[delecti]

I always felt like Gattaca was unrealistically pessimistic. I'm unconvinced that the "best possible person" (if you grant such a thing even exists) is that much different from an average person.

It seems more likely that we would just eliminate some genetic diseases and cancers, and vain/rich parents would select for taller children. Most other differences seem to be too weakly correlated with genes we've identified to result in such a stark change to society. It's less like taking a bunch of dials tuned to 5 and turning then all up to 11, and more like increasing some dials from 5 to 6, and arbitrarily spinning some others because they weren't labeled to begin with.

[thereisnospork]

> I always felt like Gattaca was unrealistically pessimistic. I'm unconvinced that the "best possible person" (if you grant such a thing even exists) is that much different from an average person.

To simplify the scenario to a single dimension, imagine how much different the NBA would look like if there were 10,000 Lebron James's and Shaq's being born every year. I'd expect it will take a few generations for sufficient predictive confidence to develop though.

[delecti]

That does get at my point though. While there obviously isn't a single "Shaq gene" or "Lebron gene", I also don't think we could reliably identify even a very large suite of genes that could be tweaked to result in increased "Shaq-ness" or "Lebron-ness". And beyond that, we certainly aren't anywhere close to identifying a "likes basketball" gene.

[thereisnospork]

While I agree with the difficulty to impossibility of finding those specific genes, a whole genotype 'nearest neighbor' or other classification criteria is very interesting:

Considering that both the 'Shaq' phenotype and genotype are known, it wouldn't be too difficult[0] to rank 10,000 embryos per couple in terms of closeness to the 'Shaq' genotype. Then cross reference and weight the 'Shaq-likeness' ranking with the 'Jordan-likeness' ranking and the 'Gretsky-likeness' ranking. To me anyway, that seems like a recipe[1] for, statistically, dramatically improving one's offspring's odds at being a professional basketball player.

[0]Mathematically, anyway

[1]As a counter point, I'd expect to see this sort of thing take off in horse racing if it was productive. Big money and looser ethics.

[anonporridge]

> I'm unconvinced that the "best possible person" (if you grant such a thing even exists) is that much different from an average person.

This seems like an absurd thing to believe for anyone who has a solid grasp of how evolution by natural selection works.

Or rather, it's absurd to believe that even a small improvement from the average isn't a HUGE advantage for a person's success in life and genetic legacy.

[delecti]

We aren't comparing the global average to the global "best person". We're comparing the typical outcome of a pair of parents with the best possible child those parents could have. Any effects on the outcomes of that child's life based on their genetics will be completely outstripped by how they're raised.

We also aren't discussing selective breeding, the same distribution of people would be pairing and having children.

After several hundred years I could plausibly see a stratification happening among those with the earliest and most advanced access to a technology like this. But given all of the above limitations, I think it would still be fairly limited.

[anonporridge]

> We're comparing the typical outcome of a pair of parents with the best possible child those parents could have.

I'm still not sure I agree with this. There's huge variability between the reproductive fitness of siblings, even excluding genetic illnesses and deformities. Might be intelligence, body type, attractiveness, etc.

The real problem I see is that qualifying the "best" traits might be impossible, because what's best is highly subjective to the environment and the environment that we all live in is constantly shifting and seems to be doing so at an accelerating rate.

The film Gattaca actually gives an interesting take on how this drive for "best" might play out. Those born into the privilege of having the "best traits" a) don't feel as strong of a need to struggle and overcome adversity, b) dismiss people who are "lesser" than they are, and end up surprised and unable to compete when they fall behind, and c) people who are "lesser" are filled with motivation and drive to prove themselves. I could even see some parents intentionally giving their child a minor disability to give them an edge over their "perfect" peers who all flit their lives away thinking everything will be handed to them on silver platter. Similar to how some parents are starting to realize how damaging massive trust funds and inheritances can be to people that receive them.

[Bender]

We bypass natural selection all the time. Some people are more vulnerable to certain pathogens. We give them medicine or vaccines to mitigate mortality. Natural selection would have us let nature take its course. Some people have religious beliefs that in fact route people towards nature or God determining mortality rather than medicine.

[anonporridge]

True, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think it's right and good to alleviate suffering where we can.

But we still stand to suffer as a civilization if the average quality of individuals doesn't improve, or even declines. Especially as the challenges we are capable of facing become more complex and challenging. Idiocracy comes to mind.

Then again, maybe our future is one where we develop sentient AIs that can independently keep civilization running, while humans can be left to degrade into a kind of pet that doesn't do any work and exists only for the benefit and good will of the AI.

[NaNDude]

natural selection is a cultural myth (like everything talking about an undefined "nature"), may be you'r thinking about evolution theory which is driven by reproduction success, but we already bypass it, living far beyond our fertility time :)

[anonporridge]

Can you explain what you mean by "natural selection is a cultural myth"?

It is possible that we can "naturally" evolve to live far beyond our individual fertility, and humans did live long before civilization. Complex species like humans require a ton of knowledge and skill training. Old and experienced people can be incredibly valuable to a tribe if they can teach and care for the young, even if they can no longer reproduce themselves. It's not enough to just squirt out offspring. You need to invest in them so they can become successful enough to squirt out their own.

There are other examples like this. Like why various types of animals having warning calls for predators. These things don't make sense for an individual to develop, because the warning call actually draws the predator's attention to the individual making it. The best thing for the individual to do is stay quiet and hide. But the call increases the fitness of the individual's kin, so the trait survives.

Homosexuality might be another instance of this, the "gay uncle" theory. Similar to the reason we live long after fertility, a tribe with a minority of young non reproducing members can be helpful for taking care of and training the children.

It's called kin selection, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

[NaNDude]

> It is possible that we can "naturally" evolve

there is no doubt on that, we're evolving, we're even able to trace some minor genetic evolutions over the 7k last years. but the cultural myth of "natural selection" or "naturally" evolving is in the question : what is "natural" and by extension, what is'nt ? kin evolution or social behaviors always end up as reproduction success, and the failure to do so, "naturally" or "artificially" end up in extinction, that's all. there is nothing specifically "natural" or "artificial" here. when talking about genetics the involved time scales badly fit cultural consideration like thoses. it is not less "natural" to gain reproductive success by genetic intervention than without, unless you are able to explain what is this "nature". or in other words : there is nothing to bypass unless you'r able to say/describe/explain what :)

[anonporridge]

Oh. Are you just saying that everything we do is natural? That the idea that we are somehow separate from nature is bullshit?

[LinuxBender]

Agreed, though I intentionally conflate the two concepts as one. That is just my own personal view of evolution and natural selection. I for one would like to do an experiment where we pass a law allowing the removal of all warning signs, warning labels and guard rails both literal and visual.

[heavyset_go]

We're still subject to natural selection and that's all still technically natural selection. The selection pressures have just changed.

[rackjack]

There is a genetic mutation that allows a person to function normally on just 4 hours of sleep. A person who needs 8 hours of sleep in this world would probably always be behind the rest.

[rowanG077]

Considering that the gap between currently existing "best people" and the average is already really really immense I have the opposite opinion as you.

[kfprt]

> Most other differences seem to be too weakly correlated with genes we've identified to result in such a stark change to society.

These findings were always driven more by politics than science.