A
recent Nautilus article by Stephen Hsu has the title
“Super-Intelligent Humans Are Coming.” Hsu gives us some
reasoning that tries to justify the claim that we will soon be able to
genetically engineer humans to have an IQ of 1000. First he guesses
that there might be thousands of gene variations that can have a
slight effect (positive or negative) on intelligence. Then he
reasons as follows:
Given
that there are many thousands of potential positive variants, the
implication is clear: If a human being could be engineered to have
the positive version of each causal variant, they might exhibit
cognitive ability which is roughly 100 standard deviations above
average. This corresponds to more than 1,000 IQ points.
But
there are quite a few problems with such reasoning. First, we have no
idea whether having so many genetic variations would be feasible as a way of getting to a super-genius. It
could be that if you have more than, say, 100 of them, it has some
terrible side effect that would mess up a person's brain or body.
Second, we have no idea whether there is a law of diminishing returns
that would kick in once you had tried to give someone more than 100
of these genetic variations.
There
are all kinds of situations in which having one type of thing may
increase some parameter by a one percent, but having, say, 50 of
those things does not increase that parameter by anything like 50
percent (because of a “law of diminishing returns” effect). For
example, if you buy one smoke detector for your house, it may
increase your life expectancy by one percent. But buying 50 smoke
detectors does not increase your life expectancy by 50 percent. And
while bringing a second pencil to the test center may increase your
SAT score by an average of 1 percent, bringing 20 pencils will not
increase your SAT score by anything close to 20 percent.
It
could well be that it will be impossible to manipulate genes to
increase human intelligence by more than 50 percent, no matter how
many genetic modifications are made. The whole idea that the secret
of human intelligence is found in the genes may be misguided. The
rice plant has more than 32,000 genes, but humans have only about
20,000 genes. How could that be if our genes are storing an algorithm
for making human minds?
It
is also doubtful that we will be able to isolate some series of gene
changes that could add up to a roadmap for making humans
super-intelligent. In this Guardian article a psychologist says the
following:
It’s
the best kept secret of modern science: 16 years of the Human
Genome Project suggest that genes play little or no role in
explaining differences in intelligence. While genes have been found
for physical traits, such as height or eye colour, they are not the
reason you are smarter (or not) than your siblings. Nor are they why
you are like your high-achieving or dullard parents, or their
forebears.
There
is a problem called the “missing heritability” problem. This is
the problem that while twin studies may suggest that as much as 50%
of variations in human intelligence may be caused by genetic
differences, scientists have had no luck in determining genes that
determine intelligence. In this article a scientist named Plomin
states, “I've been looking for these genes for 15 years, and don't
have any.” This Scientific American article says, “Numerous
researchers have found that the structure of cognitive abilities is
strongly influenced by genes (although we haven't the foggiest idea
which
genes are reliably important).”
Given the lack of success in finding genes that determine
intelligence, it may well be that intelligence has relatively little
dependence on a person's genes – perhaps much less than 50%.
Hsu's
optimism about genetic tinkering is the kind of optimism scientists
had before the Human Genome Project was completed. It was thought
that once man's genes were mapped, there would be all kinds of
breakthroughs. Scientists thought that we would conveniently find
that particular genes mapped to particular traits, and that this
would be some medical Aladdin's lamp. What actually happened was
something very different. What scientists found was a murky muddle
that resulted in relatively few breakthroughs. All too often the
roles of particular genes were still very unclear. A typical result
was that some gene might be found to have a 2% effect on some trait.
Such results were surprisingly unhelpful. Given such a reality,
there is no basis for concluding that some big increase in human
intelligence can be caused anytime soon through genetic engineering.
The
difficulty of mapping genes to cognitive prowess should surprise no
one. Think of what genes are: they are typically sequences of
chemicals used to construct proteins. Now imagine some great problem
involving abstract thinking, such as the question of what is the best
future path for mankind, or why there is something rather than
nothing, or whether there is an overall plan for the universe, and if
so, what is its nature. Can we imagine some new combination of
chemicals that would suddenly cause us to understand such problems
with much greater insight? No, we cannot. We basically have no
understanding of how some particular gene might cause increased
intelligence, so in trying to manipulate genes to increase
intelligence, we are groping around in the dark.
In
short, while we cannot rule out the idea of one day genetically tinkering our way to super-minds, the prospects of being able to radically improve intelligence through
genetic engineering anytime soon are poor. It is not at all true to
suggest genetic engineering prospects suggest “Super-Intelligent Humans Are Coming,” as Hsu's title states.
Are
there any reasons for hope on this matter? There are a few. For one
thing, human intelligence as measured on IQ tests seems to be
increasing. Google for the topic “Flynn effect” and you will find
that IQ scores have increased by 5 to 25 points in the past several
decades. This seems quite inexplicable from any kind of genetic
standpoint. Could there be some entirely unknown factor behind human
intelligence, something that is now turning up the knob on human
intelligence to help us cope with an increasingly complex society?
Possibly.
Another
basis for hope is the prospect that we might develop some drug or
chemical that might produce short-term boosts to human intelligence.
Many people think that the mind is not a product of the brain, and
that the brain is just a kind of temporary receptacle for our minds (for reasons discussed in this series of posts).
According to such an idea, your brain is a kind of localization
device, restraining a spirit, soul, or mind that might otherwise be
free-roaming, forcing it to be chained to some particular body. If
such an idea is true, some drug could conceivably switch off some of
the brain's activity, which might in some sense be like letting the
genie out of the bottle. By taking some drug you might get in touch
with some higher consciousness that has been restricted by brain
activity largely dedicated to keep you living in the here and now.
There doesn't seem to be any drug very suitable for such a purpose at
this time, but we may hope that some day such a drug might be
developed. It might be that future Americans might have some pill
that will make them feel temporarily as if they had some
consciousness far beyond that of normal human consciousness. After
swallowing such a pill, you might feel as if the doors of Eternity
had been opened.
No comments:
Post a Comment