219 replies to this topic

[sthira]

Take this survey

Scientists have recently developed a technology called CRISPR-Cas9, which enables scientists to cut and paste DNA within the genome. The tool permits genetic engineering on an unprecedented scale and at a very low cost. The technique is already being used in a variety of fields, but because of its potential to modify DNA in human embryos, it has prompted calls for a public debate about where the technology should be applied.

Researchers working with WhatIsBiotechnology are running a pilot survey to gather people's views on this new technology. Dr Lara Marks, Managing Editor of the site and historian of medicine and Dr Silvia Camporesi, bioethicist at King's College London, are leading the project. Responses to the survey are anonymised, and results will be published both on the website and through other media. To take part in the debate please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements ranging from '1' indicating 'Very strongly disagree' to '7' indicating 'Very strongly agree' followed by keywords that you associate with genome editing and any other comments that you might have about the issues surrounding the science.

http://www.whatisbio...index/670a773b/

[Logic]

 

Not to mention that CRISPRed people would have overwhelming intellectual ability.

We have no idea how to do that. We'll probably have a superintelligent AGI before we have superintelligent humans.

 

 

Increased brain size and glial cell number in CD81-null mice

 

A key issue in the development of the central nervous system (CNS) is understanding the molecular mechanisms regulating cell number. The present study examines the role of CD81 (previously known as TAPA, the target of the antiproliferative antibody) in the control of brain size and glial cell number. CD81 is a member of the tetraspanin family of proteins. This group of small membrane proteins is associated with the regulation of cell migration and mitotic activity. Glial cells express CD81, and antibodies directed against this protein suppress the mitotic activity of cultured cells. In this study, we examine the effects of the CD81 −/− mutation on the CNS of mature mice. These mice have extremely large brains, as much as 30% larger than the brains of wild-type (+/+) littermates. The increase in brain weight is accompanied by an increase in the number astrocytes and microglia, whereas the number of neurons and oligodendrocytes in the CD81 −/− animals appears to be normal. When the CD81 −/− mutation is placed on different genetic backgrounds, there is a remarkable range in the penetrance of the null allele phenotype, demonstrating that the mutation can be affected by modifier loci. This work provides support for the role of CD81 in the regulation of astrocyte and microglial number, perhaps by regulating cell proliferation by a contact inhibition-dependent mechanism. J. Comp. Neurol. 453:22–32, 2002. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

http://onlinelibrary...e inconvenience.

 

CD81 antigen:

http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P60033

 

 

Edited by Logic, 01 December 2015 - 07:08 PM.

[LaViidaLocaa]

Sounds promising, Church thinks it may be even possible to use it against aging within the next 5-10 years:

 

https://www.washingt...-aging-process/

 

Quite a statement tbh, but considering the recent developments, it may achieve some breakthroughs soon

[mag1]

The redefinition at the International Summit on Gene Editing of what germ line engineering actually means has upped the ante for CRISPR.

There needed to be some sort of shift in position given the current state of the art with the technology; This is a bigger

shift than I had expected.

 

Banning germ line engineering was the obvious politically neutral position to have chosen and was expected.

Yet, it was an interesting sleight of hand to announce a ban on germ line engineering, while at the same time redefining the scope

of germ line engineering as only including actual pregnancies. So, the article that started off a media wave (and this thread) back in April

was not actually germ line engineering: It should be thought of more as research and development.

 

Now that the definitions have been clarified, I suppose about all there is left to do is drop the flag and let the frantic race to the finish line

begin. With all the innovations that have occurred during the last few months and even the last few days, it will be extraordinarily interesting

to see long it will take for a perfected form of germ line CRISPRing to be announced. Months?  The Summit report is not

expected until late 2016. Why even bother writing a report? CRISPR technology is going through its first round of exponential growth. A year

from now the technology almost certainly will have greatly matured. 

 

And then what? Without a ban now, would it really be plausible after it had been perfected to announce that society simply cannot cope with the implications

of this technology? The feelings and apprehensions of others about how I choose to live my life somehow veto my rights and freedoms? The Summit

acknowledged the right of diversity of lifestyle as an overriding conception of modern reality over the rights of a democratic tyranny in which those unable

to conceive of the rapidly approaching Genetic Singularity can simply impose moratoriums on everyone else after winning a 50 plus 1 simple majority.

 

After proving that germ line CRISPRing could be done safely and effectively, would there then be anything left to discuss? The Summit suggested that

this will be a two step process. They have just launched the first leg of the race: safety and effectiveness. The second leg is a consultation round

involving the input of society.

 

Notwithstanding these sentiments it appears that humanity is quickly approaching a true crisis: The Genetic Singularity Event. I had thought

that it would be much more plausible for a computer related Singularity Event to be the first to appear. In biology you can typically remove any

possible hint of excitement by simply endlessly delaying any progress through yet more regulatory discussions.

 

CRISPR at least puts humanity back into the game of being a relevant player trying to adjust to the approaching true Singularity Event.

Without CRISPR, we could all be spectators as computers completely overwhelmed us. Perhaps if we were actually closer to the computer Singularity, the fear expressed at the Summit would have been less about superhumans and more about supercomputers.

 

Nonetheless, using rational self interest as a guiding principle for genetic engineering instead of natural selection could have truly profound consequences for the future.

 

Evolution has been a very successful master of design; one is less enthused about humans as their own master of design.

Increasingly life feels like a game in which no strategy will result in a positive result; only an optimized less worse payout.
 

Edited by mag1, 04 December 2015 - 01:35 AM.

[niner]

 

 

Not to mention that CRISPRed people would have overwhelming intellectual ability.

We have no idea how to do that. We'll probably have a superintelligent AGI before we have superintelligent humans.

 

Increased brain size and glial cell number in CD81-null mice

 

J. Comp. Neurol. 453:22–32, 2002. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

 

This might make brains larger, but does it make them smarter?  This paper has been out for a long time, so presumably if there was a big intelligence boost, we'd know by now.  We probably know enough about the genetics of normal high intelligence to increase the probability that a child is quite bright (and maybe on the autism spectrum, since that kind of overlaps with high intelligence), but I don't think we know how to make a person super-intelligent, and probably won't for a long time.

[mag1]

We already know how to work out the genetics of intelligence.

All that would be required is to increase the sample genotyped on widely used gene chips.

 

It is simply a question of whether we are smart enough to bother.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3652710/

 

CRISPRing might then not be far behind.

[mag1]

Progress is being made to increase Longevity.

 

Given the implications of extended life span resulting in profound dementia, many of the researchers are not sure whether this is

something to be celebrated.

 

The longevity movement would gain considerably more traction if they spent more time addressing this concern. Without the 

neurodegeneration concern, researchers could advance the field without the lurking suspicion that they would simply be creating

a social catastrophe.

 

It is quite plausible that evolution was not highly motivated to provide an unlimited life span to life forms.

Considering the extreme life spans of some trees etc. we know that extreme longevity is possible.

 

We can not be as sure that extreme life spans and in tact cognition in humans would be readily achievable. 

Providing endless replacement of worn out organs (excluding the brain) through replacement is now on the horizon.

The real challenge seems to be staving off Alzheimer's dementia.

 

http://www.scienceda...51201113917.htm

https://clinicaltria...how/NCT02432287

[Danail Bulgaria]

Alright, guys. You will know which gene has to be changes to stop the Alzheimer's dementia. How will you tickle it in all of the brain cells? 

 

Can CRISPR tickle it in your brain cells? 

 

Can viruses do this? 

[Steve H]

AAV could do this yes

[Danail Bulgaria]

Do you mean the "Adeno-associated virus"? 

 

https://en.wikipedia...ssociated_virus

 

Ok. So... if you know which gene to target, and if you can insert the correct gene copy in the virus, in all of the brain cells, then theoretically you can stop Alzheimers. Maybe also the age related dementia. Test it on people. 

 

[Steve H]

Yes Adeno associated virus, AAV2 would probably be the best as it has good neural interaction and its something Telocyte and Bioviva are using to target microglial cells in the brain with telomerase. 

[mag1]

Getting the CRISPR tools into the brain could be tricky and I am not sure whether this has been worked out yet.

 

However, there are many Alzheimer targets that exist outside of the brain.

For example, it has recently been found that eotaxin 1, a factor in the blood, can reduce the age of onset of dementia by approximately 7 years.

rs1129844 was the SNP that was found for this trait.

 

Such a CRISPRing would not be required to pass through the BBB.

 

There are several other possible non-brain targets in the liver and elsewhere.

Increasing magnesium levels might be helpful.

Also, it has been established that removing amyloid from the rest of the body will result in reduced brain amyloid levels.

Amyloid is the putative causative agent of Alzheimer's.

 

Non-brain targets would be the low hanging fruit and would probably have an easier route to the clinic as they could

piggyback on clinical research that has already been done (e.g. the recent announcement of a gene editing of blood

from a child with leukemia who was cured of their cancer.)

 

Edited by mag1, 04 December 2015 - 06:08 PM.

[mag1]

I was wondering today about the implications for pharmaceutical companies from CRISPR.

 

As it is now pharmaceutical companies can make non-substantive alterations of existing

patented drugs (such as by adding a methyl group) and once through the regulatory

process sell these me too drugs for a considerable amount of money. Of course, actually

developing and being first to market for a product in a new drug class is extremely difficult

and requires an extraordinary number of highly trained scientists to accomplish. The idea of

developing a biotech base predicated on an extremely cheap and simple technology must

be a concern for many in the pharma business.

 

The question I am interested in is: How would it be possible in a CRISPR technology environment

to actually assert a valid claim for intellectual property rights for CRISPR treatments?

 

At the broadest level, well, yes, CRISPR is a patentable technology, though what intellectual property

would be involved in saying designing the guide RNA and other components to CRISPR, say, APOE epsilon 3?

It would only entail $30 of RNA. Alzheimer's in the current technology context is recognized as perhaps a

$100 billion market opportunity. What would the market opportunity be knowing that only $30 of RNA

is needed.

 

How much intellectual exertion would there actually be to find the right RNA to load onto CAS? Will the community

allow the enforcement of patents and the charging of tens of thousands of dollars on CRISPR treatments that 

might be considered trivially obvious by even those with only a casual knowledge of CRISPR?

 

Once optimized implementations of CRISPR are developed, it simply might not be possible to add

that methyl group in order to claim a me too patent. Perhaps those who were first to market would have

a truer form of pure monopoly.

 

As soon as the broad technology of CRISPR has been perfected, then designing a new treatment for any

other illness would not require an extensive clinical trial process: A simple change of RNA guide might be all

that would be needed. Why bother with clinical trials for a technology that would have already been perfected

in other indications? CRISPR would be the ultimate cross-platform technology.

 

What would this imply for the prices that could be charged for products if it were understood that no actual

investment or risk would be involved in bringing products to market. Indeed, in such a circumstance how would

it be possible to prevent micro-scale biotechs from marketing their own CRISPR products?

 

This would be especially revolutionary for so called orphan diseases. Without a market to attract pharmaceutical

companies many of these illnesses languish indefinitely without prospects for new products. CRISPR technology

would allow development of treatments for them with a simple change of RNA to load onto CAS.

 

 

Edited by mag1, 05 December 2015 - 12:48 AM.

[mag1]

I wonder whether the recent Summit on Gene Editing had any consensus opinion on the possibility of human epigenomic CRISPRing.

This would be a form of heritable germline alteration that might be regarded as editable, as epigenomic changes are not regarded as permanent.

[mag1]

Hmm, perfected CRISPR  ---> Genetic Singularity.

 

 

http://www.scienceda...60106143018.htm

[Danail Bulgaria]

@mag1 , I started to like your posts on CRISPR. Are you a genetics expert, by the way?

[mag1]

Sorry seivtcho for not replying for over a year.

No, actually I am no genetics expert.

 

Extremely exciting development.

Human germline editing is moving forward much more rapidly than might have been thought possible when this thread began.

 

This is astonishing!

This is about the triumph of human rights and freedom and fulfilling the deeply held wish that humanity could be one people.

The implications for developing technologies (such as life extension) and increasing global prosperity are overwhelming.

 

The idea that somehow the future would be denied as had been suggested two years with a global moratorium is now just

a blip on the road to a genetically engineered world. It is extraordinary that on a timescale of years we are moving towards a radically different world.

 

That is why I went with the Genetic Singularity in the title of the thread.

I realize that this use of Singularity is not entirely accurate, though I would find it hard to imagine a CRISPRed world that

was not extremely different to the world that we now live on. CRISPR technology will fundamentally change the quality of

being human. We will not need to look far to find an alien civilization: We will be the aliens!

 

https://www.extremet...human-embryo-us

 

https://www.newscien...bryos-released/

 

 

Humanity is clearly now approaching the biggest leap in all of time.

Clearly a great big risky leap into the unknown, though at the same time a leap into a very different world of higher intelligence, higher fucntioning,

greater prosperity and less inequality.

 

Not only is CRISPR developing into a usable germline editing technology, but also GWAS research is filling in the gaps to what it is we might want

to gene edit to become. Would not be much use in having the tools to gene edit without a genetic utopia to move towards. For example, there was a

recent announcement of a million person GWAS for educational attainment that might explain 20% of the variation. In order to take advantage of these

highly polygenic traits CRISPR will need to be very very accurate.

 

This is such a massive development.

 

I call on members of the forum to engage in discussing this topic as this will surely be perhaps the main

driver of change for at least the 21st Century.

 

Edited by mag1, 28 July 2017 - 05:02 PM.

[mag1]

We are now right at the moment before a very different world emerges.

The Genetic Singularity Event is now imminent.

 

I feel so blessed.

The universe overflows with positive energy, love and prosperity.

 

 

Up until very recently the genetics of intelligence had been very very obscure.

Even a year or two ago few if any SNPs for g reached genome wide significance and the one's that did explained virtually none of the variance.

 

This decades long impasse has now been overcome.

The trick seems to have been to use Educational Attainment, an easier phenotype to obtain, as a proxy for g. 

And now other studies have included other related metrics such as income etc. that are related to g.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/27431296

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/27046643

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/27225129

http://www.biorxiv.o...160291.full.pdf

http://programme.exo...esentation/186/

 

The massive success of these GWAS and many others has created a powerful positive feedback mechanism.

It is now very clear how to solve the genetics of these traits and additional successes will only accelerate the forward progress.

 

The doors have been thrown open.

It is now very clear that the genetics of IQ, educational attainment, income and many other variables of interest

will soon be revealed. This will be of overwhelming social importance. One of the above urls notes that the science 

has already advanced to the point where a gene chip can make meaningful prediction about educational outcomes

when comparing the top and bottom septiles of polygenic scores for Educational Attainment among children.

 

We know how to unlock the meaning human genome.

CRISPR will allow us to start our journey to a new genetically engineered humanity.

 

This is an extraordinary moment in time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by mag1, 11 August 2017 - 10:18 PM.

[mag1]

Quite funny that I finally realized what the world of tomorrow will be like: Nerdville!

I had not quite figured this out before.

 

The world that we are quickly moving towards will be highly genetically standardized.

It will not be anything like today where everything is so topsy turvsy.

 

The pivotal driving force in genetic engineering will be to increase cognitive ability.

Up to this point in the argument everyone has meekly accepted the contention that altering

human intelligence for the better was somehow a line in the sand that we should not cross.

However, it is now clear that intelligence is the central factor regulating almost everything:

disease, income, longevity, social fulfillment, ... everything. It seems very unlikely that 

the proposition that we should provide enormous social assistance to people for eternity

because we are so ideologically opposed to genetic engineering. Such thinking will bankrupt us!

If everything relates to intelligence and intelligence is highly related to genetics, then changing 

genes certainly seems the way to solve our problems.

 

 

When you leave the future to the roll of the genetic recombination dice it's really anyone's guess how things might turn out.

Not surprising at all that the human trajectory of cultural and scientific progress has been so erratic over the time frame of

centuries. Few nations / empires have been able to maintain a coherent pattern of behavior lasting into the centuries.

 

With a deep understanding of the human genome we could move into an era in which human genetics essentially became

standardized and stationary. We would no longer be captive to a random genetic process.

 

 

Edited by mag1, 15 August 2017 - 02:28 AM.

[Nate-2004]

Take this survey

Scientists have recently developed a technology called CRISPR-Cas9, which enables scientists to cut and paste DNA within the genome. The tool permits genetic engineering on an unprecedented scale and at a very low cost. The technique is already being used in a variety of fields, but because of its potential to modify DNA in human embryos, it has prompted calls for a public debate about where the technology should be applied.

Researchers working with WhatIsBiotechnology are running a pilot survey to gather people's views on this new technology. Dr Lara Marks, Managing Editor of the site and historian of medicine and Dr Silvia Camporesi, bioethicist at King's College London, are leading the project. Responses to the survey are anonymised, and results will be published both on the website and through other media. To take part in the debate please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements ranging from '1' indicating 'Very strongly disagree' to '7' indicating 'Very strongly agree' followed by keywords that you associate with genome editing and any other comments that you might have about the issues surrounding the science.

http://www.whatisbio...index/670a773b/

 

I wish I could have participated in that survey. It's enraging to think anyone has any ethical qualms with advancements that will lead to longevity and the end of human suffering. It would be unethical NOT to pursue this. Any so called "ethical" concerns about CRISPR are purely religious in nature and based on fear spawned by some dystopian movie or novel they read. It's not up to them what I do with my own body and anyone who stands in the way of this technology, state, group or otherwise, is my worst enemy.

Edited by Nate-2004, 25 August 2017 - 04:23 AM.

[mag1]

Thank you for responding Nate!

 

Yes, I have been thinking about this lately as well, I am LIVIDLY angry about these fascists trying to deny freedom and human rights in the 21st Century.

We need to make it perfectly clear to these people who plan on pursuing similar genocidal plans as those in the 20th Century that they will be held fully

accountable for their criminal conduct.

 

In the 20th Century, these were crimes of commission; in the 21st Century, they could be crimes of omission.

However, we need to develop the legal concept that denial of genetic engineering as a fundamental human right is understood to be a Crime against Humanity. 

The definition of criminality needs to be extended to those who are thought criminals. Ideas matter. Bad ideas, such as denying or in some way obstructing

the basic human right of choosing the genotype of your children, needs to be vigorously confronted. Consciousness in our community needs to be changed to

make it widely appreciated that this constitutes genocide.

 

It is entirely unsurprising to me that those arguing for a moratorium have pursued a blanket global ban.

How very               totalitarian.  Wouldn't want there to be any freedom to choose, now would we?

Wouldn't want anyone to have the idea of a scorched earth financial plan of dumping all nominal currency

assets in those denying basic freedoms and buying into those nations that actually showed basic support for human rights.

The perfect strategy for the fascist: a united front against choice, so that no one could gain by opting out.

 

This is a very good point about the sanctity of individual choice. The totalitarian mindset never seems to fully assimilate this idea.

Yet, it is always at the center of all the problems in history. Some people do not find it sufficient that they control their own choices.

No! Somehow they feel entitled to make choices for others. Just say the word! When this technology launches, let these fascists

pontificate to whoever might not have caught the first plane out. Given the demographic collapse that is now underway in every

developed nation, they could then finally have a chance to contemplate what consequences are all about.    

 

Recently in the shower I thought perhaps the only way to purge these misguided individuals would be to have some more 1950s Unamerican Activites Commissions.

If these totalitarian types really do not understand what the Constitution means, do not understand what freedom means, then they should be given a tax payor paid 

bus ticket to Canada and told not to come back. Either you believe in freedom and democracy or you don't. If you don't, then you have no business being an American.

This is bedrock politics that transcends party affiliation.

 

If they have some sort of problem with my choice to genetically engineer my kids to have green skin with pink polka dots and uncertain gender status, they should keep their

bigotry to themselves.

 

Edited by mag1, 26 August 2017 - 02:31 AM.

[mag1]

The genetic engineering rocketship is accelerating so fast that it is tough to stay on the same rhetorical path for long.

It looks like the code has been cracked, I repeat Code Cracked! It is simply stunning! It's like a supernova has just exploded. It is so bright out there you definitely need those shades.

The GWAS reports for IQ, Educational Attainment, it's overwhelming! It is happening right now! When we hit one million Pandora's box opens! We need to be ready for this. What happens when a $50 gene chip can peer deeply into our futures. Our we really going to say to a new born, your genes mean you can never succeed. Reality could be harsh. This reality is no longer far in the distance. It is imminent!

If you need references go to biorxiv or pubmed, type GWAS IQ, Educational Attainment etc. A new era begins!!!

Edited by mag1, 29 August 2017 - 01:23 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

The code cracking is not new, it's been well known for a long time. See Arthur Jensen's "The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability", for example. That heredity is a major factor in the development of intellectual ability is confirmed by current genetic science. Check out ASPM haplogroup D.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 29 August 2017 - 02:34 AM.

[mag1]

Thank you for replying, Advocatus.

 

The imminent genesis of Homo sapiens eugenica needs to be talked about URGENTLY.

 

Where is the global protest movement?

Where is the buzz on this? 

 

Homo sapiens is at the brink of a cognitive upgrade!

Shouldn't there at least be a holiday to mark the arrival of the eugenica species?

Everyone who wants one more day of summer vacation, please put up their hands now!

Why does everyone wait until after the storm has struck?

 

 

I have read The g Factor and greatly enjoyed it.

 

However, this is more of a 20th Century descriptive genre of psychometrics.

There was over a century's worth of argumentation and discussion about the basic findings of psychometric results

that to a certain extent has continued into the 21st Century.

 

While the 21st Century variant of translational psychometrics is now rapidly emerging.

It is only during the last 4 years that replicable SNPs for educational attainment, g and other traits have been reported. 

 

It is startling!

We are no longer at the roadblock of endlessly discussing why people are different.

Soon the shift to how can we make people the same will become the focus.

(The same as in everyone being a new species of hominoids with overwhelming cognitive ability)

 

Look at Figure 1 at the below url. For height and other traits (such as IQ), there is a tug of war that is underway

between SNPs that increase and those that decrease a trait. I had not been aware of this. What this actually means

is that those who are currently at the highest level of the performance curve are nowhere near the theoretical maximum.

The upper tier of IQ might have 5100 IQ raising and 5000 IQ lowering SNPs. 10,000 coins have been flipped and there were

slightly more raising than lowering SNPs. What happens when we engineer people with 10,000 raising and 0 lowering SNPs?

 

IQ now tops out perhaps at 200, though with all the pulling in the wrong direction that is occurring even for those at the upper

extreme a maximum of perhaps 1000 IQ could be achieved by optimizing even the findable genetic variation with current technology.

 

http://www.nature.co...otcallback=true

 

Unlocking the code to g is now underway. In the previous Century the unlocking was vague, look for SNPs and you'll find g: somewhere or

other. What is so stunning now is the somewhere or other is at this moment being revealed. Without knowing the specifics it was only

a subject resigned to endless empty rhetoric. This is no longer empty rhetoric. The international moratorium on gene editing that was

proposed a year or two ago showed how worried those with expert knowledge were about the exact discussion we are having on this thread.

 

My best guessimate is that creating a human with at least 300 IQ is now feasible and perhaps has already been done.

This endless discussion about dysgenics is no longer relevant.

 

We need to start talking about what a world of 500+ IQ will be like and what standards of conduct should immediately apply

which would be congruent with such a world. We all need to do a smart lift. Not totally sure where to start, but losing some weight

and getting a good 8 hours of sleep every night is probably a good place to start.

 

Basically we are now as suggested by the title of this thread approaching The Genetic Singularity event.

There is no doubt that this is true.

 

The world is about to be smarter ---- way way smarter than now; massively smart.

Probably a good time to take up crossword puzzles.

 

 

 

Edited by mag1, 29 August 2017 - 08:03 PM.

[mag1]

So a ramp up and roll out of the eugenica over the next 5 -10 years.

 

As soon as one nation has clearly achieved the technology and is obviously intent on developing it, an overwhelming positive feedback loop would ensue,

ensuring rapid global uptake. If there were not a near real time confirmation by my government that they also intended to with all haste develop and

implement this technology, then it would be a moment of near panic evacuation as all our assets were sold and the earliest available plane ticket was

purchased to anywhere where a sane genetic engineering strategy had been formulated. This will be one time when hesitation will not be tolerated.

A world of 1000 IQ versus one of 100 IQ would be dramatically different. Any democratic nation that attempted to bluff out such massive potential

differences in wealth, health and development would become rapidly depopulated, perhaps even deserted.

 

The current research makes predicting a narrow window for the Singularity much easier.

 

A generation of optimally g enchanced 15 year olds would without doubt be able to achieve THE Singularity (i.e., the real one).

Even with this time-line the Singularitarians prediction of 2045 looks pretty good.

Suppose they also estimated a Genetic Singularity somewhere around 2020-2025; without enhancement the timeframe

for a Singularity prediction would not be as precise.

 

Sometime around August 30th at 8:05 AM GMT, 2042 give or take things could become quite entertaining.

Edited by mag1, 29 August 2017 - 10:14 PM.

[mag1]

What are some implications?

 

The girls who will be 25-30 years of age and intend to become mothers when gene tech launches will be of critical importance.

That would mean those girls born between roughly 1995 and 2005. These would be the mothers of a new species of primates

with incomprehensible levels of IQ, though the marginal benefit of the eugenica generation would decline through time.

 

Considering some upgrade in the social safety net would not seem an unreasonable step to take immediately.

This is no longer talking about an open ended commitment to fund people who will accept hand outs for eternity.

There are clear limits for taxpayer support of social investments that often never appear to generate any obvious

return. A generation of 1000 IQers would clearly be different, very different. Sometime 15-20 years after launching

the eugenica generation, life as we know it would be profoundly different. It would not be plausible to have a group

of people with 1000 IQ that did not reinvent reality. The expected returns from an enhanced generation would be

substantial. This would clearly shift the balance from a socialized humanitarian state model to a socialized capitalist

state model. The people who receive the hand outs would offer a very large return on investment. 

 

Another concern would be that enhancing IQ would not be sufficient. We would need to be fully on board with a comprehensive

gene edit right from the start. A world that edited for IQ yet not autism, schizophrenia, substance abuse, depression, dementia etc.

would be terrifying. Could the world possibly survive if someone who might have the mental capacity and technical ability to create

a black hole near our planet were allowed to do so? Perhaps the first law of genetic engineering will need to be that you are either

all in or not in. A lack of genetic and psychological diversity would be a substantial risk in itself, though the alternative would be of far

greater concern.

 

Another fairly obvious change would be a strong need to require stringent drug control (i.e., an absolute ban on illicit drugs). The eugenica generation

will simply need to be drug free. Amplifying the potential consequences from neurodegeneration that results from drug use in a generation with extreme

cognitive ability is a risk that we simply cannot afford to take. Parents that did not want to be legally obligated to follow such a restriction could do so by

opting out of genetic engineering. Perhaps we should start planning now to build the cities for this next generation and begin to

formulate the environmental manipulations that will need to be made (e.g., in the legal system, pollution regulation etc.). 

 

 

 

 

Edited by mag1, 29 August 2017 - 11:03 PM.

[mag1]

It will be extremely interesting to now watch fertility rates around the world.

When will we see a complete collapse in fertility?

 

If a parent needed to choose between a world where their children and all their friends in their generation would have 1000 IQ and a

world where a substantial percentage had <100 IQ, then how long would they delay reproduction to give their children this advantage?

It is not entirely clear now how far eugenica is, though ball parking we could say 5 -10 years.

 

Would a 20 year old that wanted a child now wait 10 years? Seems reasonable.

 

What if we were clearly within 2 years from gene tech launch?

Would anyone choose to become a parent under such a scenario?

 

Might we now be approaching a complete collapse in global fertility.

No children at all from T_C  --> T_G  (That is, at some time (T_C) children will no longer be born until the time of the arrival of eugenica (T_G) )?

 

This seems highly plausible.

If true, there would be enormous social consequences.

Edited by mag1, 30 August 2017 - 02:32 AM.

[mag1]

Other positive feedback mechanisms would also be at play.

If a 1 point boost in IQ is worth $1000 per person (can scale it up or down however you like) and you boost IQ by 100 points, then GDP per capita per year has perhaps increased $100,000 (?)

 

As we approach the Genetic Singularity and get closer and closer, when might people push for a greater research effort to get us past the goal line.

If another $10 billion of research would move forward G_C by 1 year, then the return on investment in the next year would be $40 trillion for the US alone. 

 

What is especially instructive is the Figures below. As can be seen the GWAS for EA proxy for IQ appear to have already begun to approach some sort

of mathematical singularity. This discovery rate will only further increase with the near term release of a GWAS of up to 1 million people and 600 genome

related SNPs. 2017 is the liftoff year for discovery in EA and many other GWAS. When this success is more fully appreciated in the community, 

a positive feedback loop based on these promising results will further intensive the rate of discovery. It is now abundantly clear that marginal investment

will yield returns. This should act as a strong incentive to do more of the same.

 

http://www.biorxiv.o...176511.full.pdf

 

How could such a socio-political iceberg not enter a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism?

What would the national securities implications be if a less than transparent nation pursued a gene tech project in obscurity?

 

What seems obvious is that notwithstanding any global moratorium, the incentive to defect from such a ban is of such substantial

magnitude that the only reasonable game theoretic strategy for all nations would be to defect.

 

There are some very informed posters on this thread. And a few posts that I have looked back on have indicated a more

timid timeline for the roll out of this technology then has subsequently occurred. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest

that we have had a certain mental bias that is acting against a better forecast. We are on an exponential ramp for these

technologies, so we should not be overly surprised if development milestones were to occur much sooner than typically

expected. 

 

Most of the technology base has already been put into place. The final limiting factor for a liftoff might well be to 

work through the socio-political questions that need to be addressed.

Attached Files

•  Figure 1.PNG   65.31KB   0 downloads

Edited by mag1, 30 August 2017 - 03:17 AM.

[mag1]

What seems clear to me after my postings of yesterday is that the forces of the universe are dragging us to the Genetic Singularity. There are a range of positive feedback mechanisms that are online or will be soon that are moving us towards a vortex -- gene tech.

Understanding that such momentum to inevitably is now underway, the impulse to proceed cautiously certainly does have appeal. Yet, reasonably, this now appears to be beyond the power of anyone to control. One of those times when the ship is sinking and those people who whine for everyone to stay in straight lines are ignored.

This insight is of no great surprise to the GWAS community, though it likely is to some extent to the mainstream. Will be interesting to watch as this filters through the consciousness of the massive.

Controlling a mob when in full frenzy is not essentially impossible. People in free societies have a wide range of choices available to them that could greatly destabilize the social order. Foremost amongst them would the fertility strike that I suggested yesterday. Fertility has already collapsed in every developed nation. Any further marginal decline could tip many nation's into a short run demographic crisis.

[mag1]

God is coming: God's Children are near. We need to prepare NOW.

Some might not want to bring in religious imagery though even for many who are beyond this tradition the imagery is still some of the most powerful of any form of literature. The scientific literature in it's pursuit of objectivism can hardly be pointed to as a substitute.

Children of God it is.

And all us village folk must prepare for their arrival. We need to clean and polish and contemplate and make ourselves better people fast. No more dress rehearsals.

Denial would not be a mature response. This will happen before we are fully ready, we need to get into sooner than later. Pretending that it will just go away if we don't pay attention would also not be an adaptive response.

A world of genius will be a very different world than we have known to this point. Abandoning a eugenica because the parents were particularly flawed individuals does not pass muster. It would not be overly surprising if we are now moving towards a much more intrusive state role in child rearing. Children with IQs of 1000+ should clearly not be raised in levels of abusiveness that is far from rare today.

This is BIG.
This is sure.
This is near.

Get Ready!

Edited by mag1, 30 August 2017 - 11:41 PM.