Genetically Engineering Super-Intelligent Humans

Point

Nautilus has an interesting discussion on the thousands (10k) of genetic variations that contribute to or are correlated with human intelligence, and with single variants being responsible for less than 1 point of IQ http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming. Statistical analysis indicates that when an individual possess just 100 more of these positive variants above the population average then they will enjoy an IQ boost of one standard deviation, or an extra 15 points. Swapping out all 10,000 variants in an individual for the optimal positive variants might, in theory, result in that person having an IQ of 1,000 – if you just go by the statistical analysis. It isn’t really clear whether an IQ this high really has much meaning, especially considering human IQ is quoted as just double or triple that of chimpanzees. Regardless, this analysis makes it seem conservative that we can pass the IQ 200 or 300 mark.

The piece discusses support for this in more detail but if it turns out to be true then well within 10 years we will have the technology to fairly easily ensure any particular human baby conceived via IVF will have a 15 point IQ boost. There will be very real consequences for any country that bans such technology.

Counterpoint

PZ Myers disagrees however and attempts to dismiss the proposal in a thoroughly disparaging and ad hominem manner http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/05/superbrains-will-not-come-out-of-a-test-tube/. Resisting the urge to dismiss Myers as a buffoon, at a basic level he simply isn’t convinced that boosting absolute human intelligence is a desirable thing, and would rather indirectly boost intelligence as a whole by improving global nutrition and education. His objections boil down to two things. First, that such a thing would be technically impossible; but this seems utterly unrealistic given the rapid pace of technology development in genetics, CRISPR, and embryo editing.

Second, that such a thing would be theoretically impossible, and quotes evolutionary arguments that (i) if it was possible evolution would have already done it, and (ii) humans are so multidimensional that tweaking one variant for one trait invariably involves compromise for other traits; basically that other things in the organism would suffer.

Rebuttal

Stephen Hsu, the author of the original Nautilus post concisely responds to Myer’s counter-arguments with a rebuttal on his private blog here http://infoproc.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/this-is-for-pz-meyers.html. The rebuttal presents some very straight-forward arguments from basic population genetics that support the proposal, clears up Myer’s confusion between genes and variants, states the completely non-controversial fact that cognitive ability is highly heritable, and presents data supporting the fact that there are many thousands of variants responsible for IQ. Myer’s response to this rebuttal was to dismiss Hsu as a dilettante.

Bonus Coverage

Finally, Scott Alexander from SlateStarCodex weighs in to take apart the multidimensionality claim of Myers http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/04/myers-race-car-versus-the-general-fitness-factor/. Turns out it is hard to find traits that are traded off against increases in intelligence, which would otherwise be easy to find if the multidimensionality claim were true. People with high IQ live longer, are taller, healthier during childhood, commit less crime, are fitter, have lower rates of stroke, diabetes, and heart disease, and are possibly more attractive. As usual Scott provides additional, substantial, and fascinating thoughts and analysis that are well worth reading.

I’m reminded of a Nick Bostrom quote:

Far from being the smartest possible biological species, we are probably better thought of as the stupidest possible biological species capable of starting a technological civilization—a niche we filled because we got there first, not because we are in any sense optimally adapted to it.

If it is almost trivially possible to grant a person an additional 15 points of IQ with little to no risk of downside, is it unethical not to do so?