# Methods for strong human germline engineering

## Overview

### Method 1: Spermatogonial tissue sampling and editing

> For simple embryonic selection, shouldn't we consider highest IQ of male embryos rather expected IQ of the embryos?

> my first guess is this is going to lead to an international arms race between multiple countries to develop the most intelligent and politically loyal embryos they possibly can, as fast as they possibly can.

**TsviBT**

I will let you know when I write an article of this type!

In general though, US policy making circles have a long history of applying just enough pressure on other countries so that the frontier of R&D of every emerging field remains in the US. It’s not a coincidence that frontier of quantum computing and genomics and fusion energy and AI and a hundred other technologies all lie in the US.

Sometimes this does lead to war, US military leaders have afaik started wars over who has nuclear weapons, who has chemical weapons and who has oil. But often there’s more subtle levers that can be pulled such as export controls and backchannel collusion with the leading CEOs of that industry.

I don’t at the moment have a list of examples that doesn’t involve the US, but I know they exist and I agree this is worth writing more on.

### Method 2: Whole genome synthesis

You have an existing problem with DNA sequencing that's not yet a major issue. If you are able to do whole genome synthesis, it would be possible to recombine the best known genes with the target ones, which can be done very cheaply because it's more of a process than a task. But the hard part is in creating the orthologs for all the important genes that are missing. (And maybe that was a case of failing to achieve the best possible result.) It's a very big problem. This is what I think will come out of developing this technology.

### Method 3: Directed gamete selection

> Even small differences in the details could lead to very different futures for humanity.

I wish there was some more grounded analysis of this sort of thing I could read somewhere. E.g., historical comparisons of other things that states have done with a similar motivation. Or e.g. cases where some technology gets used for good and for evil, and then is it net positive? I feel conversations about what states will do with germline engineering just hit a wall immediately because who knows what will happen.

I think extreme fear of / antipathy towards eugenics is good in part because it constitutes political will to not have states do this sort of thing—controlling people's reproduction, influencing populations. Accordingly, I advocate for genomic emancipation, which is directly opposed to state eugenics.

---

### References

**Samuel Shadrach**

I don't super agree with this. But also, I'd view that as somewhat of a failure. Part of why I want the technology to be wideley available is that I think that decreases the path-dependence. Lots of diverse GE kids means a more universalist future, hopefully.

**DaemonicSigil**

Yeah. I have several articles I want to write, though IDK which will become high-priority enough. Some thoughts on genomic liberty are here: 

---

**TsviBT**

I have read it (long ago).

I take the general point that making this technology partially removes a barrier, where previously human influence on children is limited, and afterward there is at least somewhat more influence. E.g. this could lead to:

- One can unilaterally make the technology cheaper and more effective. Generally this makes it more widely accessible, which makes it harder for enemies who would want to keep it for themselves to do so. E.g. if inequality were going to be a big resulting problem, you can fix some of it unilaterally in this way.
- Some key aspects of the technology will still require large amounts of skill. I'm thinking in particular of polygenic scores. If KJU wants to make an obedience PGS that actually works for the Korean population, he'd have to find a team of geneticists and psychometricians willing to do so. To say it another way, there is a separate cat to be let out of the bag for each trait (roughly speaking) that you might want to select for/against.

**samuelshadrach**

I’m glad you’re thinking about it.

So I get that you want to do things with the consent of everyone involved, be it the sperm donor, egg donor, or the people who will actually raise the child. This doesn’t preclude thinking about population-level changes or thinking ahead multi-generational consequences.

Even if people don’t explicitly aim for population changes, these might be the emergent effects. It may be individually rational for each person to find the highest trait sperm donors they can find, even if they haven’t all coordinated with each other to do it.

More important though, your noble intentions are going to matter only so much once this tech is the public domain. People of various types of intentions may have access to this. If we have anything resembling markets + democracy + internet + multipolar nuclear world, a maxim that makes some sense to me is “don’t release any tech unless you’re ready for your worst enemies to have access to it as well”. You should assume, for example, that Kim Jong Un also has access to this.

**TsviBT**

This is somewhat true, yeah. But it's only somewhat true. E.g.

- One can unilaterally make the technology cheaper and more effective. Generally this makes it more widely accessible, which makes it harder for enemies who would want to keep it for themselves to do so. E.g. if inequality were going to be a big resulting problem, you can fix some of it unilaterally in this way.
- Some key aspects of the technology will still require large amounts of skill. I'm thinking in particular of polygenic scores. If KJU wants to make an obedience PGS that actually works for the Korean population, he'd have to find a team of geneticists and psychometricians willing to do so. To say it another way, there is a separate cat to be let out of the bag for each trait (roughly speaking) that you might want to select for/against.

**samuelshadrach**

I think skill can be stolen via cyberhacking + espionage, assuming you are able to prevent them from just hiring ex employees and ex researchers. The meaningful question for me is how many months of lead time can anyone maintain before they get copied by other nuclear armed countries.

Unless you really find a better plan, my first guess is this is going to lead to an international arms race between multiple countries to develop the most intelligent and politically loyal embryos they possibly can, as fast as they possibly can.

**TsviBT**

I wish there was some more grounded analysis of this sort of thing I could read somewhere. E.g., historical comparisons of other things that states have done with a similar motivation. Or e.g. cases where some technology gets used for good and for evil, and then is it net positive? I feel conversations about what states will do with germline engineering just hit a wall immediately because who knows what will happen.

I think extreme fear of / antipathy towards eugenics is good in part because it constitutes political will to not have states do this sort of thing—controlling people's reproduction, influencing populations. Accordingly, I advocate for genomic emancipation, which is directly opposed to state eugenics.

---

**samuelshadrach**

I will let you know when I write an article of this type!

In general though, US policy making circles have a long history of applying just enough pressure on other countries so that the frontier of R&D of every emerging field remains in the US. It’s not a coincidence that frontier of quantum computing and genomics and fusion energy and AI and a hundred other technologies all lie in the US.

Sometimes this does lead to war, US military leaders have afaik started wars over who has nuclear weapons, who has chemical weapons and who has oil. But often there’s more subtle levers that can be pulled such as export controls and backchannel collusion with the leading CEOs of that industry.

I don’t at the moment have a list of examples that doesn’t involve the US, but I know they exist and I agree this is worth writing more on.
```