Modern Wisdom

#1017 - Jonathan Anomaly - What Embryo Selection Means for Humanity

November 8, 2025

Key Takeaways Copied to clipboard!

  • Public skepticism toward embryo selection stems largely from confusing it with gene editing and a post-WWII taboo against selecting for mental traits like intelligence, unlike selecting against physical diseases. 
  • Current IVF practice already involves subjective selection (morphological assessment) of embryos, making the introduction of data-driven polygenic screening a matter of degree rather than a fundamental moral leap. 
  • The technology to recreate the entire genome of an embryo from parental sequencing and existing aneuploidy tests democratizes access to polygenic screening, potentially bypassing clinic gatekeepers but raising concerns about genetic inequality if not subsidized. 
  • The moral imperative to use available genetic advantages for subsequent children, even if earlier children did not benefit, is analogous to vaccinating a later child when the vaccine was unavailable for earlier ones, suggesting that failing to select against severe disease in IVF is morally questionable. 
  • The core ethical debate around embryo selection hinges on the 'non-identity problem,' where selecting one embryo effectively replaces a different potential person, meaning one cannot claim harm to the existing person by choosing a different one with better prospects. 
  • The utility of genetic selection is likely enhanced by positive pleiotropy, where selecting against one negative trait (like severe depression) often results in reduced risk for other negative psychiatric disorders as a beneficial side effect, supported by the existence of a general genetic factor (P factor) for psychiatric disorders. 
  • Technological advancement in embryo selection will likely force a global shift in policy, as countries with fewer moral qualms (like China and others in the Middle East) adopt the technology, pressuring Western nations to reverse current bans. 
  • The debate over embryo selection is predicted to intensify ideological conflict, with opposition coming from religious extremists and the 'woke left' due to their adherence to the blank slate theory, which polygenic scores and related technologies are poised to unravel. 
  • Selecting for traits like intelligence via embryo screening is argued to have broad societal benefits, potentially leading to longer, healthier, and more cooperative lives, according to Dr. Jonathan Anomaly's research presented on the *Modern Wisdom* episode, "#1017 - Jonathan Anomaly - What Embryo Selection Means for Humanity". 

Segments

Reasons for Embryo Selection Skepticism
Copied to clipboard!
(00:00:12)
  • Key Takeaway: Skepticism arises because embryo selection is new and often confused with gene editing, despite only revealing existing genetic variation.
  • Summary: People worry about tinkering with the genome, confusing selection with editing; however, embryo selection merely reveals existing genetic variation across embryos, similar to current aneuploidy testing but for polygenic conditions. Current IVF practice already involves subjective morphological selection by doctors, which is analogous to selection but based on less information. This process is often romanticized as ’natural’ childbirth, leading to resistance against data-driven choices.
Disease vs. Trait Selection Taboos
Copied to clipboard!
(00:04:12)
  • Key Takeaway: Western societies exhibit a strong post-WWII taboo against selecting for positive mental traits like intelligence, a distinction not shared in places like Singapore.
  • Summary: Americans show significantly lower support (40%) for screening for intelligence compared to disease (75%), a distinction that is absent in Singapore where support is equal. This difference is attributed to taboos surrounding mental traits arising from the eugenics programs of WWII Germany, which focused on ranking humans by mental worth. Selecting against physical diseases like diabetes is accepted, while selecting for mental traits is morally fraught because the mind is perceived as central to a person’s worth.
Eugenics and Inequality Trade-offs
Copied to clipboard!
(00:07:12)
  • Key Takeaway: Preventing coercive eugenics requires prioritizing individual choice over government intervention aimed at enforcing genetic equality through subsidies.
  • Summary: The fear of eugenics is primarily linked to government control or social pressure, not individual reproductive choices aimed at reducing disease risk. Subsidizing the technology to mitigate genetic gaps between rich and poor risks government overreach by forcing those who disagree with the technology to pay for it. The speaker prioritizes individual autonomy over equality in this context, arguing that government intervention to enforce equality pushes toward coercive eugenics.
Genetic Determinism and Palatability
Copied to clipboard!
(00:14:29)
  • Key Takeaway: Understanding that genetics constrain outcomes is often resisted because it challenges the meritocratic ideal that one can be anything through sheer willpower.
  • Summary: The specter of genetics being equated with eugenics, determinism, and Nazi policy often clouds discussions, despite most people intuitively knowing genetics influences personality and ability differences among siblings. A more optimistic framing suggests that understanding genetic constraints allows parents to focus resources where they matter most, such as minimizing disease burden and ensuring a baseline cognitive ability, which can be as effective as many existing parental investments.
Democratization via Data Innovation
Copied to clipboard!
(00:22:20)
  • Key Takeaway: A new method allows full embryo genome sequencing using existing Down syndrome test data and parental whole-genome sequencing, bypassing traditional medical gatekeeping.
  • Summary: The innovation involves using data from standard aneuploidy tests (PGT-A) and whole-genome sequencing of parents to algorithmically recreate the entire genome of each embryo. This makes polygenic screening accessible to individuals, effectively democratizing the technology and removing the need for doctors to fully understand the complex science behind polygenic scores. This liberation from medical paternalism aligns with the principle of informed patient choice seen in other medical contexts.
Efficacy of Polygenic Risk Scores
Copied to clipboard!
(00:48:58)
  • Key Takeaway: Polygenic scores are validated by predicting trait differences between adult siblings using DNA data, and the key concern for any company is demonstrating this validation across diverse ancestry groups.
  • Summary: Polygenic risk scores indicate an individual’s probability of a trait based on their genetic endowment, derived by matching genetic variants against large biobanks. Validation relies on ‘within-family studies,’ testing if the scores predict known differences between adult siblings (e.g., height, disease presence). Scores trained primarily on European data show reduced accuracy in other ancestry groups, highlighting the need for diverse data sets to ensure equitable predictive power.
Predictive Power and Trade-offs
Copied to clipboard!
(00:51:06)
  • Key Takeaway: With 10 embryos, embryo selection can predict approximately half of the 31-point IQ spread typically observed between full siblings.
  • Summary: For intelligence, selection among 10 embryos can reveal about 15.5 IQ points of variation, which is half the total expected sibling spread. This difference is significant, as IQ scores below 85 or 70 carry major societal implications regarding capability. Parents often face trade-offs, such as choosing an embryo with slightly lower predicted intelligence but significantly lower risk for a debilitating condition like Type 1 diabetes.
Guilt and Buyer’s Remorse
Copied to clipboard!
(00:54:47)
  • Key Takeaway: The guilt of choosing an ‘advantage’ for later children that was unavailable for earlier, naturally conceived children is morally analogous to refusing a newly available life-saving vaccine for a subsequent child.
  • Summary: Parents may feel guilt or resentment if they use selection technology for later children, feeling they unfairly advantaged them over earlier offspring. This is comparable to the moral imperative to vaccinate a new child when a vaccine was unavailable for older siblings who subsequently suffered the disease. Choosing not to provide a known advantage to a subsequent child due to guilt over past limitations would be considered morally indefensible.
Vaccination Analogy for Fairness
Copied to clipboard!
(00:57:12)
  • Key Takeaway: Refusing to use available genetic selection for a later child because earlier children did not benefit is morally equivalent to refusing a polio vaccine for a later child, which would be considered morally insane.
  • Summary: The speaker argues that the guilt associated with giving one child an advantage through embryo selection that earlier children lacked is irrational. This situation is compared to the invention of the polio vaccine after some children were already born, where not vaccinating the later child would be morally monstrous. The availability of new advantages does not negate the moral justification for providing them to subsequent offspring.
Culpability and Choice in IVF
Copied to clipboard!
(00:59:08)
  • Key Takeaway: Increased control over a child’s life through selection increases parental culpability for that child’s outcomes, but conversely, failing to select against known severe diseases when using IVF may also incur culpability.
  • Summary: Taking control over any domain of life, including another person’s life via embryo selection, increases one’s culpability for the outcomes. The speaker claims that if parents are already undergoing IVF and know of a terrible disease running in the family, choosing not to select against it is itself a morally wrong action. This suggests culpability exists both in the choices made and the choices actively avoided.
Technology as Norm-Dependent Tool
Copied to clipboard!
(01:01:37)
  • Key Takeaway: Genetic technology, like nuclear technology, is fundamentally a tool whose societal impact—utopian or dystopian—is determined entirely by the cultural norms governing its use, not the technology itself.
  • Summary: The speaker references George Bernard Shaw’s play Man and Superman to illustrate that technology can be used for warfare or for massive societal benefit, such as clean energy. Similarly, genetic knowledge can lead to Nazi-like misuse or allow individuals to improve their welfare and that of their children. Stopping misuse relies on developing strong cultural norms rather than relying solely on state regulation, as incentives are powerful and laws are easily circumvented.
Drawing Lines: Antisocial Traits
Copied to clipboard!
(01:04:32)
  • Key Takeaway: While selecting against severe antisocial traits like sadism and psychopathy is justifiable, selecting for them should be actively shunned by companies and potentially illegal.
  • Summary: The speaker identifies the Dark Triad traits (sadism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism) as potential red lines for selection. Selecting against these traits, if predictors existed, would be supported, but selecting for them should be prohibited by companies. However, the speaker is hesitant about making this strictly illegal, believing social norms and company policy might be more powerful deterrents, especially since psychopaths are unlikely to engage in the complex process of IVF screening.
Pleiotropy and Genetic Correlation
Copied to clipboard!
(01:12:36)
  • Key Takeaway: The vast majority of genetic correlations (pleiotropy) between traits are positive, meaning selecting against one disease often reduces the risk of many other negative conditions simultaneously.
  • Summary: Pleiotropy describes one gene affecting multiple traits; the study found that selecting against conditions like severe depression also reduces risks for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia as a side effect. This positive correlation is linked to the ‘P factor,’ a genetic overlap among psychiatric disorders, similar to the ‘G factor’ in intelligence. This finding is presented as very good news for the efficacy and safety of embryo selection for disease reduction.
Personhood and the Non-Identity Problem
Copied to clipboard!
(01:16:19)
  • Key Takeaway: The ’non-identity problem’ dictates that embryo selection does not harm the resulting child because the choice determines who is born, meaning the unselected embryo would have been a different person entirely.
  • Summary: Philosopher Derek Parfit’s work on psychological continuity suggests that identity is fragile, especially when considering reproductive choices. Every act of conception, whether through natural means or IVF, results in a different person due to the timing of sperm and egg combination. Therefore, one cannot claim that a different, genetically optimized child is ‘better’ than the one who would have existed otherwise, as the unchosen person would not exist to complain.
Genetic Influence vs. Choice
Copied to clipboard!
(01:33:36)
  • Key Takeaway: Understanding one’s genetic predispositions can lead to both increased compassion for others whose traits are not of their choosing and greater justification for one’s own deeply held preferences.
  • Summary: Learning that one’s personality profile aligns strongly with genetic data can make one’s preferences feel less flimsy and more like a secure calling. Conversely, this deterministic view fosters compassion for others whose annoying or negative behaviors may stem from unchosen genetic factors. The speaker notes that the single biggest determinant of a child’s future is the genetic material of the partner chosen, emphasizing the importance of partner selection.
Stigma and Medical Treatment Analogy
Copied to clipboard!
(01:40:05)
  • Key Takeaway: Screening for psychiatric conditions is unlikely to increase stigma, as understanding genetic causes typically fosters compassion, and the argument against screening based on stigma is analogous to banning all medical treatments that create a divide between treated and untreated individuals.
  • Summary: Knowing a condition is genetic tends to reduce blame and increase compassion for those affected, contrary to the objection that screening increases stigma. Furthermore, the argument that screening increases stigma is flawed because advancements like laser eye surgery increase stigma for those who still wear glasses. The speaker notes that while some activists argue against selecting against traits like deafness, this argument fails when applied to severe conditions like Tay-Sachs or breast cancer.
Geopolitical Embryo Selection Race
Copied to clipboard!
(01:53:42)
  • Key Takeaway: Centralized control, such as in China, risks accelerating eugenics compared to decentralized norms and transparency requirements in the West.
  • Summary: China may build a larger biobank and poach Western scientists, potentially leading to a rapid advancement in embryo selection while Europe self-flagellates over WWII comparisons. The desire for trait selection will pressure European countries to reverse current bans, especially as other nations proceed without moral qualms. This creates a geographic inequality where cultures accepting behavioral genetics gain a future advantage.
Future Trajectories and Opposition
Copied to clipboard!
(01:56:32)
  • Key Takeaway: The next five to ten years will see widespread adoption driven by international competition and the collapse of the blank slate worldview.
  • Summary: Opposition to embryo selection is expected from religious extremists and the ‘woke left’ who are ideologically tied to the blank slate theory of human nature. Polygenic scores are predicted to break the blank slate theory more effectively than arguments alone, forcing confrontation with genetic realities. Countries like China and Israel subsidizing IVF will naturally lower the relative cost of embryo screening, increasing pressure for trait subsidies.
Cousin Marriage and Genetic Screening
Copied to clipboard!
(01:59:11)
  • Key Takeaway: Genetic screening offers a practical solution to mitigate high risks associated with consanguineous marriages prevalent in certain regions.
  • Summary: In the Middle East, where cousin marriage rates are high, some countries have responded by banning the practice or making genetic screening cheaper, free, or mandatory. Embryo selection can effectively eliminate the high risks associated with first or second cousin marriages if enough embryos are available for testing. While banning sibling marriage is inadvisable, IVF screening could minimize associated problems for existing couples.
Concluding Thoughts and Resources
Copied to clipboard!
(02:00:39)
  • Key Takeaway: Selecting for intelligence is linked to positive life outcomes, including longevity and cooperation, making it a pursuit of the ‘good, true, and beautiful’.
  • Summary: Dr. Jonathan Anomaly remains optimistic about the technology, viewing it as another way to promote virtues like the good, true, and beautiful. He directs interested parties to Herasight.com to use their IVF calculator and view data on intelligence associations. Selecting for IQ correlates with longer, healthier lives and increased likelihood of being cooperative, suggesting benefits beyond selfish parental desire.