[matte_black]

To me it sounds like the opposite, a utopia. All throughout history, genes have been passed down through natural selection based on short term traits. If we can select partners based on things like longevity, cancer resistance, disease risks, IQ, we can produce a better world filled with better humans, slowly but surely.

[sebleon]

> better humans

Ah, sounds like you’re into eugenics. Do you believe humans are wise enough to determine what traits are favorable?

Increased longevity, for instance, seems short-sighted. We already have extreme population growth. While natural survival instincts strive to fight death, what’s the net benefit to society of helping more people make it through their 90s?

Phases like childhood and parenthood would become smaller fractions of life, does extending old age make your overall life experience better? Would society progress as quickly with more old people around?

[matte_black]

I think lifespan is only worth increasing if there is a corresponding increase in health span. My grandmothers are both in their 90s and quite lucid and healthy. I would love to be at least in their condition when I’m in my 90s, but I also am serious about exercise and nutrition so I would hope I’d be even better off than them. They do nothing of that sort. Likewise, I’d like to be with a woman at that age who would also be just as healthy, and retain her faculties. Unfortunately, unless I extensively investigate a woman’s family history, I have no way of knowing if she’ll really be capable of living that long. What good is being a very old age if my partner is disabled and limits me from certain activities?

This inequality between lifespans is going to become a much greater concern for humans in the future, you will see. Perhaps it will become most noticeable as the baby boomers begin to die.

Also, I think society could progress even faster if the wisdom and experience of old people can be harnessed and not just tossed aside as “antiquated”. We need to rethink the way we think about the elderly, because one day those elderly will be us.

[sebleon]

Right, it's better to be healthy at 90 than in chemotherapy. However, I question the societal and individual benefits of enabling everyone to live to 100.

> We need to rethink the way we think about the elderly, because one day those elderly will be us.

I find this Western fear of death to be toxic. One day we'll grow old and die - and that's ok, that's how life works.

[matte_black]

If you feel everyone shouldn’t be enabled to live to 100 because there is little benefit to society, you are not that far from thinking maybe everyone shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce unless their offspring benefit society.

I personally don’t believe either of those things should be limited, I simply believe people with good genes should have an easy way to match with each other and form a relationship. That’s it. Society will take care of the rest.

[adwn]

> One day we'll grow old and die - and that's ok, that's how life works.

That's status quo bias [1]. If you want to die, nobody will stop you – but don't force your decision onto others.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias

[adwn]

> We already have extreme population growth.

Actually, many Western countries have the opposite and need large-scale immigration (along with all the societal problems this brings) to maintain their population numbers.

[busterarm]

Part of Stephen Baxter's book Ring describes a large scale (as in population) interstellar trip and engineering the population making that trip for a long lifespan via eugenics.

If I recall correctly, the described humans were living spans greater than 400 years, among other traits, after a handful of generations.

If something as ambitious as Deep Space is your goal, you're probably better off engineering people to make the trip rather than waiting for technology that may never materialize.

[smsm42]

That's terrifying. Every project that aimed at "producing better humans" so far wasn't just terrible - it is ones that are brought up when somebody needs to bring up so terrible no discussion is possible after it, the ultimate peak of terribleness. And yet, there are people still dreaming of breeding "better humans". I hope at least this will be voluntary? Because the logical next step is if you choose "unsuitable" partner, your kid's healthcare will cost 10x (because it's your fault for loading the healthcare with unnecessary costs) and you face deep contempt from your social peers for not helping to improve the human race. At the best case, of course. We all know how worst cases look like.

[matte_black]

I don’t understand why it’s such a taboo. Sperm donors are already selected based on favorable traits. If you’re a loser with no job or have a family history of diseases and cancer they do not want your sperm. And there’s nothing stopping people with poor genetics from breeding promiscuously with multiple women anyway, leaving behind single mothers in their wake. The Darwin Awards are a dark celebration of people dying in stupid avoidable ways and thus “removing themselves from the gene pool”.

People with excellent genetic traits need some sort of advantage to meet each other. The movie Idiocracy may have been a satirical comedy, but its message is actually not far from the truth of where we’re heading if someone doesn’t do something about improving the gene pool. To me, that is way more terrifying than genetically conscious dating.

[smsm42]

> And there’s nothing stopping people with poor genetics from breeding promiscuously with multiple women anyway, leaving behind single mothers in their wake.

There's nothing that stops any people from "breeding promiscuously", provided they find suitable and willing partner. It is when you start talking about who is worth access to reproduction and who is too genetically inferior to be allowed that is where trouble starts. The humanity has terrible track record with this. Surely, you say, this time it would be different - we have The Science on our side which won't lead us astray! Which would be very reassuring, if only that wasn't the same thing, word for word, that was said in all previous attempts.

> People with excellent genetic traits need some sort of advantage to meet each other.

Why? If they're so excellent, they may find each other using their own excellent facilities. While it still sounds terrifying and offputting, I have no problem with people trying things that are terrifying and offputting to me in their own bedrooms. It's when this is proposed as some kind of societal norm where the really terrifying part begins, because we've been on that road, and not once, and we know it leads to hell.

[Trundle]

The poster hasn't said anything about people not being worth having access to reproduction, or being allowed to.

I can't help but think people are reading some form of government mandate argument from their preference when they haven't mentioned one.

I like swimming. I don't think anyone should be forced to swim nor that its the governments business to increase swimming.

That guy wants to filter partners by their long term health potential. I don't see any reason to believe he thinks people should be forced to do the same nor that he thinks it's the governments business.

[smsm42]

As I said, as a personal preference, it's personal business. If it's advocated as a societal norm, the government will inevitably come in, if not as direct coercion, then as softer means - subsidies, preferences, financial incentives, propaganda, etc. That's how it has always worked - maybe in theory the government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing societal norms, but it very much is in practice.

[Trundle]

There are already personal preferences in partners that are so common that they're basically norms. I don't see a world where people take longevity of a potential partners health in to consideration on top of height, face, class, etc; and the government decides to get involved, to be all that much worse than the one where people just take height, face, class, etc in to consideration and the government decides to get involved.

To me an appropriate analogy would be if burkas were the norm for everyone, some guy was all "I wish we could easily see peoples faces when trying to date. I have a really attractive face and I'd like a partner with the same", then someone was all "the government will get involved!"

How and why? Prevent uglies from dating hotties? The market already does a decent job of that.

There's no department for "dating profile height fraud".

No one cries "eugenics!" at being able to see how attractive your partner is.

[volkk]

good thing that chances are you're not in charge of anything major (hopefully)

[matte_black]

I have been interested in eugenics for a long time. At any moment I could really only be a seed round away from putting together a founding team and building out a dating service.

Maybe the time is not quite yet. Maybe genetic mapping services have to improve a bit more, and public opinion has to shift somewhat, but if the conditions ever align, I’ll probably take a shot at it. Biotech is the next great frontier after all, and that’s where I’d like to be.