There is about 70% support among Americans to use human gene editing to cure or correct diseases.
The US support has increased about ten percent from a 2016 Pew Research poll.
The Chinese poll of people living with HIV and Aids showed support of 95% for using human gene edit for HIV prevention.
The Chinese poll of the general public showed 75-80% support for human gene editing to treat genetic heart disease or to extend life.
The Chinese poll had 30% support for human gene editing to increase intelligence or physical capabilities.
The US poll showed 12% support for human gene editing to increase intelligence. There was also 19% who were neither for or against human gene editing to increase intelligence.
China’s support or undecided combined levels for human gene editing to increase intelligence or physical capabilities is likely over 50%.
Nextbigfuture is pretty sure that the support for human gene editing for a specific disease that is an imminent threat to the person being asked will be about 95%.
Nextbigfuture is pretty sure that the support for human gene editing for life extension will be over 90% as this is shown to clearly be effective and safe. The support will also be high if the gene editing life extension reverses aging to enable people to have less aging damage.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Technological singularities are places in history where some new tech changes the world in a way that almost can’t be predicted beforehand. Nomads planting seeds did not see city-states in their future. Dates are imprecise as the eureka moment isn’t when they change things. The printing press took a long time, for several reasons, including its initial use being tightly controlled and restricted.
1815 – The Industrial Revolution
1935 – Electronics & Computers
1993 – The World Wide Web
The point being that each new singularity tends to come about in half the time of the previous one. Which means our next is due in the early to mid 2020s, probably an automation singularity.
The one after that could be as early as 2035. I’m guessing strong AI. It may be needed for the next.
The next could be along as early as 2042 (or as late as 2047). At this point is where I would bet on the biological singularity, which would be average expected lifespan increasing by at least one year, every year. (Beyond this rate would probably mean rejuvenation tech. Diseases of the aged might be meaningless as no one would reach those biological ages.)
Say 2042. That would make you what? 83 years old? Too bad, Brett, your average is 81.34 years. Problem being, 1) that’s only an average, many will exceed that, and 2) things are going to be happening in the 2020’s that will easily grant you an extra decade or two.
Or Gattaca. The issue there wasn’t selective genetics (which they were doing) or gene modification (which they were not). The issue was discrimination.
The society portrayed in that movie believed they were discriminating based on ability and potential, regardless of how that favored those that could afford having the zygotes for their offspring specifically selected from all the gametes either parent could produce.
It turned out that, <spoiler alert> rather than discriminating based on ability and potential (something our own society does a great deal of, and heavily supports), they were discriminating based on stereotypes as, although it tended to work out that way, at least in regard to health and specific aptitudes, the genetically select were not automatically superior in every way to all “naturals”. This type of discrimination is not something to be especially proud of.
Too many people are demonstrably too willing to do almost anything to give their kids a leg up. And perhaps they are not wrong to want to do so. Against this, politicians love to legislate everything (when the only tool you have is a hammer, etc.) regardless of whether or not it is appropriate.
Human gene editing can thus be hampered, but this is not a thing that can be stopped, as there are always going to be countries that embrace it. Countries that outlaw it will simply lose all control, and many of the benefits, that it might offer.
Racing along the other track will be strong AI and inorganic augmentations. Further, I suspect that man-machine will win almost any race against man-plus as the limits are so much further away, however, neither track should be neglected. For most people, it won’t be a matter of religious dogma to use strictly one route or the other.
Do you consider yourself “older”? I don’t think of “older” as a bad thing. I have always thought older people were more interesting to talk to. I always asked my grandparents what life was like when my grandparents were kids and there were few, if any, cars. Apparently, it was more “Little house on the prairie” than “Gunsmoke”. My grand parents are all gone now, sure wish they were still around. Though anyone who lived through most of the 1900’s saw some amazing transformations. Don’t see much of that going on today. We have to settle for smartphones, LED lights, voice activated GPS, and mini-malls. Though the Boring company may change that.
I guess I don’t really think of 60 as old. Maybe 68-72 is the start of older to me? Need a little shake or strain in the voice, I think. And I suspect most people stop being politically active at maybe 93. That could change, if our lives lengthened. Seems likely that it will, at least for the people really looking into their options.
Of course “tend” is not refuted by one counter example either.
Too late? I don’t think any of us are young enough to be on the “trajectory” to immortality. Some people today may live a few hundred years. I think conquering aging will be a bit trickier than it appears today. I think we will have to know much more about genetics because we will need to rewrite the code with novel genes, truly engineering the genome to get there. I could be wrong though, if we get nanites to conduct repairs.
We do need bounds. The “do no harm” credo would defiantly apply. And I think we should strive to continue to look human or at least not look like animals.
I tend to think that it will not do as much as people expect. I suspect 20 IQ points added tops (if you are starting with average genes). But maybe it could add some other mental abilities like being a human calculator, a hyperpolyglot, a musical genius, a mechanical genius, or artistic genius. But general IQ, I don’t think these fantasies about 300 IQ are rational. At least without borrowing from other species like cephalopods, birds, dolphins, and chimpanzees.
Cephalopods do have some interesting brain genes. Birds can do amazing things with very small brains. Chimps score higher on some mental tests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXP8qeFF6A
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14668
I think most intelligence stuff is due to nutrition and experience, particularly very very early. I think the average human genome would reach 130 IQ if the person had ideal nutrition (we don’t really know what that is yet), and 180 IQ with ideal nutrition and ideal experience. Add in Ideal genes from human genome and 190-210 IQ. Add best of animal genome? No idea. Perhaps another 50 or more…but reality may feel like slow motion.
While there are bright people out there, I don’t think there are really people above 210. They just were lucky or skilled test takers…or human worshipers have exaggerated.
I’m coming up on 60 in a couple of weeks, but I wouldn’t describe myself as “bewildered by technology”.
I regret that I’m likely too old at this point to benefit much from future developments in gerontology, but I’d really appreciate it if my son didn’t have to die of old age.
It also maters what kind of influence those opposed have. Older people, for example, have a lot of political influence partly because they tend to have more assets, and partly because they vote more.
In general older voters tend to be more conservative and more bewildered by technology.
However, if genetic modification addresses the physical conditions they suffer from…even if modification can only help embryos or young people, I think they would be more receptive.
In the future, you will be seen as a child abuser if you do not enhance your children. However, that will be a ways off.
It is unlikely that you can raise IQ after adulthood using genetic modification. The brain is too organized into the way it is. Well, if you have a major genetic brain disease, perhaps. Other organs likely can be helped. The brain just does not renew very quickly. Though, if we went outside the human genome….sky’s the limit. But we would have to understand what the heck we were doing.
The amount we do not know about genetics, especially the effects of the proteins that it codes for, is astronomical. We have a bunch of associations, not much clear cause and effect.
In some ways, it is better to start with the trivial stuff like eye color and whatnot. At least you know that you are doing. And if you mess up, the eye color is just different than anticipated…and you ask for your money back.
Even if you have dozens of studies showing some correlation between say heart disease and a genotype, you can’t really be certain. It could be caused by another gene that is nearby. Genes that are physically near each other tend to travel together because each chromosome on average only has 6 crossover events. In effect, you are getting 50 large pieces of genetic stuff from your parents. Even over generations it does not scramble much, as there are so many genes relative to the chunks.
Confidence is justified with the very high probability stuff only.
Every discussion on this topic should include mention of the ‘Heinlein Solution’.
https://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2015/01/robert-heinlein-and-looking-beyond-this.html
Ie: you get to choose which of your genes get into the half genome that combines with your partner’s half genome to become the child’s genome.
The relevant question, though, isn’t under what circumstances people would support human gene editing. It’s under what conditions they’d go to great lengths to obstruct and punish it.
If only a quarter of the population “support” gene editing to increase intelligence, that just means most people won’t resort to it for their own children.
I concur 100%
Sure, after a IQ boost like I am talking about I would like a new pet.
My genes, my business.
Support for various uses of genetic manipulation will depend on the probability, and severity of undesirable side effects, and the probability of achieving the desired outcome. As genetic engineering becomes commonplace, support will increase for all uses, as support for invitro, and heart transplant has increased over the decades since they were first done.
All roads lead to the singularity. We are caught in the intelligence well.
I support all of this but for adults not just embryos. The most important but least supported is altering genes for intelligence. A lot of us feel the pressure from AI becoming self aware, climate change and pollution. The only answer for all of this is to boost ALL mankind’s IQ substantially. At that point any one of us will be able to solve these and many more problems. With out that boost we will probably go extinct.