Geoffrey MillerVerified account

9/Up until now (and still), nature/nurture has been a mostly academic debate, with relatively few policy implications.

10/On the "nurture" side, we already try to do the best job we can raising kids. Knowing nurture was more important wouldn't change that.

11/And on the "nature" side, there was no real way to change genetics without some nightmarish dystopian eugenics program.

12/That's about to change. We're about to gain the ability to find out how much nature can do by simply *fiddling around with it*.

13/This means we need to prepare for the possibility that "nature" turns out to be pretty important for a lot of stuff.

14/Best example: We need to think about whether rich people could use gene editing to give their kids permanent advantages.

15/If nature is important for wealth, rich ppl will be able to engineer kids with natural wealth-getting abilities. Perpetuating inequality.

16/Similarly, if nature is important for happiness, we need to think about whether it's child abuse NOT to engineer our kids for happiness.