Path to human superintelligence or rapid human evolution through artificial selection with embryos - is this method possible?

[Axulus]

Recently watched this fascinating Google Talk about superintelligence, which discusses how it could emerge (biological or artificial), the ramifications and the risks and how to mitigate them, as well as timeline estimates on when it might emerge.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pywF6ZzsghI[/youtube]

At one point, he mentions that one possible path to biological superintelligence is using selective breeding techniques. And no, this is not your typical eugenics method. There is apparently a technique that could be feasible whereby you use in vetro fertilization and then select those embryos which have the characteristics you want after sequencing and analyzing their genome. If we ever get to the point where we can determine which genes or combination of genes increase intelligence, then we can select for those. Then, utilizing bio-engineering techniques, it is possible to have the embryos produce sex cells at approximately one month old. You then use in vitro fertilization with these sex cells to create a new generation, effectively reducing the time between human generations to just one month. It also avoids the most troubling of ethical concerns: coercing certain humans to breed while discouraging or banning "undesirables", totalitarian and fascist techniques, since this is all being done to unconscious embryos. This is not to say that there aren't still other ethical concerns at play.

He also claims that this technique is already being put to use in trials for mice with some signs of success.

What do you guys think, is this a viable method? What are the implications? Should such technique be banned? Should such technique be encouraged?

 

[untermensche]

It of course begs questions like, "What is intelligence", and what is the biggest driver of "intelligence", genes or environment?

In the US educational system today one part of "intelligence" that is highly rewarded is the willingness to vigorously compel with arbitrary commands. This trait can get you far in the real world as well.

Is this something we want to strengthen?

 

[Kharakov]

Black ball: biotech in the hands of someone who does not appreciate the complexity and rarity of life in the universe.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Recently watched this fascinating Google Talk about superintelligence, which discusses how it could emerge (biological or artificial), the ramifications and the risks and how to mitigate them, as well as timeline estimates on when it might emerge.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pywF6ZzsghI[/youtube]

At one point, he mentions that one possible path to biological superintelligence is using selective breeding techniques. And no, this is not your typical eugenics method. There is apparently a technique that could be feasible whereby you use in vetro fertilization and then select those embryos which have the characteristics you want after sequencing and analyzing their genome. If we ever get to the point where we can determine which genes or combination of genes increase intelligence, then we can select for those. Then, utilizing bio-engineering techniques, it is possible to have the embryos produce sex cells at approximately one month old. You then use in vitro fertilization with these sex cells to create a new generation, effectively reducing the time between human generations to just one month. It also avoids the most troubling of ethical concerns: coercing certain humans to breed while discouraging or banning "undesirables", totalitarian and fascist techniques, since this is all being done to unconscious embryos. This is not to say that there aren't still other ethical concerns at play.

He also claims that this technique is already being put to use in trials for mice with some signs of success.

What do you guys think, is this a viable method? What are the implications? Should such technique be banned? Should such technique be encouraged?

I'm not intelligent enough to give my opinion.
EB

 

[Davka]

It's certainly possible. It's not currently feasible, however - we simply don't know enough about the human genome. Yet.

One day, assuming we don't kill ourselves off in the meantime, we will have the technology to customize every baby, either in-vitro or in-utero. there will be stiff resistance at first from the usual suspects (religious & conservative & woo-woo fools), but eventually it will be seen as irresponsible and cruel to allow a child to be born with the genetic markers for Tay-Sachs disease, or Hodgkin's Lymphoma, or any other debilitating disease. Just as it is seen as irresponsible and cruel today to allow a child to miss out on immunizations.

I can easily foresee a future in which genetically-triggered disease is a thing of the past. At which point the engineering for faster, smarter, more attractive will become commonplace.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How would you assess a level of intelligence?

First, bad news, IQ measures in the last few decades suggest that intelligence has peaked. This seems to be already the case in Norway, and France may be following suit. Average IQs have until now typically grown with economic development and this is still true in particular in developing countries but has no longer been in Norway for a while now, with even a sligth decrease there.

Second, some scientists studying how brain cells are connected to each other say we couldn't improve on the design.

The general idea is that given basic constraints on the dimension of the adult brain, there is an optimum which given time will be achieved through evolution. The rescent discovery about recent IQ measures suggests we have reach this optimum.

One way to increase intelligence would be to improve on the design of our brain. Who really understands this design to start with?

Another way would be somehow to increase size and then it's not so much a matter of brain design as the question of the design of our whole body. How to change our body to a make a bigger brain viable?

There is also this question that we are social animals and that increasing the intelligence of the members of the social group may not necessarilly improve our chances of survival as a species. Already human beings seem to be bent on destroying their eco-system. Neanderthal had a bigger brain than us but apparently couldn't compete. More intelligence may or may not be the best answer to the most serious of our problems.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

How would you assess a level of intelligence?

First, bad news, IQ measures in the last few decades suggest that intelligence has peaked. This seems to be already the case in Norway, and France may be following suit. Average IQs have until now typically grown with economic development and this is still true in particular in developing countries but has no longer been in Norway for a while now, with even a sligth decrease there.

Second, some scientists studying how brain cells are connected to each other say we couldn't improve on the design.

The general idea is that given basic constraints on the dimension of the adult brain, there is an optimum which given time will be achieved through evolution. The rescent discovery about recent IQ measures suggests we have reach this optimum.

One way to increase intelligence would be to improve on the design of our brain. Who really understands this design to start with?

Another way would be somehow to increase size and then it's not so much a matter of brain design as the question of the design of our whole body. How to change our body to a make a bigger brain viable?

There is also this question that we are social animals and that increasing the intelligence of the members of the social group may not necessarilly improve our chances of survival as a species. Already human beings seem to be bent on destroying their eco-system. Neanderthal had a bigger brain than us but apparently couldn't compete. More intelligence may or may not be the best answer to the most serious of our problems.
EB

OK. So you place limits on intelligence based on who we are and how we evolve now. The OP seems to ask more. Will our emerging capacity to tamper with genes to our own purposes result in higher intelligence and/or. super evolution of humans. Your arguments are nulled by the ability of scientists to identify specific genes and to recombine them in ways to 'improve' there resulting organismic representations.

 

[Bomb#20]

The general idea is that given basic constraints on the dimension of the adult brain, there is an optimum which given time will be achieved through evolution. The rescent discovery about recent IQ measures suggests we have reach this optimum.

One way to increase intelligence would be to improve on the design of our brain. Who really understands this design to start with?

Another way would be somehow to increase size and then it's not so much a matter of brain design as the question of the design of our whole body. How to change our body to a make a bigger brain viable?

Hey, this accounts for my superintelligent wife! The solution is to remove the constraints: caesarean sections for all!

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your arguments are nulled by the ability of scientists to identify specific genes and to recombine them in ways to 'improve' there resulting organismic representations.

If scientists have already managed demonstrably to improve the intelligence of human being by recombining genes then we should be impressed. Haven't ever heard of that being done though. Should have made the headlines I guess.

Other than that I don't really know what "organismic representations" could possibly mean. Is this some kind of recombining done in science?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Hey, this accounts for my superintelligent wife! The solution is to remove the constraints: caesarean sections for all!

Good for your wife but obvioulsy Caesarean section wouldn't solve all the problems. A bigger brain would require more glucose being fed through the blood supply, so a bigger or more effective cardiac muscle and a bigger or more effective liver and probably just about everything else to par like kidneys, lungs etc. Spine strength and resilience would be a concern too. Possibly also keeping our balance when standing up.

Also, it is no clear to me that it is our intelligence that protects us against our own excesses. Maybe things like empathy and other emotions are more important. Suppose a future with more intelligent Hitlers and Stalines and Maos for example. It is also not clear to me that it is intelligence that really helps us live together. Maybe it is but I don't think I know that.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Your arguments are nulled by the ability of scientists to identify specific genes and to recombine them in ways to 'improve' there resulting organismic representations.

If scientists have already managed demonstrably to improve the intelligence of human being by recombining genes then we should be impressed. Haven't ever heard of that being done though. Should have made the headlines I guess.

Other than that I don't really know what "organismic representations" could possibly mean. Is this some kind of recombining done in science?
EB

Didn't say intelligence. Replace my bleat with living organisms.

If scientists can do a procedure that would be necessary and sufficient to test whether changing genes can be done it can be used for any intelligence genes such as the FOXP2 language gene complex. Your argument nulled.

 

[barbos]

Also, it is no clear to me that it is our intelligence that protects us against our own excesses. Maybe things like empathy and other emotions are more important. Suppose a future with more intelligent Hitlers and Stalines and Maos for example. It is also not clear to me that it is intelligence that really helps us live together. Maybe it is but I don't think I know that.
EB

On the other hand, suppose a future where voters are smarter than now?

 

[Speakpigeon]

If scientists have already managed demonstrably to improve the intelligence of human being by recombining genes then we should be impressed. Haven't ever heard of that being done though. Should have made the headlines I guess.

Other than that I don't really know what "organismic representations" could possibly mean. Is this some kind of recombining done in science?
EB

Didn't say intelligence. Replace my bleat with living organisms.

If scientists can do a procedure that would be necessary and sufficient to test whether changing genes can be done it can be used for any intelligence genes such as the FOXP2 language gene complex. Your argument nulled.

I wouldn't dispute the possibility of replacing a gene (or part of it). I understand it's been done already, at least on the small scale of the individual cases of people with a specific medical condition, say for example grafting a bit of spinal cord tissues from a HIV resistant patient to HIV non-resistant ones... I also accept that it's probably possible to extend the same technique to patients with a known condition affecting their mental health. I seem to remember that at least two different tests have been done although I can't remember the specifics. But one may have been injecting (in mice I guess) a substance ordinarily involved in the working of synapses and another injecting possibly a gene (or part of) to restart a function. Well, something like that. But my point is that it's all very well, and a priori possible, to restore a function that scientists have already identified as normally present in a healthy brain by injecting some element regarded as normally involved in the function. Although you could say that you would be improving the intelligence of the individual benefiting from such technique, this bears little relation to the issue raised in the OP as to whether it may be possible to improve the intelligence of the average human being and his descendants beyond what can be observed today.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Also, it is no clear to me that it is our intelligence that protects us against our own excesses. Maybe things like empathy and other emotions are more important. Suppose a future with more intelligent Hitlers and Stalines and Maos for example. It is also not clear to me that it is intelligence that really helps us live together. Maybe it is but I don't think I know that.
EB

On the other hand, suppose a future where voters are smarter than now?

More intelligent voters might vote better but they won't limit the use of their intelligence to voting. They will use it in everything in their life and I don't think that we could be certain that it would be a good thing for the human species.

And, a more intelligent Hitler could destroy humanity in one go. Just one more intelligent Hitler. That's all a bit risky no?
EB

 

[dystopian]

What do you guys think, is this a viable method? What are the implications? Should such technique be banned? Should such technique be encouraged?

I think it's viable for this to greatly increase human intelligence; the notion that we have reached the absolute peak of organic/human intelligence is absurd and based on flimsy reasoning. I don't think pure organic intelligence could ever reach what we'd call "super" intelligence, though. We could hypothetically create humans whose intelligence makes us look like the slightly retarded uneducated cousins; but there's going to be an upper limit that isn't going to be too far beyond us; that is, unless we radically re-engineer humans to be planet spanning globs of neural tissue, I guess.

In any event; no, such techniques should not be banned. There aren't any legitimate reasons to ban such techniques; though limitations should of course be in place so long as it's unclear whether the technique actually *works* without horrible side-effects. However, so long as something like this works and is reasonably safe, there's no real argument against it other than the "but it's unnatural/against god's will!" sort of arguments, which are entirely irrelevant; or the "but think of what scary highly intelligent sociopaths could do!", which is no real argument either since that's no different from the world we live in today.

 

[crispy]

Recently watched this fascinating Google Talk about superintelligence, which discusses how it could emerge (biological or artificial), the ramifications and the risks and how to mitigate them, as well as timeline estimates on when it might emerge.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pywF6ZzsghI[/youtube]

At one point, he mentions that one possible path to biological superintelligence is using selective breeding techniques. And no, this is not your typical eugenics method. There is apparently a technique that could be feasible whereby you use in vetro fertilization and then select those embryos which have the characteristics you want after sequencing and analyzing their genome. If we ever get to the point where we can determine which genes or combination of genes increase intelligence, then we can select for those. Then, utilizing bio-engineering techniques, it is possible to have the embryos produce sex cells at approximately one month old. You then use in vitro fertilization with these sex cells to create a new generation, effectively reducing the time between human generations to just one month. It also avoids the most troubling of ethical concerns: coercing certain humans to breed while discouraging or banning "undesirables", totalitarian and fascist techniques, since this is all being done to unconscious embryos. This is not to say that there aren't still other ethical concerns at play.

He also claims that this technique is already being put to use in trials for mice with some signs of success.

What do you guys think, is this a viable method? What are the implications? Should such technique be banned? Should such technique be encouraged?

I am sure its possible, I'm just not sure that intelligence is the only trait you should select for.

 

[fromderinside]

Didn't say intelligence. Replace my bleat with living organisms.

If scientists can do a procedure that would be necessary and sufficient to test whether changing genes can be done it can be used for any intelligence genes such as the FOXP2 language gene complex. Your argument nulled.

I wouldn't dispute the possibility of replacing a gene (or part of it). I understand it's been done already, at least on the small scale of the individual cases of people with a specific medical condition, say for example grafting a bit of spinal cord tissues from a HIV resistant patient to HIV non-resistant ones... I also accept that it's probably possible to extend the same technique to patients with a known condition affecting their mental health. I seem to remember that at least two different tests have been done although I can't remember the specifics. But one may have been injecting (in mice I guess) a substance ordinarily involved in the working of synapses and another injecting possibly a gene (or part of) to restart a function. Well, something like that. But my point is that it's all very well, and a priori possible, to restore a function that scientists have already identified as normally present in a healthy brain by injecting some element regarded as normally involved in the function. Although you could say that you would be improving the intelligence of the individual benefiting from such technique, this bears little relation to the issue raised in the OP as to whether it may be possible to improve the intelligence of the average human being and his descendants beyond what can be observed today.
EB

Gee it looks like you are trying to reverse my original observation that your argument wasn't about whether intelligence increases were relevant to fitness as the OP presumes and I challenge. One cannot presume intelligence as we understand it as constant or fitness driven. Similarly one cannot presume that making intelligence better against our understanding of it will have fitness benefits.

All I did with your post was to refute it isn't already possible, even going on. Your try to say my point was outside the OP reflects your lack of understanding both my point and the operation of fitness.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Gee it looks like you are trying to reverse my original observation that your argument wasn't about whether intelligence increases were relevant to fitness as the OP presumes

Yeah? Interesting... Now please look at what I said in the first of my post you commented on:

Speakpigeon - There is also this question that we are social animals and that increasing the intelligence of the members of the social group may not necessarilly improve our chances of survival as a species.​

So how was my post not about the relevance of intelligence increases to fitness!?

Beats me.

Similarly one cannot presume that making intelligence better against our understanding of it will have fitness benefits.

Ok. I'm very pleased you eventually came round to my view.

All I did with your post was to refute it isn't already possible, even going on.

Yeah, I got your point so much so that I also explained why I believed it was wrong.

Still, you haven't in fact even tried to effectively argue that increasing intelligence was already going on. You merely remembered the irrelevance that gene therapy was a reality.

Your try to say my point was outside the OP reflects your lack of understanding both my point and the operation of fitness.

Oh this is just such a godhawful misrepresentation of what I actually said.

Ok, let me explain things to you.

First, the question of the relation of an increase of intelligence to fitness, although I would agree that it's implicitly assumed in the OP, is not actually part of the OP. So my point couldn't have been about you missing the OP's point about relation to fitness. And since I myself addressed the issue of fitness in the last paragraph of my first post, effectively even before you did, and even though it wasn't the point of the OP, and since you seem only now to agree with me that increasing intelligence will not necessarily increase fitness, your assertion that I somehow didn't understand your point and the operation of fitness is completely irrelevant to what I actually said. Thus, your conclusion is merely idiotic.

Your point (as I was responding to it in my last post) was really about restoring existing function(s) in individuals who had some kind of medical condition (i.e. current gene therapy). The OP is about improving a particular function (intelligence) beyond what it is today (indeed beyond what we understand of it today). That's what I meant when I said your point bore "little relation to the issue raised in the OP". Nothing to do with fitness.
EB

 

[J842P]

Genetic modification of fully grown Metazoans is problematic. However, we have developed highly sophisticated and effective ways to modify the genome of organisms if you start at with an embryo. We have particularly well-refined techniques in the murine models typically used in biological research. There is no reason why these techniques couldn't be applied to human embryos in principle.

 

[bilby]

Genetic modification of fully grown Metazoans is problematic. However, we have developed highly sophisticated and effective ways to modify the genome of organisms if you start at with an embryo. We have particularly well-refined techniques in the murine models typically used in biological research. There is no reason why these techniques couldn't be applied to human embryos in principle.

Hence the well known junior geneticists mournful cry - "What are you, a man or a mouse?"