Thanks, I have updated the post to include a link to that blog post.
A minor issue I didn't immediately get in this paper is in what scenario you would choose 1 in 100 embryos. But the "massive embryo selection" James Miller mentions in his book would do that, where they take immature embryos and coax them to viability. I am, however, kinda skeptical of recent reports about progress here since similar things were announced over ten years ago.
Which "our level" do you refer to? The human biodiversity bloggers like Steve Sailer have publicized inconvenient truths about differences in intelligence among different human populations.
Carl Shulman & Nick Bostrom, Embryo Selection for Cognitive Enhancement: Curiosity or Game-changer?, Global Policy, vol. 5, no. 1 (February, 2014), pp. 85–92.
Abstract:
Human capital is an important determinant of individual and aggregate economic outcomes, and a major input to scientific progress. It has been suggested that advances in genomics may open up new avenues to enhance human intellectual abilities genetically, complementing environmental interventions such as education and nutrition. One way to do this would be via embryo selection in the context of in vitro fertilization (IVF). In this article, we analyze the feasibility, timescale, and possible societal impacts of embryo selection for cognitive enhancement. We find that embryo selection, on its own, may have significant (but likely not drastic) impacts over the next 50 years, though large effects could accumulate over multiple generations. However, there is a complementary technology – stem cell-derived gametes – which has been making rapid progress and which could amplify the impact of embryo selection, enabling very large changes if successfully applied to humans.
An earlier version of this paper has been available for some time at Bostrom's website. Here are some quotes from that version, courtesy of gwern. And here are some comments by Luke Muehlhauser.