Most people object to the idea of gene selection for humans in order to change traits such as amicability, sadism, mood set-point or physical pain sensitivity.

However, it might be possible in the near future, or to some degree maybe even today, to find genetic correlations with such traits that utilitarians would prefer to see shifted statistically.

This may be overshadowed by disruptive technologies like digital artificial minds or brain implants, and it may not be as statistically important as the most efficient charities. But considering such changes could be heritable, it might make sense for us to consider gene selection as an instrument now or soon.

This could be done by:
- doing the research
- encouraging such research
- or by pushing the general idea in a culturally acceptable manner and pace
- by utilitarians themselves when they make reproductive choices.

Is this a topic worth addressing at this time?

Here is one example mentioned by David Pearce:

David wrote:There is one concrete step we could all take dramatically to reduce the burden of human suffering. A single gene, SCN9A, plays a vital role in determining our level of pain-sensitivity. (cf. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/11/5148.short ) Nonsense mutations of the SCN9A gene cause congenital analgesia – a complete incapacity to feel pain. Other alleles of SCN9A are implicated in abnormally high or low pain thresholds. For now, it’s imprudent to abolish the capacity to feel pain altogether. But universal preimplantation genetic diagnosis would allow prospective parents to choose benign, low pain variants of SCN9A for our future children – and relegate chronic pain syndrome to history.

Hedonic Treader wrote:Most people object to the idea of gene selection for humans in order to change traits such as amicability, sadism, mood set-point or physical pain sensitivity.

However, it might be possible in the near future, or to some degree maybe even today, to find genetic correlations with such traits that utilitarians would prefer to see shifted statistically.

This may be overshadowed by disruptive technologies like digital artificial minds or brain implants, and it may not be as statistically important as the most efficient charities. But considering such changes could be heritable, it might make sense for us to consider gene selection as an instrument now or soon.

This could be done by:
- doing the research
- encouraging such research
- or by pushing the general idea in a culturally acceptable manner and pace
- by utilitarians themselves when they make reproductive choices.

Is this a topic worth addressing at this time?

I don't, it just require a lot of caution. You wouldn't want to get too trigger happy, look what happened to dogs. Some too big for their own good, some too small. Quite a few suffer sad side effects of breading.

Gene selection scares me a bit though because we are not exactly experts at it yet. I think a lot of careful studies need to be done on the subject.

Hedonic Treader wrote:

Nap wrote:utilitarian attracted DNA

Is that really a real thing?

In order to not derail the Open Problems thread, we could discuss gene selection and reproductive choices in this thread.

I don't see why not. The more I've learned about DNA the more it amazes me. Studies on twins are fascinating (but the sample sizes are often too small to take seriously for now).

Like I said in another post, being a utilitarian isn't just about agreeing with it on a logical or moral level, its also about being motivated to act on it. There are meany traits we'd need to look at, a tone I'd bet are strongly controlled by a persons genetic makeup.

Edit: At the time of writing this I thought Dolly died because of problems in our cloning methods. Wiki seems to disagree. Note this was about 15 years ago so I'm sure a few advancements have been made, but I don't think this undermines my original point of caution. I don't think it'd be smart to start injecting large amounts of the human population with gene therapies before some thorough research has been done.

Perhaps one might want to focus on developing the right temporoparietal junction (PDF): "Swiss scholars report they have found a strong connection between the TPJ and a person’s willingness to engage in selfless acts".

peterhurford wrote:Perhaps one might want to focus on developing the right temporoparietal junction (PDF): "Swiss scholars report they have found a strong connection between the TPJ and a person’s willingness to engage in selfless acts".

Thanks for the pointer!