Are we still talking about human beings – or optimization projects? You can’t predict or engineer how a baby will turn out. What troubles me most is how little attention is paid to emotional attachment, which is arguably the cornerstone of healthy development. This reads more like a plan for growing babies in vitro than raising actual children. Honest question: do you have kids?
Also, much of the terminology you use feels superficial or misapplied. Science and education aren’t just about memorizing buzzwords – they require deep understanding, and that takes time, context, and mentorship.
I'm a medical doctor, and what strikes me again and again is how people assume that complex systems – like human beings – can be "figured out" with enough reading or clever design. But studying humans isn't a solo intellectual game. It’s also about who you learn from, how you reflect, and what kinds of ethical dilemmas you encounter along the way. Have you ever worked with an actual person in distress – someone with a real, painful, messy life?
What you're proposing – even ignoring the shaky logic and the misconceptions (e.g. hypertension isn’t caused by a single gene) – amounts to a kind of human selection program. But did it ever occur to you that these 'optimized' new people might come with new problems and diseases? Biology tends to work like that: you push on one part, something else breaks.
Thanks for the detailed response. I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue.
To clarify: I didn’t mean to imply that you literally stated hypertension is caused by a single gene – rather, I was pointing to a broader pattern I noticed in your post, where complex traits seemed to be discussed in a somewhat reductionist way. That might not have been your intent, but that’s how it came across to me as a physician who deals with multifactorial conditions daily.
I also understand that emotional attachment wasn’t your focus – fair enough. Still, I think omitting it entirely risks presenting a view of childhood development that’s skewed towards instrumental or mechanistic thinking. For people unfamiliar with the developmental literature, that can unintentionally reinforce the idea that kids are optimization projects rather than human beings growing in relational contexts. If that wasn’t your goal, I’d just gently suggest flagging this limitation more clearly.
On the topic of predictability and engineering – sure, we can influence predispositions, but the point I was trying to make is epistemological: the level of uncertainty and interdependence in human development makes the engineering metaphor fragile. Medicine, to your point, does aim to “figure out” complex systems – but it’s also deeply aware of its limitations, unintended consequences, and historical hubris. That humility didn’t come through strongly in your piece, at least to me.
You clearly put a lot of thought into the genetic correlations and tradeoffs, and I don’t doubt your reasoning there. But I do wonder: do we really know enough about gene–environment interactions to be confident in the long-term effects of shifting polygenic profiles at scale? Especially given how much of our current “environment” is in flux, including things like diet, social structures, and digital exposure? These aren’t rhetorical questions – just areas where I think caution is warranted.
Again, I don’t mean this as a takedown – your post made me think, and that’s valuable. I just wanted to voice a perspective from someone who works directly with real human variability every day, where even “favorable” traits often come bundled with unexpected downsides.