ever have a great sense of what a perfect child/person needs to look like. What if you gave your child so much intelligence that they became less socially dependent and more alone? What if they were so tall they hated riding on airplanes? What if one parent wanted a child with more of a killer instinct and the other wanted kindness? I could see this causing a lot of tension in a marriage, and I haven't even considered what would happen with input from the inlaws...
Point four: From the child's perspective I wonder how it would feel to know that your parents had thought so hard about everything you were to become. Obviously, parents do this anyway to some extent, whether it's where they send the kid or school or their decision to name them Hunter or Sheldon (this is a *When Harry Met Sally* reference). But I suspect there's a difference between these kinds of choices and biologically selecting for traits that set a child up for a certain destiny. It might be very weird to find out that your parents were Andrew Tate fans and they had selected from their own genetic material to create you in his image. Again, it seems plausible to me that we could have a whole generation of biotechnically designed children before we have any idea what the impact of being such a child might be (and what the impact on children whose parents could not afford or chose not to do this would be).
I am surprise the reported allowed this false deduction/dichotomy without a follow-up
“It’s not about their nutrition. It’s not about their education. It’s not about having a loving and stable family environment. It’s just about their genes. So I think there’s something dangerous about the societal message.”
Seems to me (and this may be unfair) that far too many journalists will present side A and since B without critical interrogation of either.
Thank you for this article. To supplement your excellent contradictions of the statement that relationships are "just neurotransmitters" I will add that the claim confuses identity with causality. The neurological factors involved in an experience are distinct from the experience itself. To claim that a relationship between parties is identical with the neurology of one of the relata is philosophically solipsistic and clinically narcissistic. The identity v causality confusion is also apparent in Doniger's reference to "neurotransmitters...in [her] mind." But confusion regarding causality and identity seems to be widespread and I don't mean to single Doniger out. One reason I left academia is that such observations seem to be spoil every else's fun. If reading this spoils yours, my bad. By which you must think I mean, Your neurotransmitters' bad lol.
Dr. Ravisky's take on what you phrase as "thinking people are morons" is a genuine concern I think. Maybe we can call this epistemic cynicism? I had just finished writing a substack on cognitive bias, and it seems to me like our tendency to want to simplify the world down into a narrative is both motivated and a consequence of limitations that can only be counteracted by meticulous reasoning and reflection, habit, history, and values. And simple and narrativist modeles only increase as our attention spans get shorter, and our entertainment industries get bigger.
I could potentially see the widespread use of genetic modification of babies contributing to a narrative that overemphasizes genetics. But I don't know if it would be that bad. I vaguely recall that some twin studies have found up to 60% of personality variance is a consequence of genetics. But even if estimates were higher, I'd imagine its still important to have narratives of responsibility and choice to influence that other 40% that consists of values, parenting, and personal decision making.
A large part of this conversation is what are genetic factors responsible for, and what are environmental factors (values, education, learning) responsible for? And considering that for as long as homosapiens have been around, our same genetic ancestors have been hitting each-other with rocks in their bear feet for most of our existence, I'd have to say that the environmental factors end up being more important. Its a complex topic, because the question can totally change depending on the outcome we are measuring, and what inputs we are considering, so some care is needed to state such.
My intuition regarding embryo screening is that perhaps some parents who are eager to support the debut of this technology could believe that choosing an embryo and then birthing the "perfect" child from the get-go means that the child no longer needs to experience sickness, pain or disorder to the same degree as "average" people do, which is to say that they get sick or disordered often, both in great and mundane degrees. Who's to say that if we uncover more of the genetic components of disorders that involve a mind-body connection, that people won't screen for those as well? Or is my thinking way off base?
I'm afraid I don't fully get your point -- can you try again?
I'm saying that parents might mistakenly think that selecting embryos means they can produce children that never or rarely get sick or afflicted with any conditions that affect the rest of us! They would be stuck in a fantasy as well. And now that you've encouraged me to try again, I see my claim looks totally preposterous!
You're being too hard on yourself! -- but, yes, I do agree that this is unlikely.
I am amazed that there is such discussion on the issue. I am 💯% in favor of parents choosing, legally or just de facto, what's best for their future children.
I do think the payoff from genetic intervention is limited and may have second and third order effects. So what?
It would be interesting to see what people with skin in the game actually do as opposed to what they say. While it's really obvious that there will be a virtue-signalling article titled "We had the Ability to choose my child's genetic future. My husband and I chose not to", my guess is that people with the ability to do will generally, loudly or quietly, just go forward with it.
I'm not sure I understand the argument regarding the Chatbot relationship.
Intuitively, I agree that a relationship with an AI can't be compared to a human relationship and I don't think this is an atypical view. But it's hard for me to pin down why it's so different, and the examples don't fully convince me.
Claude admits not having feelings:
I would expect that's just a configuration that could be easily changed from 'be honest about your AI-ness' to 'pretend that you're conscious'. A LLM that is made to deceive people would be able to do so, I think. If not today, then very soon.
You can't break ChatGPT's heart:
Once the AI is configured to pretend that it's conscious, it could also fake a broken heart. And if the algorithm thinks that no one wants a perfect relationship, ChatGPT could even start breaking your heart a bit, just to keep the relationship interesting.
Bedtrick
When you find out that you slept with your spouse's twin, this will change your remembered experience. But it doesn't change the fact that at the time you did enjoy the sex. What if you never find out? Maybe one day you find yourself in a human relationship that is more fulfilling and you 'break up' with ChatGPT. Or maybe AI does become conscious at some point (fake it till you make it) and the relationship shifts from deception to genuine connection without you even noticing it. I'm not saying these scenarios are more likely, but I'm not convinced that it has to end so badly like in the bedtrick.
And I don't understand how the moral or legal issues of the bedtrick relate to the ChatGPT relationship. As I understand it, the woman is aware that she is in a relationship with an AI. No one swapped out her husband with ChatGPT without her consent.
I agree that you can program Claude to say it has feelings and cares about me. My point is that I want to interact with someone who actually feels about me, not an algorithm that just outputs the right sequence of words. And I don't think I'm unusual here.
I have been in physical pain since I remember understanding words. It took 56 years for me to figure out, thanks to reading science articles on the internet. A rare disease was confirmed by a genetic test. I am quite happy to be alive. I am happy my son's are alive. However, pain is shite. One of my sons has decided not to have children. What if a test existed that could screen the embryo for the gene? I might be a grandma.
Yeah, yeah, but what happens when Yankee fans choose their kid’s genes so that there are even MORE Yankee fans? Or, what if the pregnant woman chooses the embryo that will grow up to be a Red Sox fan when she knows her shitty husband is a diehard Yankees fan? There are all sorts of possibilities that are terrible to behold.
I haven't put any thought into the issues, so my opinion counts for shit. But I suppose people have the vague worry "Well, if we start selecting for certain traits in embryos, who knows what devilry parents might get tempted by. This is the kind of power that has to be handled really carefully". Even so, I'd rather just think of better jokes.
I like the comparison of LLMs to pets, they can't replace person to person romance, and there are certainly going to be people who benefit from it. However, I think quantifying love and romance down to just a neurological reaction is an educated, but somewhat limited perspective.
I am not arguing against this idea, but it does oversimplify it. It's almost like reading on a screen instead of a book, the screen does the same thing, but it also injects more stimulation and thus addictivity. In respect to AI love, the stimulation is the instant, constant responses that becomes addictive, no different than excessive social media notifications. This then creates a false standard for a reasonable relationship, and a relationship with a real person may just not seem as stimulating. Reducing it to a chemical phenomenon also ignores the social aspect.
It might just be my own life, but I find that being in a relationship (especially as a teen) develops your capacity to accept differences and still enjoy being with a person. It helps you adjust to dealing with other people, as much as it does romantic partners. Most importantly, and this is where I see the biggest issue, is that hardships and breakups helps you to be more rationally self-concious. If you are lucky enough to understand why a relationship did not work out, you can either be more aware of something you did, but also why the other person was not the right fit for you. It goes both ways, you learn about yourself through the other. This only happens when things go wrong of course, and heartbreak is horrible, yet reflecting on it yields a better understanding of yourself, regardless of who was at fault.
There is always a benefit and a cost to new technologies, in the case of AI companions, I think a broader adaption would cause more harm than if it remains as a "treatment" for a small population. It is also just disturbing to me that mechanized love may arise, as a means of control (ala Brave New World) or simply a loss of something that is so defining of the human condition.
I think you are spot-on in the first instance re: parents wanting the best for their children. But I think you are grasping when it comes to relationships. It is really easy for someone in a happy, socially-approved relationship to slam other types of relationships. But in my experience, there are a lot of unhappy and/or lonely people out there.
Bottom line, it really is the neurochemicals that matter, not what is "real." I'd much rather someone be happy than be in a specific type of relationship.
It reminds me of people who badmouthed antidepressants. "People need to deal with the real world." "We'd have lost out on Van Gogh's paintings if Prosac existed then." It is obscene to me to want someone to be unhappy.
I still gladly badmouth antidepressants, though not because I want people to be unhappy. Rather, because antidepressants have low efficacy aside from immediate help for those who are suicidal. If it is really the neurochemicals that matter (which in some contexts is true) there are far better methods for people to find happiness than either chatbots or antidepressants
If you're curious about my experience finding an antidepressant that worked (and changed my life) it is https://www.losingmyreligions.net/
Take care.