I think it's unwise to make a confident prophecy
in what technology will or won't eventually
be able to do.
I think that cuts both ways.
That is it's people have looked foolish by
saying that something will never happen, but
they've also looked foolish by saying that
something is inevitable.
So there are things that we can accomplish
technologically that we as a society have
chosen not to, such as passenger supersonic
air transport.
I think if you were to say to someone in 1957
the speed of commercial jets now is going
to be the same as the speed of the commercial
jets in 2016, 60 years from now, they would
say you're nuts.
Technology goes up, up, up, up, but sometimes
it doesn't.
Because people don't like sonic booms and
jet fuel got too expensive.
Likewise, if you would've said in 1972 no
one is going to set foot on the moon for another
44 years and counting, again.
They would say technology always lifts us
higher and higher, but sometimes it doesn't.
The Cold War ended.
People lost interest.
There are all kinds of social and economic
factors that in combination make the future
of technology inherently unpredictable.
And I think in engineering human intelligence,
to say nothing of human genius, no one knows
but I would put my money with no.
For one thing, there are moral and legal taboos.
People think that introducing traits into
offspring is a form of eugenics and is on
a slippery slide to Nazism.
I happen to think that that is a bogus ethical
argument, but it is by far the majority that's
a cool argument and in many countries genetic
enhancement is or will be illegal.
And it's going to take a huge force to overcome
that.
Just as cloning is illegal in virtually every
country, when Dolly the sheep was cloned in
1997 there were confident predictions that
there's nothing you can do to stop human cloning.
It was just around the corner and here we
are almost 20 years later and it has not happened.
Also, the task of engineering high intelligence
is turning out to be a lot harder than one
might have thought.
In the late '90s it was thought well sooner
or later we'll find some high IQ genes; they'll
give you three or four points.
You'd put in a handful of them and you get
a much smarter baby.
There was going to be the gene for musical
talent and the gene for athletic coordination.
We have every reason to believe that those
traits are substantially inheritable.
We've known that for decades just because
of twin and adoption studies.
On the other hand, we also know that the genes
responsible are going to, each one of them
is going to have an incy wincy effect and
there are dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands
of them.
So making your child smart is not a question
of putting in one high IQ gene, it may be
a question of putting in a hundred genes or
a thousand genes.
Every time you monkey with the genome you
are taking a chance that something will go
wrong.
Also, those genes, the ones that we have identified,
and we've made enormous progress in just a
few years ago there was not a single gene
you could point to that had a positive effect
on intelligence, now we can point to a few
of them.
They have incy wincy effects, a third of an
IQ point.
But on the other hand we identify them with
their correlations with intelligence.
We have no idea what they do.
I mean if you find that any of those genes
is actually expressed in the brain then you've
had a really good day as a scientist.
But to know what the totality of their effects
are, positive and negative, is something that
we're not going to know for a long time, if
ever when you're talking about hundreds or
thousands of genes.
How do we know that one of those genes that
raises your IQ by a third of a point doesn't
also increase your chance of epilepsy or schizophrenia
or brain cancer.
Now, you're going to go to a review board
and ask for permission to monkey with a human
embryo and they're going to say so we know
what the benefits are of implementing this
gene, what are the costs?
And the answer is we don't know.
You think that they're going to have - that
that's going to meet approval?
Or do you think for that matter that parents
are going to be willing to take such chances
with the biological integrity of their children?
That in exchange for an increase of an IQ
points or two they're going to take some unknown
risk of making the child schizophrenic or
bipolar or some other disease that we may
not know of who's probabilities we don't know?
Not so clear that they will.
Now, there is the argument parents will do
anything to enhance the flourishing of their
children.
Look at the way parents buy test prep courses
and struggle to get them into the Ivy's and
so on.
I think that's true probably of the social
circle of the people who make those predictions
where IQ has outsize importance.
But even then there are – people do strongly
distinguish biological interventions from
environmental ones, at least psychologically.
That's why we still don't have any sport where
athletes can dope all they want.
You might say what difference does it make
whether you increase your red blood cell count
by training at a high altitude or by taking
a drug?
Well, biologically there may not be that much
of a difference, psychologically there's all
the difference in the world.
We just don't think that it is the same thing
when you can cheat and achieve an advantage
through sheer biological interventions.
I wouldn't say that for sure that's going
to stand in the way of parents enhancing their
children genetically, but on the other hand
I think it's unwise to say that it will have
no effect, that we know that those psychological
barriers will be overcome.
