
Comparing ancient and modern genomes for cognitive ability variants - gwern
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/02/20/109678
======
redsummer
For those politically on the centre and left, what are the correct responses
to scientific evidence that different population groups have different
cognitive abilities?

~~~
gwern
I always regarded myself as being a left libertarian sort of type. My reaction
to learning about individual differences being so profoundly driven by
genetics - never mind racial differences - was simple: research and subsidize
genetic engineering. For everyone. To the point of being free. Level the
genetic playing field. There is not the slightest bit of justice, fairness, or
economic optimality to many people being born with high genetic risk for
stupidity, schizophrenia, heart attacks, or anything! Anymore than there is in
being born with a silver spoon in your mouth or being born female. No
different from Headstart or any other program; if we can do it safely and
cost-effectively, we should.

If there are racial differences, then that simply means it would be more
efficient to allocate more of those funds to people in that group. (Actually,
if there are racial differences, this might even be good news; the massive
efforts in the USA to close the black-white difference have largely failed
over the past half-century, and I have more faith in genetic engineering
becoming practical than I do in another half-century of trying the same thing
suddenly succeeding. Wouldn't it be great if the black-white gap was just a
few genes or insufficient iodine or something? We can fix that - all it would
take is money and science! Maybe not even more than a few billions, chump
change! Whereas if it's structural racism...)

~~~
redsummer
(Subsidising equality via the state doesn't sound 'libertarian', and Headstart
has been ineffective, but I'll leave that aside)

I think your solution cannot happen because those with money and tech, and who
don't have a cultural squeamishness with the idea, will get the genetic
engineering first. The ultrarich. Probably the Chinese, maybe others. Then it
will be a case of making the rest of the world amenable to these enhanced
people. Elites don't want chaos and nor do they want anyone to threaten their
dominance. So a functioning, intelligent, but malleable mass will be
controlled by an elite who have the tech. Just as today the average joe
doesn't have access to nuclear weapons.

~~~
gwern
I never said I was a doctrinaire libertarian and I think it's fine for the
government to spend on things which pass a stringent cost-benefit test, which
genetic engineering would be able to considering the many positive
externalities; and I know Headstart doesn't work, but if it did.

"I think your solution cannot happen because those with money and tech, and
who don't have a cultural squeamishness with the idea, will get the genetic
engineering first. The ultrarich."

In some scenarios, not in others. With embryo selection, the gain is small
enough that it will not create new elite classes with high solidarity, and in
iterated/synthesis scenarios, an elite _could_ try but the core technologies
are widespread now and the end result gametes are easily stolen and replicated
(imagine trying to do nuclear arms control if every single atomic bomb was
walking around, having kids, and regularly shed skin cells which could be
turned into new atomic bombs).

That said, this is of course good reason to oppose regulation, as regulatory
capture is common and we already see a lot of self-serving hypocritical
behavior by elites.

------
saxonklaxon
It's great that we have access to ancient and historical genomes. Because of
the development of medicine we've probably accumulated a lot of random
mutations in our present-day genomes and at some point we'll need to identify
them.

------
ams6110
I only read the abstract, but the result seems counterintuitive. I would have
expected that as civilization developed the selection pressure on low
cognitive ability would be reduced.

~~~
sitkack
Doesn't surviving and thriving w/o civilization take more effort mentally and
physically? Isn't civilization a labor saving device, and viewed as such the
tool user doesn't need to be as skilled or strong.

It has never been easier to kiss your bosses ass, take an early bus home and
order a pizza with your smart phone en route.

~~~
andrewclunn
Physical sure (so far as strength and endurance). Mental though, no way.
Because in a populated area the competition isn't nature, it's other human
beings, and outsmarting them is key.

~~~
zingermc
It's important to remember that the metric of success in evolution is not
outsmarting other people. It's how much you can spread your genes!

------
gumby
Doesn't look like they have any pre-holocene baseline unless they think there
were still major non-agrarian societies 1200 years ago. Or did I miss
something?

