One solution [MacAskill] offered was cloning or genetically optimizing a small subset of the population to have “Einstein-level research abilities” to “compensate for having fewer people overall.”
Is this real? It sounds awful. (I haven’t read the book)
From What We Owe the Future, near the end of Chapter 7 on Stagnation:
Advances in biotechnology could provide another pathway to rebooting growth. If scientists with Einstein-level research abilities were cloned and trained from an early age, or if human beings were genetically engineered to have greater research abilities, this could compensate for having fewer people overall and thereby sustain technological progress. But in addition to questions of technological feasibility, there will likely be regulatory prohibitions and strong social norms against the use of this technology—especially against the most radical forms, which would be necessary to multiply effective research efforts manyfold. Human cloning is already within technological reach, but as a global society we’ve decided not to go forward with it—which may well be for the best, as human cloning could plausibly increase the risk of bad value lock-in. In sum, if we neither develop and deploy breakthrough technology in time nor see a renewed population boom, it doesn’t look like we’ll be able to keep quadrupling research effort. In that case, stagnation seems likely.
Is this real? It sounds awful. (I haven’t read the book)
From What We Owe the Future, near the end of Chapter 7 on Stagnation:
Thanks. It’s not as awful as the partial quote, but in my eyes still bad, and will make me think twice about associating with MacAskill.
Did you want to elaborate on this in any way?