It will be explored whether it ought to be or not. We have the means to audit alleles on eggs and selectively discard ones with certain traits. And we know enough about genetic intelligence, as imprecise a term as that is, that it will be selected for if able.
However, this phenomenon will be largely divided by class, as we have had the ability to massively boost intelligence through proper nutrition for generations, and yet those improvements too have been split along class lines.
In genetics it is well known that a specific gene is able to affect multiple unrelated phenotypes (the term for this is “pleiotropy”). Intelligence is not close to being understood, and there is no agreement about how to quantify it. But we do know that the brain is very complex, and that the genes that control how the brain develops and how the brain functions can express proteins that have more than one function or, in the case of regulatory genes, serve different regulatory functions in different tissues and/or life stages. Because of this, mutations that affect intelligence are very likely to show significant pleiotropy.
So, I do not think that it will be possible to introduce mutations that will only improve intelligence. An “enhancement” is likely to be more of a “trade-off”. I don’t think that it would be ethical to introduce any type of mutation if this is the case.
But I don’t completely rule it out. If future research does show that there are specific mutations that can considerably enhance some aspect of intelligence without having an impact on other traits, and if technology progresses to the point in which we can genetically manipulate a zygote with very high precision, then yes. I think that the descendants of the descendants of our descendants should explore that option. It is way too soon now.
No, because we don’t understand all that well how DNA affects intelligence. And we don’t know what side effects that could have, because these systems are all connected. You think you are modifying an intelligence gene, but then under the right conditions, this gene is expressed differently and is now producing prions. We can’t even quantify intelligence in the first place. There are just too many risks.
Darwinism suggests that cumulative intelligence increases so long as intelligence is a desirable trait for a species in a specific environment.
Manipulating specific genetic traits with modern technology sounds like eugenics sponsored by private equity.
Can you be more precise and specific. Intelligence has multiple forms, emotional intelligence etc. I assume you mean with genetic the overall structure of all types of intelligence.
If so, by DNA manipulation or via bio implants, or what exactly you mean. Or is this a philosophical question about how or if we should in general try to somewhat increase our intelligence.
My overall opinion would be yes to Bio implants, DNA altering on such a level might be more critical because you might not be able to revert or change it once it is done.
The genetic aspect of intelligence has been continuously studied since we discovered DNA. Deary, Johnson, and Houlihan (2009) have an entire section in their paper discussing complications in studying genetic contributions to intelligence. It’s definitely worth a read, it’s open-source (I think, I am on a network with large access to academic publications), and kind of works at what you’re interested in.
I think it already is; if you can isolate the factors involved with generally high intelligence, along with a life style were that person can thrive, you could have a very successful person “designed” by a scientist. But I think that it would be less of a “designed” genius, and more giving them genetic abilities, and environment to succeed in; and you do need both if you wanted to have a living proof of concept. (A genius who never puts in the effort to succeed, won’t be a genius.)
Removed by mod
yes since “genetic enhancement” will be, & “intelligence” is good.
