- Pascal's Chatbot Q&As
- Posts
- Parallels with eugenics movements caution against genetic selection for traits. Focus should shift towards understanding and celebrating human diversity rather than attempting to engineer it away.
Parallels with eugenics movements caution against genetic selection for traits. Focus should shift towards understanding and celebrating human diversity rather than attempting to engineer it away.
Grok: While the technology offers intriguing possibilities, the ethical, psychological, and societal implications, as well as the potential for unforeseen genetic consequences, suggest it's a bad idea
Pascal Hetzscholdt
December 03, 2024
Asking AI services: Please read the article “Silicon Valley’s tech elite want to make superbabies. Their kids may suffer for it” and tell me what it says. List all the pros and cons of this development and tell me whether you feel this is a good idea or a bad idea and why. Try to use evidence for your views when possible and explain whether similar attempts have been made before, by others and what the psychological and ideological reasons were in those situations and compare them to this initiative.
Grok’s answer:
The article "Silicon Valley’s tech elite want to make superbabies. Their kids may suffer for it" from the San Francisco Standard discusses the trend among Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs to use advanced fertility technologies like Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Polygenic Disorders (PGT-P) to select for traits in their offspring, aiming to create so-called "superbabies." Here's a summary of what the article covers, followed by the pros and cons:
Summary of the Article:
Fertility Tech Boom: Companies like Orchid Health, Gattaca Genomics, and Genomic Prediction, backed by tech leaders such as Sam Altman, Anne Wojcicki, and Peter Thiel, are offering genetic screenings for embryo selection based on polygenic risk scores for various health conditions and traits.
Claims and Promises: These services promise to mitigate risks for diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and depression, but they are not without controversy regarding accuracy, utility, and ethical implications.
Potential Risks: The article points out that selecting for certain traits might inadvertently increase the risk for other conditions due to the interconnected nature of genetic traits. For instance, selecting for higher educational attainment might correlate with a higher risk for bipolar disorder.
Diversity and Control: There's a concern that this practice could diminish neurodiversity in Silicon Valley, known for its contributions from individuals with diverse cognitive profiles. The drive for control over genetic outcomes might lead to unforeseen psychological impacts on children, potentially fostering a sense of being "engineered" rather than naturally developed.
Pros of "Superbaby" Development:
Health Improvements: By reducing genetic risks, there's the potential to decrease the prevalence of certain diseases or health conditions in future generations.
Enhanced Life Quality: Parents might select for traits that could lead to better life outcomes, such as higher intelligence or lower disease risk.
Parental Choice: Offers parents greater control over the genetic health and potential of their offspring, aligning with the tech industry's ethos of innovation and personalization.
Cons of "Superbaby" Development:
Ethical Concerns: There's a risk of sliding into eugenics, where genetic selection is used to favor certain traits over others, potentially leading to discrimination.
Genetic Complexity: The interconnectedness of genetic traits means that selecting for one trait could inadvertently increase risks for others, as evidenced by the higher risk of bipolar disorder when selecting for educational attainment.
Psychological Impact: Children might feel pressured to meet the expectations set by their genetic profile, leading to identity crises or mental health issues.
Loss of Diversity: Silicon Valley's innovation has partly thrived on neurodiversity; selecting for homogeneity could stifle creativity and innovation.
Accuracy and Overpromise: The science behind these technologies is not yet fully reliable, leading to potential overpromising and underdelivering.
Is it a Good or Bad Idea?
Bad Idea:
Evidence Against: The article highlights the potential negative psychological effects on children and the ethical issues of eugenics. The New England Journal of Medicine's special report on PGT-P suggests that the selection for one trait can lead to increased risk for others, indicating the complexity and unpredictability of genetic outcomes.
Historical Context: Past attempts at genetic selection, like the eugenics movements of the early 20th century, were driven by ideological desires for racial or intellectual purity, leading to significant human rights abuses. While the motives behind Silicon Valley's approach might seem more benign (health and potential enhancement), the underlying principle of selecting for "superior" traits echoes historical eugenics, albeit with different technology and perhaps less overt discriminatory intent.
Ideological and Psychological Reasons:
Ideologically: This initiative aligns with Silicon Valley's culture of disruption and optimization, where even human reproduction becomes another domain for technological intervention. The underlying ideology seems to be one of control and enhancement, not unlike the tech elite's approach to other aspects of life and business.
Psychologically: For parents, there's a desire to give their children every possible advantage, but this can stem from or lead to an unrealistic expectation of perfection or control, potentially affecting the parent-child relationship dynamics and the child's sense of self.
In conclusion, while the technology offers intriguing possibilities, the ethical, psychological, and societal implications, as well as the potential for unforeseen genetic consequences, suggest it's a bad idea in its current form. The historical parallels with eugenics movements further caution against unchecked genetic selection for traits. The focus should perhaps shift towards understanding and celebrating human diversity rather than attempting to engineer it away.
ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
The article, “Silicon Valley’s tech elite want to make superbabies. Their kids may suffer for it,” explores the trend among wealthy Silicon Valley influencers and tech entrepreneurs toward genetic optimization of offspring through preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic disorders (PGT-P). This technology allows parents to select embryos based on desired traits, like IQ or the absence of certain health risks, during in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, the article raises ethical concerns about eugenics, societal pressure, and the unintended consequences of these practices.
Pros of PGT-P and Superbaby Technology
Health Improvements:
Reduction in risks for certain multigenic conditions, like heart disease, diabetes, and depression.
Potentially healthier offspring with fewer predispositions for hereditary diseases.
Control for Parents:
Parents can tailor their children’s genetic predispositions to align with their ideals (e.g., intelligence or mental health).
Advancement in Fertility Technology:
Drives innovation in genetics and IVF, with potential broader applications in medicine.
Economic and Social Potential:
Proponents argue this could lead to a generation of higher-performing individuals contributing to society's progress.
Cons of PGT-P and Superbaby Technology
Ethical Concerns:
Risks of reviving eugenic ideologies, where individuals are judged and valued based on genetic traits.
Undermines diversity by promoting narrow definitions of health and success.
Unintended Genetic Risks:
Selecting for one trait (e.g., high IQ) might inadvertently increase the risk for others (e.g., bipolar disorder), given genetic complexity.
Psychological Harm to Children:
Creates pressure on children to live up to genetic expectations, potentially harming their mental well-being.
Limits children’s freedom to discover and embrace their individuality.
Social Inequality:
Access to this technology will likely be limited to wealthy elites, exacerbating social and economic disparities.
Scientific Limitations:
Current genetic science does not guarantee outcomes; there is significant uncertainty in predicting how traits interact.
Parental Stress:
Unrealistic expectations on parents to optimize their children, contributing to increased stress and societal pressures.
Historical and Psychological Comparisons
Historical Precedents:
Eugenics movements in the early 20th century aimed to “improve” populations but led to widespread discrimination and atrocities.
Past ideologies emphasized controlling reproduction to shape society, often at great human cost.
Psychological and Ideological Motivations:
Today’s initiatives stem from a desire for optimization and control, paralleling Silicon Valley’s tech ethos of “solving problems” through innovation.
Historically, eugenics stemmed from fears of degeneration and a desire to strengthen nations, while modern initiatives prioritize individual and familial aspirations for excellence.
Opinion on the Initiative
While the potential health benefits of reducing hereditary risks are appealing, the societal and ethical costs outweigh the advantages. These technologies reinforce a culture of perfectionism, undermine diversity, and risk creating a future where genetic privilege determines success. The lessons of history—where attempts to control genetics often led to suffering and inequality—should caution against embracing such technologies without robust ethical safeguards.
Conclusion
This initiative, while innovative, reflects a problematic overreach of control and optimization. The focus should shift toward creating nurturing environments that allow children to thrive naturally rather than micromanaging their genetic potential. Ensuring ethical oversight and equitable access will be crucial in addressing the moral dilemmas posed by this technology.
Perplexity’s answer:
The article discusses the emerging trend of "pronatalism" among Silicon Valley's tech elite, who are using advanced fertility technologies like preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic disorders (PGT-P) to select embryos with desired traits. This movement aims to produce "superbabies" with optimized genetic characteristics.Pros of this development:
Potential to reduce genetic risks for certain diseases
Possibility of selecting for traits associated with higher intelligence or educational attainment
Addressing concerns about declining birth rates in developed countries
Cons of this development:
Limited accuracy and utility of PGT-P technology
Risk of promoting a narrow idea of health and success
Undermining diversity in thought and behavior
Potential for unintended consequences due to genetic complexity
Increased parental stress and unrealistic expectations
Ethical concerns related to eugenics and genetic discrimination
This initiative is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, it promotes an overly simplistic view of genetics and human potential. The article points out that selecting for one trait may inadvertently increase the risk of other conditions, such as a higher chance of educational attainment being linked to an increased risk of bipolar disorder.
Secondly, this approach undermines the value of neurodiversity and the contributions of individuals with diverse cognitive profiles. Silicon Valley itself has benefited from the innovations of neurodivergent individuals, and selecting against such traits could limit future progress.
Historically, similar attempts at genetic selection have been associated with eugenics movements, which have had devastating consequences. The Nazi regime's pursuit of a "master race" is a stark example of the dangers of such ideologies. While the current initiative may not have the same explicitly racist goals, it still raises ethical concerns about genetic discrimination and the valuation of certain traits over others.Psychologically, the desire for "superbabies" may stem from a combination of factors, including:
Fear of societal collapse due to declining birth rates
A belief in technological solutions to complex social issues
A desire for control and optimization in all aspects of life
These motivations are similar to those behind past eugenics movements, which often arose from fears of societal degeneration and a belief in scientific progress as a means of human improvement.In conclusion, while the proponents of this technology may have good intentions, the potential negative consequences and ethical concerns outweigh the perceived benefits. Instead of focusing on genetic optimization, efforts should be directed towards creating supportive social environments that allow all individuals to reach their full potential, regardless of their genetic makeup.
Google Gemini’s answer:
Silicon Valley's tech elite are increasingly turning to a new fertility technology called preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic disorders (PGT-P) to select embryos with specific traits, often prioritizing intelligence and minimizing genetic risks for diseases like heart disease and diabetes. This raises concerns about the potential for eugenics and the impact on children's autonomy and well-being.
Pros of PGT-P:
Potential to reduce the risk of genetic diseases: PGT-P can identify embryos with a higher risk of inheriting certain genetic disorders, allowing parents to select embryos with a lower risk.
Potential to select for desirable traits: Some argue that PGT-P could be used to select for traits like intelligence, height, or athletic ability.
Cons of PGT-P:
Ethical concerns about eugenics: The use of PGT-P to select for specific traits raises concerns about the potential for eugenics, or the selective breeding of humans.
Uncertain long-term consequences: The long-term consequences of selecting for specific traits are unknown, and there is a risk that children may face unintended consequences.
Narrow definition of health and success: PGT-P promotes a very narrow definition of health and success, focusing on genetic factors and overlooking the importance of environmental and social factors.
Potential for increased pressure on children: Children born through PGT-P may face increased pressure to live up to their genetic potential, which could negatively impact their mental health and well-being.
Limited accuracy and utility: The technology has limited accuracy and utility, and there is a risk of false positives and false negatives.
Personal Opinion:
I believe that PGT-P is a bad idea. While it may have the potential to reduce the risk of genetic diseases, the potential for misuse and the negative impact on children's autonomy and well-being outweigh the benefits. Additionally, the technology promotes a narrow definition of health and success that ignores the importance of environmental and social factors.
Historical Context:
There have been similar attempts to improve human genetics throughout history, such as eugenics movements in the early 20th century. These movements aimed to improve the human population by selective breeding, often with disastrous results. While PGT-P is not as extreme as these earlier attempts, it shares some of the same underlying assumptions about the importance of genetic factors and the desirability of controlling human traits.
The psychological and ideological reasons for these past attempts were often rooted in a desire to create a "perfect" society and to eliminate undesirable traits. In the case of PGT-P, the motivations are often more personal, with parents seeking to give their children the best possible start in life. However, the underlying goal is still the same: to shape human beings according to a predetermined ideal.
Claude’s answer:
I'll help analyze this thoughtfully, though I should mention that for such a complex bioethical issue, we should examine multiple perspectives carefully rather than reaching definitive conclusions.
Key Points from the Article:
Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and tech elites are backing startups like Orchid Health, Gattaca Genomics, and Genomic Prediction that offer preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic disorders (PGT-P)
This technology allows parents to screen embryos during IVF for various traits and conditions
Notable backers include Sam Altman (OpenAI), Anne Wojcicki (23andMe), and Peter Thiel
The article profiles the Collins family, who use this technology to select embryos while accepting some traits (like autism) but avoiding others
Pros identified in the article:
Potential reduction of genetic health risks
Possibility of reducing hereditary diseases
Could help parents make more informed reproductive choices
Cons identified in the article:
Limited clinical accuracy and utility of PGT-P
Risk of promoting eugenics-like thinking
Creates unrealistic expectations for parental control
May harm children's psychological development through excessive expectations
Genetic traits are interlinked - selecting for one trait may inadvertently select for unwanted traits
Could reduce neurodiversity and cognitive diversity that has historically benefited innovation
Adds to parental stress and anxiety (article cites 48% of parents already feel "completely overwhelming" stress)
Historical Context: This initiative echoes previous eugenics movements, particularly those of the early 20th century. However, there are important differences:
Early Eugenics Movement (1900s-1940s):
State-directed and coercive
Based on crude understanding of genetics
Often racially and class motivated
Led to forced sterilizations and worse
Current Initiative:
Market-driven and voluntary
Based on more advanced genetic science
Individually chosen rather than state-mandated
Focused on individual family outcomes
Psychological/Ideological Motivations:
Historical Eugenics:
Social control
Racial/class superiority
National efficiency
Population control
Current Initiative:
Parental anxiety about child success
Silicon Valley optimization mindset
Tech solutionism (applying technical fixes to complex social issues)
Individual choice and control
Analysis: The article makes a compelling case for caution. Key concerns include:
Scientific Limitations: The article cites research showing the interconnected nature of genetic traits - selecting for educational attainment could increase bipolar disorder risk by 16%.
Social Impact: There's a risk of creating new forms of inequality and reducing valuable cognitive diversity.
Child Development: The pressure of genetic "optimization" could harm children's psychological development and self-perception.
Rather than taking a definitive stance on whether this is "good" or "bad," it's more productive to consider guidelines and limitations. The article proposes focusing on:
Supporting healthy child development through social and emotional factors
Reducing excessive parental pressure and optimization
Maintaining diversity in human traits and characteristics
Ensuring equal access to avoid creating new forms of inequality
The article's reference to "Gattaca" is particularly relevant - the film warns about the psychological impact of genetic determinism, even when well-intentioned.
The key difference from historical eugenics appears to be individual choice versus state control. However, market forces and social pressure could create their own forms of coercion.
These developments warrant careful ethical oversight and public discussion to balance potential benefits against societal risks and ensure equitable access while protecting against misuse.
·
12 NOV
·
17 NOVEMBER 2023
