Stapledon’s Catastrophe: How the new eugenics could doom us all

Lesen Sie die deutsche Version hier.

When I attended a recent conference on how current scientific trends might shape the future, one scientific matter that seemed to concern many of the attendees was polygenic embryo selection (PGES). I was even asked by some about how much they could “enhance” their offspring in various ways given the present limits of this technology. I politely changed the subject every time. This experience led me to reflect on how the priorities of individuals willing to use technologies like PGES might shape future generations given the great strides in understanding the genetics of complex traits that have occurred over the last 15 years.

Eugenics (from the Greek eu meaning good and gene meaning birth) is a presently disreputable term, but in essence it simply describes the use of artificial selection techniques to increase the levels of “socially desirable” traits within the human species. The sorts of traits of interest historically to eugenicists include general intelligence (g), health, and personality. Its objective is to reverse so-called dysgenic trends for these same traits, stemming from elevated fertility among those exhibiting less “socially desirable” levels or manifestations of these (such as those with low g, hereditary health problems, criminogenic personalities etc.).

We concern ourselves here not with the older, authoritarian first-wave eugenics (support for which effectively vanished by the 1960s) but with the new second-wave of eugenics, which emerged in the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Proponents of this envision a voluntary form of eugenics, whereby people can use genetic knowledge of the causes of disease, variation in g, personality, physical traits like height, weight etc. in conjunction with reproductive techniques such as PGES to enhance their offspring with “desirable” traits, or to eliminate undesirable ones (such as diseases, or even heritable and antisocial behavioural traits like racist attitudes). Some argue that the market should regulate this process. Others, like bioethicist Julien Savulescu, see a role for moral compulsion, too.

Critics of second-wave eugenics claim (among other things) that it wouldn’t work as the phenotypes of interest are too poorly defined, or their genetic bases will never be known well enough to allow for precision embryo selection, due to confounding with gene-by-environment interactions, indirect genetic effects etc. Of course, these criticisms are rapidly becoming dated with advances in genomics yielding better molecular data on cognitive and health traits with every passing year. Moreover, some people have in fact already used PGES in an attempt to enhance their offspring by exploiting legal loopholes. Second-wave eugenics is currently therefore being practiced by those with the motive and means to afford it. This notwithstanding, there are good reasons why trying to manipulate psycho-behavioural traits, such as g and personality in particular, via PGES is more likely to do harm than good due to unintended, and dangerous, consequences.

«Second-wave eugenics is currently therefore being practiced by those with the motive and means to afford it.»

Reduced fertility

Eugenicists love to talk of the value-added nature of enhancing g. They point to statistics showing that more intelligent individuals earn more, have better health outcomes, go on to attain greater social prestige etc. However, missing from this list are the ways in which having greater g handicaps individuals. Genetic variants that predict g also negatively predict fertility – even after controlling for education. This means that the relationship is fundamental, and not merely caused by e.g., high-g individuals delaying fertility in order to obtain advanced degrees. This relationship suggests that g mostly confers evolutionary benefits under group-selection (i.e., where selection acts at the level of groups of genetically related individuals). More innovative and cooperative groups prevail under such conditions. Those with higher g therefore raise the inclusive fitness of their kin, which offsets the (mild) cost to fertility associated with their high-g. Perhaps the most striking example of this was noted by a titan of 20^th century evolutionary biology, William D. Hamilton, who observed that geniuses seem to uplift whole civilisations through their great accomplishments (be they cultural or scientific), however, they tend also to have few or no offspring. This is supported by bibliometric research on such eminent individuals. The dark side of this is that competing groups gain territory and grow their populations typically at the expense of those whom they conquer.

«Geniuses seem to uplift whole civilisations through their great

accomplishments (be they cultural or scientific), however, they tend also to have few or no offspring.»

Mercifully, we don’t live under these sorts of conditions anymore (which were common throughout most of human history). Modern people are more individualistic and less “groupish”, an evoked adaptation to milder climates, the eradication of many diseases and famine, and increased between-group peace. Those features of our evolutionary ecology that made social selection for higher g possible are therefore not only absent, but have reversed themselves, such that selection now favours those with lower g. Simply raising g en masse via PGES (absent a suitably horrible evolutionary ecological context within which this becomes sustainable) will therefore greatly reduce fertility and increase rates of childlessness among the enhanced.

Modern women want socially successful, not highly intelligent men

Secondly, academic surveys show that women prefer personality traits like extraversion over conscientiousness and g in “hypothetical” offspring. This confuses eugenicists, but makes sense from an evolutionary ecological standpoint. Extraversion (this personality dimension being negatively genetically correlated with g) is associated with both social and, more importantly, reproductive success in modern society. One recent publication using data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study found that extraversion positively predicted the number of children and grandchildren. Another study (one of my own in fact) using the same dataset found the opposite for g – it negatively predicted both the number of children and that of grandchildren.

Another example is psychopathic personality. Studies indicate that psychopathy is more prevalent among senior managers and executives than among lay people. That modernity may allow such people to become socially successful, despite the obvious drawbacks of psychopathic personality, might account for data suggesting that at least some women find certain aspects of psychopathic personality desirable in prospective partners.

Women select traits in partners that will make their offspring more competitive. It seems to be the case, based more on my casual observation more so than anything else, that the most successful have “fake it till you make it” personalities and not super high g (just add the name of your favourite tech CEO, YouTube influencer, or politician here). Research finds that g is not favoured under short-term mating conditions (where women place greater value on male physical prowess), and only indirectly under long-term mating conditions (where women place a greater premium on male earnings). Also consistent with this is evidence indicating that the construct of sapiosexuality (sexual attraction to intelligence) has no validity. Again, this is what we would expect given the current evolutionary ecological paradigm that is modernity (e.g., where group-level selection has given way to individual-level selection).

Unpopular – and probably dangerous too

Second-wave eugenics therefore presents an interesting existential risk, specifically runaway artificial selection for traits that will likely make things worse, rather than better. This is because parents will, if given the freedom to make choices concerning the future behaviour of their offspring, opt for maximising those aspects of personality that promote success, which means almost certainly choosing to raise traits like extraversion at the expense of g. This problem was first identified in essence by the writer Olaf Stapledon in his 1937 book “Star Maker”. Here, he writes of a fictional extra-terrestrial race whose “civilization had reached a stage and character much like our own, … and in which natural science is enslaved to individualistic industry.” Unfortunately, “women craved ‘brute-men’ as lovers and as fathers for their children. Since … women had attained great economic independence, their demand for fertilization by ‘brute-men’ caused the whole matter to be commercialized … The result of this extraordinary custom … was to alter the composition of the whole quasi-human race…. Henceforth the desperately complex problems of the world were consistently bungled. Civilization decayed. …This state of affairs continued for some millions of years, but at last the race was destroyed by the ravages of a small rat-like animal against which it could devise no protection.”

Eugenics enthusiasts have attempted to counter what we could call Stapledon’s Catastrophe by claiming that women who use sperm banks tend to select for markers of intelligence, such as education, in the donor. The reasoning goes therefore that if given access to a genetics “market”, people writ large would surely choose to do the same. However, people who use sperm banks are apparently not very representative of the majority, who, as previously noted, would rather their kids have “winning” personalities than high-g and zero grandchildren. Indeed, the aforementioned data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study indicates that these preferences are reflected in normal mating market contexts. From the perspective of those eugenicists who wish to raise g, adding to this the ability to greatly “enhance” traits artificially via PGES would be akin to throwing a lit match into a swimming pool full of petrol.

Perhaps fortunately for those like myself, who are sceptical of the new eugenics, a recently published survey finds that while support for the use of PGES in cases such as reducing disease and psychiatric illness is high, support for using it in other contexts (such as the manipulation of g or normal range personality) is much lower. Moreover, 50 percent of those surveyed indicated concern over possible social harms stemming from PGES. Hopefully we may yet avoid the ravages of small rat-like creatures.