[ExI] Limits of human modification

[Tara Maya]

I predict the top genes parents would want for their children would be the following four kinds:

Health
IQ
Beauty
Talent (if this is separable from IQ, such as musical or artistic talent)

And the progression of genetic alterations would probably go something like this:

First - eliminate known deleterious genes (cancer, fat, extra chromosomes, genetic diseases)

Second - chose the better of two genes; if mom has gene for music in one location but dad is tone deaf, choose mom’s gene; if dad has gene for spatial reasoning but mom lacks, use dad’s gene in that spot; the beauty of this is that the child is still 100% genetic offspring of parents, so can’t even be said to be a mutant of any kind

 Third - If neither of your parents has the “optimum” gene for a certain spot, but another relative… or another donor, related or not … has the gene… or it can be made directly (I don’t know the tech involved), then why not add it? 





Tara Maya
Blog <http://taramayastales.blogspot.com/>  |  Twitter <https://twitter.com/taramayastales>  |  Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Unfinished-Song-Epic-Fantasy/310271375658211?ref=hl>  |  Amazon <http://www.amazon.com/Tara-Maya/e/B004HAI038/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1349796143&sr=8-2-ent>  |  Goodreads <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2951879.Tara_Maya>



> On Nov 23, 2015, at 10:52 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com <mailto:rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> ​> ​I think that the most appropriate test for permissibility of human germline modifications should be a composite of predicted net impact on social utility assessed by a subjective measure
> 
> ​In the entire history of the world the human race has never agreed on what is good and what is bad, and although CRISPER may change many things I doubt it will change that.
>  
> ​> ​and an objective measure. 
> 
> ​And of course there is no objective measure of right and wrong.​
> 
> ​> ​The subjective measure would be a test of well-being.
> 
> My ​subjective measure​ of well-being is to be smart and have smart kids, your measure may be different but there is no disputing matters of taste.​
>  
> ​> ​The objective measure would be a suitable econometric instrument, such as per capita GDP.
> 
> ​Choose any 2 economists ​​and they will give you 2 mutually exclusive ways that they insist is the one and only way to increase the GDP. And that is even without CRISPER. 
>  
> ​> ​A first-generation IQ boost could become a net drag on the economy where third-generation boost is needed for an entry job, so it might become unacceptable.
> 
> ​And if one nation is able to prevent its people from receiving a IQ boost you can be certain that nation will soon be a footnote to history because other nations will not have such anti intellectual tendencies. But they probably couldn't enforce their  
> Luddite proclamation because the children of those who went to the black market and defied their rulers edict would be smarter than those who followed the law and thus would soon be running the show.
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20151123/1dedec3b/attachment.html>