In general I think large changes shouldn’t happen without consent. Seems a pretty bad idea to push onto poor nations when rich nations don’t allow this. Note how this is different from vaccinations and cash transfers which are both legal and desired by those receiving them.
If westerners want to genetically enhance their kids they can, and if we give money to those in poverty and they decide to use it for genetic enhancement (unlikely), fair enough. But trialling things that we in the west find deeply controversial in poorer nations seems probably awful, whether it’s on an individual or national level.
The case seems more interesting to remove the ban on voluntary genetic enhancement in the West and see how that goes. I’d read estimates of impact there.
Also this article is really long on a difficult topic. I can empathise with people who guessed they’d disagree and so downvoted without reading closely.
I can empathise with people who guessed they’d disagree and so downvoted without reading closely.
It seems unfair to me that people are downvoting me without reading my article. What function does the downvote serve except to suppress ideas if those using it are not even reading the article? This seems out of line with EA virtues.
At one point (no longer it appears), it appeared my article was not even searchable with the EA forum search function and the analytics suggested that the average person who viewed it was reading about 10% (4-5 minutes/40 minutes) of it. Perhaps they are reading it but not “closely”, I cannot be certain. Maybe it’s inflated by people who are responding to comments or just looking again.
But I have responded in a respectful manner to constructive comments. If someone has constructive thoughts, they can share them in the comments. I think that would contribute more to the EA community and improve people’s ability to think clearly about the issue than merely downvoting.
In general I think large changes shouldn’t happen without consent.
In this article, I am not advocating for violating consent. Why do you think otherwise? I said:
The era of “new eugenics” characterized by the use of reprogenetic technology will be morally incomparable to the atrocities of the past because this form will not only be harmless but actually be consensual and improve human welfare. An irony of the “eugenics” objection to some forms of reprogenetic technology is that the new eugenics facilitates better-informed consensual reproductive decisions, while those who want to ban such technology are advocating coercion in reproduction. [...]
New eugenics, characterized by reprogenetic technology and voluntary choice, …
In my policy proposal, I am not advocating for forcing this on people. I do say:
In governments with restrictions on selection on the basis of cognitive traits, advocates for genetic enhancement should lobby for reproductive autonomy.
None of the policy proposals involve forcing this on anyone. I want to make the technology available for voluntary use, and I think that should be EAs aim.
Seems a pretty bad idea to push onto poor nations when rich nations don’t allow this. Note how this is different from vaccinations and cash transfers which are both legal and desired by those receiving them.
The technologies that I mention are emerging technologies and most have them have yet to be created. I want EA to accelerate the advances so people can voluntarily use the technology. I am not advocating violating consent.
The use of PGT is not entirely legal for cosmetic/IQ in all countries (for example prohibited in Germany), but it is legal in the US and some others. IVF is legal almost all over the world. Besides, restricting people from making voluntary reproductive choices is actually coercion, not lifting legal restrictions. Letting women have reproductive autonomy is not forcing this on poor nations.
If westerners want to genetically enhance their kids they can, and if we give money to those in poverty and they decide to use it for genetic enhancement (unlikely), fair enough. But trialling things that we in the west find deeply controversial in poorer nations seems probably awful, whether it’s on an individual or national level.
See my recommendations in the conclusion. My argument is that people will voluntarily adopt it if the technology is available. No direct spending on subsidizing or “trialling” on poorer nations is necessary.
The case seems more interesting to remove the ban on voluntary genetic enhancement in the West and see how that goes. I’d read estimates of impact there.
Polygenic screening is available in the US and currently practiced. Research is being done to improve gene editing. Start ups and researchers are working on IVG. For example, research is underway on iterated meiotric selection and sperm selection. I don’t believe any of that is illegal, at least not now. I think legalizing gene-editing of embryos is probably not a good idea right now because the tech isn’t ready yet. But most of my focus was on accelerating the technology. I want it to be safe.
I did provide a discussion of the expected impact. One of the publicly available companies, Genomic Prediction, investigated the impact as measured in DALYs. I mentioned this in the article:
There are worthwhile benefits to PGT-P. Widen et al. (2022) constructed a health index that led to a gain of roughly 4 DALYs among individuals of European ancestry. The benefits of selection among siblings of European ancestry would be between 3 and 4 DALYs.
I also discussed the expected return from selection for IQ among currently available batches in section IV. And I discussed why IQ was important and what the expected impact could look like.
It seems that I am failing in communicating my message through my article, so please help me to be better. What more can I do to be persuasive or better present my message in a way that aligns with EA virtues? I genuinely believe this is an important cause area and I want to help humanity.
I don’t enjoy responses that are 3x as long as the message I wrote.
It seems unfair to me that people are downvoting me without reading my article. What function does the downvote serve except to suppress ideas if those using it are not even reading the article?
I think it’s fine to vote on expectation. I did, then reread your article and I endorse my vote, so mainly I’d have saved the time reading it.
In my policy proposal, I am not advocating for forcing this on people. I do say:
In governments with restrictions on selection on the basis of cognitive traits, advocates for genetic enhancement should lobby for reproductive autonomy.
So I think another issues is that you don’t really make clear what your policy proposal is. Or like I read about half the article and skimmed the rest. So I assumed given the title you wanted to trial it in the developing world, was I wrong?
I want to make the technology available for voluntary use, and I think that should be EAs aim.
Sure then write that article. I think “lets legalise genetic testing in the west” is a much less controversial article. Are you deliberately framing your ideas in a way that they can be misinterpreted?
It seems that I am failing in communicating my message through my article, so please help me to be better. What more can I do to be persuasive or better present my message in a way that aligns with EA virtues?
Write shorter pieces where your recommendations are really clear and definitely not awful stuff. If this piece was “I think we should run genetic engineering companies in israel, where it’s both legal and desired” I think it could have a better reaction.
I don’t enjoy responses that are 3x as long as the message I wrote.
I don’t know how to respond to this.
So I think another issues is that you don’t really make clear what your policy proposal is.
It’s clearly laid out in a list at the end of 8 points in the conclusion. I am not advocating for awful stuff, nor illegal stuff, nor coercive stuff. I don’t want to trial it there—but I want the developing world to have access to this technology so couples can voluntarily use it.
Are you deliberately framing your ideas in a way that they can be misinterpreted?
No. I think people are either not reading it or being deliberately dishonest and I don’t think it’s because of the title.
Well I have spend like an hour on your post and only just found the policy proposals. Why not put them at the top? Or with a heading?
Also I don’t really see what your policies have to do with ending poverty—seems like if successful these would be taken up in the west and then there would still be huge amounts of poverty.
I agree that many people will downvote your piece without reading it (though many will upvote for the same reason, and it seems there is some of both going on here) but I really did try and read it and it was soooooo long and very unclear. Maybe my thoughts don’t matter to you, but if you want my advice, clear writing involves the audience taking away what you intended from the piece. I don’t think you’ve succeed with me, despite my spending 30 − 60 minutes on it.
In general I think large changes shouldn’t happen without consent. Seems a pretty bad idea to push onto poor nations when rich nations don’t allow this. Note how this is different from vaccinations and cash transfers which are both legal and desired by those receiving them.
If westerners want to genetically enhance their kids they can, and if we give money to those in poverty and they decide to use it for genetic enhancement (unlikely), fair enough. But trialling things that we in the west find deeply controversial in poorer nations seems probably awful, whether it’s on an individual or national level.
The case seems more interesting to remove the ban on voluntary genetic enhancement in the West and see how that goes. I’d read estimates of impact there.
Also this article is really long on a difficult topic. I can empathise with people who guessed they’d disagree and so downvoted without reading closely.
It seems unfair to me that people are downvoting me without reading my article. What function does the downvote serve except to suppress ideas if those using it are not even reading the article? This seems out of line with EA virtues.
At one point (no longer it appears), it appeared my article was not even searchable with the EA forum search function and the analytics suggested that the average person who viewed it was reading about 10% (4-5 minutes/40 minutes) of it. Perhaps they are reading it but not “closely”, I cannot be certain. Maybe it’s inflated by people who are responding to comments or just looking again.
But I have responded in a respectful manner to constructive comments. If someone has constructive thoughts, they can share them in the comments. I think that would contribute more to the EA community and improve people’s ability to think clearly about the issue than merely downvoting.
I have also asked how to better advocate for my cause, and still received many downvotes. What can I do and what should I do to avoid being downvoted by people who are (most likely) not even reading my article?
In this article, I am not advocating for violating consent. Why do you think otherwise? I said:
In my policy proposal, I am not advocating for forcing this on people. I do say:
None of the policy proposals involve forcing this on anyone. I want to make the technology available for voluntary use, and I think that should be EAs aim.
The technologies that I mention are emerging technologies and most have them have yet to be created. I want EA to accelerate the advances so people can voluntarily use the technology. I am not advocating violating consent.
The use of PGT is not entirely legal for cosmetic/IQ in all countries (for example prohibited in Germany), but it is legal in the US and some others. IVF is legal almost all over the world. Besides, restricting people from making voluntary reproductive choices is actually coercion, not lifting legal restrictions. Letting women have reproductive autonomy is not forcing this on poor nations.
See my recommendations in the conclusion. My argument is that people will voluntarily adopt it if the technology is available. No direct spending on subsidizing or “trialling” on poorer nations is necessary.
Polygenic screening is available in the US and currently practiced. Research is being done to improve gene editing. Start ups and researchers are working on IVG. For example, research is underway on iterated meiotric selection and sperm selection. I don’t believe any of that is illegal, at least not now. I think legalizing gene-editing of embryos is probably not a good idea right now because the tech isn’t ready yet. But most of my focus was on accelerating the technology. I want it to be safe.
I did provide a discussion of the expected impact. One of the publicly available companies, Genomic Prediction, investigated the impact as measured in DALYs. I mentioned this in the article:
I also discussed the expected return from selection for IQ among currently available batches in section IV. And I discussed why IQ was important and what the expected impact could look like.
It seems that I am failing in communicating my message through my article, so please help me to be better. What more can I do to be persuasive or better present my message in a way that aligns with EA virtues? I genuinely believe this is an important cause area and I want to help humanity.
I don’t enjoy responses that are 3x as long as the message I wrote.
I think it’s fine to vote on expectation. I did, then reread your article and I endorse my vote, so mainly I’d have saved the time reading it.
So I think another issues is that you don’t really make clear what your policy proposal is. Or like I read about half the article and skimmed the rest. So I assumed given the title you wanted to trial it in the developing world, was I wrong?
Sure then write that article. I think “lets legalise genetic testing in the west” is a much less controversial article. Are you deliberately framing your ideas in a way that they can be misinterpreted?
Write shorter pieces where your recommendations are really clear and definitely not awful stuff. If this piece was “I think we should run genetic engineering companies in israel, where it’s both legal and desired” I think it could have a better reaction.
I don’t know how to respond to this.
It’s clearly laid out in a list at the end of 8 points in the conclusion. I am not advocating for awful stuff, nor illegal stuff, nor coercive stuff. I don’t want to trial it there—but I want the developing world to have access to this technology so couples can voluntarily use it.
No. I think people are either not reading it or being deliberately dishonest and I don’t think it’s because of the title.
Well I have spend like an hour on your post and only just found the policy proposals. Why not put them at the top? Or with a heading?
Also I don’t really see what your policies have to do with ending poverty—seems like if successful these would be taken up in the west and then there would still be huge amounts of poverty.
I agree that many people will downvote your piece without reading it (though many will upvote for the same reason, and it seems there is some of both going on here) but I really did try and read it and it was soooooo long and very unclear. Maybe my thoughts don’t matter to you, but if you want my advice, clear writing involves the audience taking away what you intended from the piece. I don’t think you’ve succeed with me, despite my spending 30 − 60 minutes on it.