Modern WisdomThe Wild Ethics Of Human Genetic Enhancement - Dr Jonathan Anomaly
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 0:39
Assortative mating is already creating genetic inequality
Jonathan opens by arguing that genetic inequality has been rising even before embryo selection or gene editing, largely through changes in mating patterns. As women attain more education, high-IQ/ high-status individuals increasingly pair off, concentrating heritable traits like intelligence.
- •Rising genetic inequality predates gene editing
- •Women’s education changes mating patterns
- •Assortative mating is strongest on intelligence
- •Tech will likely accelerate existing inequalities
- 0:39 – 5:53
What people get wrong about eugenics (and why the term is loaded)
They define eugenics broadly as using knowledge of heredity to influence children’s traits—something as old as sexual selection itself. The modern term arises from 19th-century breakthroughs (Mendel, Darwin, Galton), but public reactions are dominated by Nazi and coercive historical abuses.
- •Eugenics as any heredity-informed influence on offspring traits
- •Origins: Mendel, Darwin, Galton; early twin-study thinking
- •Selective breeding analogies (corn, apples) and why humans feel different
- •Why ‘eugenics’ triggers fear: Nazism, forced sterilization, U.S. history
- 5:53 – 8:57
Ideology, the blank slate, and why elites resist heritability talk
The conversation turns to political discomfort with genetic explanations, especially among modern progressive circles committed to “blank slate” assumptions. Jonathan predicts growing cognitive dissonance as technologies make heredity harder to deny in private decision-making.
- •Early eugenicists were often ‘progressives’ using science to improve society
- •Blank-slate commitments treat disparities as oppression-derived
- •Genetic tech forces a real-world ‘price’ on denying heredity
- •Public denunciation vs private adoption will diverge
- 8:57 – 13:12
‘Genetic enhancement’ as a euphemism, and the real distinction that matters
Jonathan argues there is no meaningful difference between eugenics and genetic enhancement—just different branding. The important moral boundary is not the label but whether practices are voluntary and welfare-improving versus coercive and abusive.
- •‘Genetic enhancement’ often functions as a softer term for eugenics
- •Refraining from risky interventions is still a heredity-informed choice
- •Key distinctions: voluntary vs coercive; child welfare vs political control
- •Debate should focus on policy and safeguards, not semantic taboos
- 13:12 – 17:43
How IVF + embryo selection + polygenic scores work (what’s on the table now)
They lay out the current pipeline: IVF creates multiple embryos, which can be screened first for single-gene disorders and increasingly via genome-wide association studies. Polygenic risk scores allow probabilistic selection across many variants for disease risks—and even traits like cognitive ability.
- •IVF enables choosing which embryo to implant
- •Shift from single-gene screening (e.g., Tay-Sachs) to polygenic scoring
- •GWAS biobanks link thousands of variants to traits and risks
- •Embryo sequencing + algorithms generate selectable ‘risk/trait profiles’
- 17:43 – 20:05
Do parents have a moral obligation to use enhancement tools?
Jonathan cautiously argues that if parents understand and can afford safe tools, they may have obligations to reduce serious risks and improve a child’s prospects. He adds ‘ought implies can’ limits, and notes social sensitivity around infertility and unequal access.
- •‘Ought implies can’: no duty to do what you cannot afford or access
- •As costs drop and safety rises, moral pressure to use grows
- •Mate selection remains the biggest lever; tech becomes an added lever
- •Obligation claims feel offensive to infertile or disadvantaged people
- 20:05 – 33:19
Embryo selection vs gene editing: safety, off-target risks, and pleiotropy
They explore whether selecting among embryos is morally different from editing genes directly. Jonathan says differences are mostly empirical (risk profiles), highlighting CRISPR’s off-target mutation problem and pleiotropy—where one gene affects multiple traits—while noting evidence for ‘positive pleiotropy’ in health indices.
- •Moral difference depends on downstream risks, not ‘naturalness’
- •CRISPR today: off-target mutations make complex-trait editing dangerous
- •Pleiotropy can create unintended trade-offs when altering variants
- •Positive pleiotropy/health indices suggest broad disease-risk reductions may correlate
- 33:19 – 38:36
Genetic vs environmental interventions, naturalistic fallacy, and shifting public opinion
Jonathan argues environmental harms (lead, alcohol in pregnancy) can be as irreversible as genetic ones, so the moral gap is often overstated. They discuss instinctive resistance to ‘unnatural’ tech and cite survey evidence suggesting younger Americans are increasingly open to embryo selection for cognition, especially when peers adopt it.
- •Environmental exposures can permanently reduce cognitive development
- •Genes feel ‘essential,’ but environment can be equally irreversible
- •Resistance often mirrors earlier skepticism toward vaccines/medical tech
- •Survey trend: acceptance of embryo selection rises among younger cohorts and with social proof
- 38:36 – 42:45
Current capabilities and the next wave: IVG and scaling embryo choice
Jonathan summarizes what can already be selected against (major disease risks) and claims selection for height and cognition is feasible now, though imperfect. He then introduces in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), which could generate vastly more embryos from adult cells—turning selection from tens to hundreds or thousands, and later pairing with ‘touch-up’ editing.
- •Today: selection against schizophrenia, heart disease, diabetes; possible selection for height/IQ
- •Expected early adoption in China due to subsidized IVF
- •IVG: converting adult cells into gametes could massively expand embryo pools
- •Future stack: IVF + polygenic scores + IVG + limited CRISPR for residual risks
- 42:45 – 54:52
Are men becoming redundant? Y chromosome elimination and masculine virtues
Chris raises a provocative claim from Richard Wrangham about eliminating the Y chromosome to reduce aggression and war. Jonathan pushes back, arguing masculine virtues support civilization and that war/competition can also foster cooperation and meaning; they explore gene–culture coevolution and the risks of over-sanitizing male behavior.
- •Wrangham-style proposal: remove males/Y chromosome to reduce violence
- •Counterpoint: masculine virtues can be civilization-building and protective
- •War/competition can increase within-group cooperation (parochial altruism)
- •Modern ‘sedatives’ (porn/games/social media) may dampen young-male aggression—context-dependent
- 54:52 – 1:04:50
What traits people will actually select for: health, intelligence, kindness, and trade-offs
They predict preferences by observing behavior in sperm/egg markets rather than stated ideology. Jonathan argues women commonly select for intelligence, health/athleticism, cooperativeness, and kindness in donor contexts, and that personality selection will involve pervasive trade-offs across OCEAN traits and political correlates.
- •‘Actions reveal preferences’: donor markets show real priorities
- •Common donor preferences: education/intelligence, health, athletic signals, kindness
- •Personality selection is trade-offs (e.g., conscientiousness vs OCD extremes)
- •Openness correlates with political orientation and vulnerability to exploitation
- 1:04:50 – 1:17:16
Selecting for attractiveness: symmetry, sexual selection signals, and runaway risks
They discuss whether parents will choose for beauty and how aesthetic preferences often track health via fitness signals like symmetry and proportion. Jonathan argues some risks of runaway selection exist (e.g., extreme height) but expects self-correction when traits impose health costs, and notes that sexual selection already functions as a crude genetic filter.
- •Attractiveness likely includes symmetry and body-proportion ‘windows’
- •Some sexually selected traits have health/longevity trade-offs (e.g., extreme height)
- •Symmetry and other markers can be proxies for lower mutation/parasite load
- •Modern tech shifts mate-choice from ‘analog’ to more ‘digital’ precision
- 1:17:16 – 1:39:47
Societal risks: inequality, bans, black markets, and possible human divergence
They explore the fear of a genetic upper class and whether early adopters create an irreversible lead. Jonathan argues bans can worsen inequality via black markets and ‘medical tourism,’ advocates broader access/subsidies, critiques equality-obsession, and floats a long-run possibility of human divergence—potentially even deliberate reproductive incompatibility.
- •Runaway inequality is possible; first-mover advantage concerns are real
- •Bans may increase inequality by pushing use to the rich via black markets
- •Subsidizing access could reduce genetic gaps as costs fall like other tech
- •Extreme divergence could lead to quasi-speciation or intentional reproductive lock-outs
- 1:39:47 – 1:48:13
Demographic collapse, fertility heritability, and the meaning crisis
The conversation broadens to fertility decline as a major Western risk and how future tech (especially IVG) could shift timing and access to childbearing. They connect pro-natal cultural forces (religion/national identity) to replacement fertility and suggest the desire to have children may itself be heritable—and could even become an engineered target.
- •Falling birth rates (e.g., South Korea) threaten long-run societal continuity
- •IVG could extend reproductive windows, affecting family planning decisions
- •High intelligence/income often correlate with lower fertility; Israel as counterexample
- •Fertility preference may be selected for culturally and genetically—‘the fertile inherit the earth’
- 1:48:13 – 1:51:37
Choosing traits vs accepting your child: Sandel’s ‘Case Against Perfection’ revisited
Jonathan addresses the ethical worry that enhancement undermines humility and unconditional acceptance. He agrees perfectionism can be harmful but argues neglecting preventable disadvantages is also morally troubling, and defends selecting broadly beneficial traits like health, empathy, conscientiousness, and general intelligence.
- •Sandel’s argument: mastery/perfection can erode acceptance and humility
- •Counterpoint: refusing beneficial selection can be cruel to future children
- •Defensible targets: immune function, cognitive empathy, conscientiousness, general intelligence
- •Avoiding extremes and acknowledging limits while still improving welfare
- 1:51:37 – 1:52:41
Where to find Dr. Anomaly + closing
Chris wraps up by asking where listeners can follow Jonathan’s work. Jonathan points to his website and explains he avoids social media due to professional risks and mental health concerns.
- •Primary hub: jonathan-anomaly.com
- •Avoids social media due to censorship/firing risks in academia
- •Episode closes with thanks and outro
