embryo selection

>>8932525
>imagine a society with no brainlets.

How are you going to get the brainlets to stop breeding?

>>8932587
Tax brainlets instead of subsidizing them

>>8932598
>implying brainlets have anything to tax.

Until you figure out how to tax fucking, you're not stopping them.

>>8932587
Read the paper dipshit. Brainlets have slightly smarter kids because of this. Eventually, they aren't brainlets anymore.

>>8932525
atm it feels like as if society was selecting only the dumb embryos and discarding the smart ones

>>8932632http://i.4cdn.org/v/1495632755412.png
I think you're missing the point. Brainlets aren't going to have their embryos selected. They're just going to fuck.

>>8932525
The average iq is always going to be 100 by definition. So no, it is not realistic

>>8932698
Perhaps he means measured against the current average.

>>8932525
There will always be brainlets, just that embryo selected brainlets would be way smarter than the current average person.

>>8932525
As of right now we don't have enough GWAS hits to make really good polygenic scores. But let's say we get enough in the next 10 years.
Is embryo selection the way forward?
Not really, as it's only going to produce the best embryo possible given the genetic material of the parents, which means that if you need variants 1 to 2000 in order to be a genius, and your parents only have 1 to 1000 between the two of them, you're not going to be a genius.
Now, can we raise the general iq with this?
If we did made every couple do this for 200 years, would we achieve a new very high average (still normalized as 100 ofc) ? yes.
Is it going to happen? well, yes and no. I'll elaborate further if anyone is interested.

>>8933047
wow must be nice having a crystal ball

faggot

>>8933320
nice comment there.

>>8932525
>no brainlets
>yfw the average PhD-holder of today would be considered a brainlet then.