I agree with your general case, and I’m interested in the role that genetics can play in improving educational and socio-economic outcomes across the world. In the case of a world where biological intelligence remains relevant (not my default scenario, but plausible), this will become an increasingly interesting question.
However, I’m unconvinced that an EA should want to invest in any of the suggested donation interventions at the minute—they seem to be examples where existing research and market incentives would probably be sufficient. I’m not sure that more charitable support would have a strong counterfactual impact at the margins. (Note: I know very little about funding for genetics research—it seems expensive and already quite well-funded, but please correct me if I’m wrong here).
In terms of whether we should promote/ talk about it more, I think EA has limited “controversy points” that should be used sparingly for high-impact cause areas or interventions. I don’t feel that improving NIQ through genetic interventions scores well on the “EV vs. controversy” trade-off. There are other genetic enhancement interventions (e.g. reducing extreme suffering, in humans or farmed animals), that seem to give you more EV for less controversy.
Also, if we do make this case, I think that mentioning Lynn/ Vanhanen is probably unwise, and that you could make the case equally well without the more controversial figures/ references.
Finally, I’d like to see a plausible pathway or theory of change for a more explicitly EA-framed case for genetic enhancement. For example, we expect this technology to develop anyway, but people with an EA framing could:
1. Promote the use of embryo screening to avert strongly negative cognitive outcomes 2. If this technology is proven to be cost-effective in rich countries, remove barriers to rolling it out in countries where it could have a greater counterfactual impact
I agree with your general case, and I’m interested in the role that genetics can play in improving educational and socio-economic outcomes across the world. In the case of a world where biological intelligence remains relevant (not my default scenario, but plausible), this will become an increasingly interesting question.
However, I’m unconvinced that an EA should want to invest in any of the suggested donation interventions at the minute—they seem to be examples where existing research and market incentives would probably be sufficient. I’m not sure that more charitable support would have a strong counterfactual impact at the margins. (Note: I know very little about funding for genetics research—it seems expensive and already quite well-funded, but please correct me if I’m wrong here).
In terms of whether we should promote/ talk about it more, I think EA has limited “controversy points” that should be used sparingly for high-impact cause areas or interventions. I don’t feel that improving NIQ through genetic interventions scores well on the “EV vs. controversy” trade-off. There are other genetic enhancement interventions (e.g. reducing extreme suffering, in humans or farmed animals), that seem to give you more EV for less controversy.
Also, if we do make this case, I think that mentioning Lynn/ Vanhanen is probably unwise, and that you could make the case equally well without the more controversial figures/ references.
Finally, I’d like to see a plausible pathway or theory of change for a more explicitly EA-framed case for genetic enhancement. For example, we expect this technology to develop anyway, but people with an EA framing could:
1. Promote the use of embryo screening to avert strongly negative cognitive outcomes
2. If this technology is proven to be cost-effective in rich countries, remove barriers to rolling it out in countries where it could have a greater counterfactual impact