Your cost-benefir analysis is off because you don't account for the time value of money.
$45,000 invested in an S&P 500 index fund would be worth about $200,000 in 22 years, after adjusting for inflation. After 65 years, it would be worth more than $3M.
Based on the numbers you've provided, this technology does not yet appear to be cost effective. Embryo selection has a negative NPV.
I still think the real revolution will need to be gene therapy on the sperm itself or gene therapy ok the ovaries and testes so that intercourse can produce superbabies. But even this present technology is worth the while, and I expect it to get better fast. With the pace of advancements, I wouldn't even be surprised if we can reliably raise by a standard deviation with the methods developed in five years.
I understand why you've said IVF isn't eugenics... but if, like you're positing, it provides such a great advantage in numerous aspects for IVF babies, then surely there'll be a societal pressure, whereby not using IVF will likely hurt your child's future, and by extension your future, compared to using it.
The issue in my opinion is that if it becomes common practice (which it very well may given advancements in gene identification and lower prices) then IVF is essentially eugenics; IVF users using the technology to improve their offspring's genetic quality, and everyone else falling behind. That said, I'm against IVF on the grounds that it results in the murder of human embryos anyways.
How do they compute IQ scores? Existing IQ PGS in scientific publications come from much smaller samples than EA and therefere EA PGS predicts IQ better than IQ PGS.
Why select against T2D when Ozempic already exists?
Thanks a lot for the estimates. You mentioned it shortly of course, but I just want to stress the value of moderate, pro-health selection: Both socially and personally, healthcare costs are extremely easy to balloon. Fundamentally a healthy body works for very low cost, but dysfunction needs disproportionate money, often even to still work on a level below that of the healthy. Considering that this technology will be taken up in particular by people who already require IVF (since the jump at that point isn't very large anymore anyway), I expect this to save substantial money as well.
Just to be clear, that doesn't mean I'm against the IQ selection, only that the health selection should not be underestimated. And the average laymen is much less likely to be opposed to health than to IQ selection, too.
Nice and concise wrap-up, thanks !
Very comprehensive. Should be state subsidized.
A lot of trads whine about this but if we don’t do it the chinks will
Yes, we are all very proud of you for saying "chink"
The chinks already are. They just went underground when they faced international condemnation.
Let them. Towers of Babel collapse under their own weight.
Your cost-benefir analysis is off because you don't account for the time value of money.
$45,000 invested in an S&P 500 index fund would be worth about $200,000 in 22 years, after adjusting for inflation. After 65 years, it would be worth more than $3M.
Based on the numbers you've provided, this technology does not yet appear to be cost effective. Embryo selection has a negative NPV.
I still think the real revolution will need to be gene therapy on the sperm itself or gene therapy ok the ovaries and testes so that intercourse can produce superbabies. But even this present technology is worth the while, and I expect it to get better fast. With the pace of advancements, I wouldn't even be surprised if we can reliably raise by a standard deviation with the methods developed in five years.
I understand why you've said IVF isn't eugenics... but if, like you're positing, it provides such a great advantage in numerous aspects for IVF babies, then surely there'll be a societal pressure, whereby not using IVF will likely hurt your child's future, and by extension your future, compared to using it.
The issue in my opinion is that if it becomes common practice (which it very well may given advancements in gene identification and lower prices) then IVF is essentially eugenics; IVF users using the technology to improve their offspring's genetic quality, and everyone else falling behind. That said, I'm against IVF on the grounds that it results in the murder of human embryos anyways.
"(which is probably not the right thing to do)" may I ask why?
How do they compute IQ scores? Existing IQ PGS in scientific publications come from much smaller samples than EA and therefere EA PGS predicts IQ better than IQ PGS.
Why select against T2D when Ozempic already exists?
Because Ozempic flushes out your biological imperatives though artificial subsidization. Where do you think that'll land us in 200 years?
Thanks a lot for the estimates. You mentioned it shortly of course, but I just want to stress the value of moderate, pro-health selection: Both socially and personally, healthcare costs are extremely easy to balloon. Fundamentally a healthy body works for very low cost, but dysfunction needs disproportionate money, often even to still work on a level below that of the healthy. Considering that this technology will be taken up in particular by people who already require IVF (since the jump at that point isn't very large anymore anyway), I expect this to save substantial money as well.
Just to be clear, that doesn't mean I'm against the IQ selection, only that the health selection should not be underestimated. And the average laymen is much less likely to be opposed to health than to IQ selection, too.