• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    IQ is so incredibly complicated, and we really don’t know how it works, and what genes allow for the possibility of high IQ. So what are they even screening for? If they’re just looking at broad trends in population IQ compared to genetics, then what they’re actually seeing are environmental factors, which play an immense role in whether or not potential is ever reached.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      There are likely many hundreds or more of contributing alleles according to one paper I read in uni. How individual differences manifest genetically is stultifyingly complex. We still don’t even have a unifying theory of what intelligence is, or even consciousness - much less “how make smarterer”. It’s before early days, we’re still banging rocks together. Scientists know approximately dick about intelligence.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s the really crazy thing, innit? We don’t even know what being conscious entails! But we’ve got over one hundred years of studying (“studying”) psychology while just handwaving the underlying mechanisms. We have no idea how all the genes interact, much less how environment directly influences all of that, but we’re still trying to do complex eugenics that’s lightyears past our current understanding.

        Maybe we get to Gattaca someday, but it’s not going to be soon.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      But on the plus side, the people capable of paying for this bullshit are going to have significantly higher chance of proper nutrition for their kids, access to good education, and ability to avoid environmental toxins, so they just have to compare their “handpicked sperm” to the population as a whole and they’ll show great results.

      Yeah this is an obvious scam lol.

      (It’s not about IQ specifically, but to anyone interested in how many different environment factors play a role in human behavior/outcomes, Behave by Robert Sapolsky is an excellent overview of research in a broad variety of fields. It’s definitely not a light read, but it doesn’t assume too much prior knowledge, and is one of my favorite books on what makes us tick.)

  • bitofhope@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    If I only have about fifty embryos, can I pay €50k to have them scanned now and have another 50 embryo scans left on my account or do I have to have all of them on hand immediately?

    • fnix@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Well, in the same way that Mars colonies are here now. Techbros with more money than sense throwing it at things with futuristic aesthetics doesn’t make them real.

      • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Huh? It’s already here in use today… They can already test an embryo for generic defects.

        It is still in it’s infancy, but the technology is here. Where decode more of human DNA every day

        Actual intelligence testing may not ever be possible. But in general this is going to happen.

        • fnix@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Testing for genetic defects is very different from the Gattaca-premise of most everything about a person being genetically deterministic, with society ordered around that notion. My point was that such a setting is likely inherently impossible, since “heritability” doesn’t work like that; the most techbros can do is LARP at it, which, granted, can be very dangerous on its own – the fact that race is a social construct doesn’t preclude racism and so on. But there’s no need to get frightened by science fiction when science facts tell a different story.

  • Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Gross, but I’m not shocked. IVF and prenatal genetics screening is big business, it was really only a matter of time until someone tried pulling this. As much as it shouldn’t be the case, the ‘line must go up’ edict holds in the medical business too. I know some large lab services companies that are likely watching groups like this with great interest (but letting them take the risks first, which is smart because this is a con).

    My hope is that someone squashes this and we keep screening limited to risks for severe developmental disorders (which, even still, is at least a little ethically problematic) and conditions that lower the probability of the pregnancy coming to term. But we’ll see - there’s gold in dem der embryos.

  • V0ldek@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The thing with IVF is that it’s already incredibly weirdly eugenicist.

    Like, read some of the parameters they’d screen you for if you wanted to donate sperm. You get bonus points for having a PhD? I’m sorry? You’re looking for a better-educated sperm?

    And when you apply for IVF and choose a donor you get their education and job. “I want my cum to be a pilot!” The fuck.

    • Jonathan Hendry@iosdev.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      @V0ldek @sue_me_please

      IVF isn’t required if fertility concerns or frozen eggs aren’t involved, they can give you the home game.

      And it should be no surprise that sperm banks want to be able to compete on the “quality” of their donors.

      Just watch out for the bank that is 75% doctor jizz but it’s all from the proprietor.

      • gerikson@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        A fertility doctor here in Sweden took sperm from men who were undergoing investigations for infertiliy and used it as donor sperm.

        Imagine their surprise when decades later they found out they had kids.

        Not sure why he chose those particular samples, maybe all he had available.

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think it’s understandable. Intelligence is partly hereditary and people want clever children. Education and job can give you at least an overall idea of the person you’re having a child with. It’s kind of weird anyway to have a child with someone random, isn’t it?

      • V0ldek@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s kind of weird anyway to have a child with someone random, isn’t it?

        In my mind “being inseminated by” is like 1% of “having a child with”, if that. It’s probably the least consequential thing your father may do in your overall upbringing.

          • blakestacey@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            OK, you could in principle have made that sound worse, for example by saying “females” like a goddamn Ferengi, but still, pretty impressive.

            • angrystego@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              And that was my whole point, I was reacting to V0ldek’s: “being inseminated by…is the least consequential thing”, which they proposed was not important from the child’s point of view. I wanted to point out it’s rather different (in a bad way) from the woman’s point of view.

              Is that a bad thing? Where did I go wrong in expressing myself? Or did I misunderstand V0ldek’s comment?

              • froztbyte@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                starter tip: stop talking about women as if they don’t have any agency, and stop using them as a reasoning device in your unnecessary posts

                • Jonathan Hendry@iosdev.space
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  @froztbyte @angrystego

                  To be fair they all too often have less agency about getting pregnant than they should, and getting pregnant is something women may fear or dread depending on the circumstances such as “was it rape” “is he abusive” “that’d really fuck up my career that is finally getting going” and “am I in Texas or Florida or Georgia or…”

                  Also, accidents happen, probably even with birth control defense in depth.

                • angrystego@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  What? I still don’t understand. Would you mind genuinely eli5 to me what from my post makes you think I talk about women as if they don’t have any agency? I’m asking genuinely for patient explanation.

            • froztbyte@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              god I was wondering how to express this, and you nailed it

              (the other thing that came to mind was all those “femoids” quotes that came up in (iirc) münecat’s manosphere video)

    • swlabr@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Doesn’t even know the basic strats for these pattern questions, SMH, Do You Even IQ Test? (trying to start DYEIQT)

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Can we do this after they’re born, grow up, and acquire a drivers license?

  • pdxfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    There’s one born every minute, this is a great way to have them self-select for financial benefit.

  • maol@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I actually read a Red Dwarf fanfic about this once where Rimmer’s parents had paid for embryo selection to make sure all their kids had high IQs and good genes because they wanted to make sure they all got into the Space Corps

  • luciole (he/him)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I didn’t understand how the hell the “pro-life” crowd would cheer for IVF since it entails destroying plenty of embryos. Now I understand: it’s the opportunity for some good old fashioned eugenics.

    • gerikson@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      They’re not cheering. Evangelical anti-abortion activists have long targeted IVF and it’s been practically banned in at least one US state.

      • luciole (he/him)@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Some days ago Trump came out saying he loves IVF and he’s the “father of IVF” so I assumed the evangelicals are at least OK with it, considering how the Republican are extremely close with them.

        • rook@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          He will say what he thinks needs to be said, and the forced-birthers understand this. They haven’t defeated abortion yet and aren’t going to split their efforts, but they will continue to put pressure on ivf in the meantime. Remember, they weren’t always anti-abortion, and didn’t switch to it overnight! Their current position that life begins at conception necessarily conflicts with current ivf practises, and they’ll say they don’t disapprove of ivf in principle, and they might even have a friend who’s getting ivf, but talk is cheap and they’ll absolutely oppose any legislation that tries to guarantee access to it. Which is precisely what is happening.

          • maol@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            All of these measures to “protect life” have the convenient side effect of forcing women back into the kitchen. IVF allows women to have children & careers, or choose to be solo parents. It allows lesbian couples to have kids.