> I wonder what traits we'll program for? Intelligence, maybe, but that's tough to manage and I'd guess that without a complete understanding you'd get a lot of madness.
That's an understatement that belies human laziness. The real predictor of success, almost no matter how you define success, is about the effort you put in. Good genetics is usually a micro-optimization on effort expended. But if you ever told people that they were genetically Destined™ or Guaranteed™ to succeed, that's precisely what will cause them to discredit effort, sit back on their laurels, and wait for the not-so-inevitable money to start rolling in. When it doesn't, their failure will breed resentment and conflict.
> I wonder if people would really want that?
People want to be at the intersection of attractive and unique. Attractive is more or less easy to control for - genes for attractive figures, full heads of hair, clear skin, no disabilities. Unique is far more difficult, and would only get more difficult if sizable pluralities or majorities of parents started to select on the same Recommended™ or Best Choice™ genes, and generations start to look like cookie cutter clones of each other. Most probably, you'd end up with some classic tragedy of the commons, and the government would have to step in to regulate what would end up being a finite resource (being genetically unique, with a genetic monoculture being especially dangerous considering the Darwinian requirement for genetic diversity to promote survival) if the market's natural price pressures didn't self-correct. And if you think the rich and powerful will allow the government to allow anybody but their children to have the beauty and desirable qualities which will keep them at the head of their parents' empires, well, I have a history book on feudalism to sell you.
> The real predictor of success, almost no matter how you define success, is about the effort you put in.
That, and how well you choose your parents. Unless you honestly believe black people just didn't try hard enough to be president for the first 230 or so years of the USA's existence.
Christ these Horatio Alger "just so" stories are ridiculous. And if we repeal GINA, it'll make it that much harder for people to escape their supposed "destiny". Genetics interacting with environment makes us who we are. I'm of the opinion that the latter is more important, and I hold a doctorate in statistical genetics so this is not purely an off-the-cuff opinion. It may or may not be right in a specific case (evidence >> eminence, credentials are at best a proxy for expertise) but it happens to agree with yours, if you think about it.
The amount of grit you develop is going to be a function in large part of your childhood (or other major environmental influences; in the field, "environment" is shorthand for "everything that isn't genetics"). So locking in an ignorance of its importance is just astoundingly stupid. If we want a sclerotic European aristocracy or a caste system in America, this is the way to get it.
And of course the rich and powerful will do anything to perpetuate their position. On average, however, the American dynasty half-life is 3-4 generations. Compare that to Europe and I think we know which better favors social mobility.
That's an understatement that belies human laziness. The real predictor of success, almost no matter how you define success, is about the effort you put in. Good genetics is usually a micro-optimization on effort expended. But if you ever told people that they were genetically Destined™ or Guaranteed™ to succeed, that's precisely what will cause them to discredit effort, sit back on their laurels, and wait for the not-so-inevitable money to start rolling in. When it doesn't, their failure will breed resentment and conflict.
> I wonder if people would really want that?
People want to be at the intersection of attractive and unique. Attractive is more or less easy to control for - genes for attractive figures, full heads of hair, clear skin, no disabilities. Unique is far more difficult, and would only get more difficult if sizable pluralities or majorities of parents started to select on the same Recommended™ or Best Choice™ genes, and generations start to look like cookie cutter clones of each other. Most probably, you'd end up with some classic tragedy of the commons, and the government would have to step in to regulate what would end up being a finite resource (being genetically unique, with a genetic monoculture being especially dangerous considering the Darwinian requirement for genetic diversity to promote survival) if the market's natural price pressures didn't self-correct. And if you think the rich and powerful will allow the government to allow anybody but their children to have the beauty and desirable qualities which will keep them at the head of their parents' empires, well, I have a history book on feudalism to sell you.