It's 2059, and the Rich Kids Are Still Winning – Ted Chiang

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/opinion/ted-chiang-future-genetic-engineering.html

by bookofjoe • 7 years ago

61 27 7 years ago

Thank you.

I clicked on the "web" link under the title and opened it in a private tab, which loaded Google search results, then I clicked on the NYT link and it worked.

Edit: the site reloaded to cut the article then say I'm in Private mode and to log in. I just went back, opened the NYT result again, and stoped loading the page once the text appeared.

heyitsguay• 7 years ago

Is it ok to paste the text here?

Editors’ note: This is the first installment in a new series, “Op-Eds From the Future,” in which science fiction authors, futurists, philosophers and scientists write op-eds that they imagine we might read 10, 20 or even 100 years in the future. The challenges they predict are imaginary — for now — but their arguments illuminate the urgent questions of today and prepare us for tomorrow. The opinion piece below is a work of fiction.

Last week, The Times published an article about the long-term results of the Gene Equality Project, the philanthropic effort to bring genetic cognitive enhancements to low-income communities. The results were largely disappointing: While most of the children born of the project have now graduated from a four-year college, few attended elite universities and even fewer have found jobs with good salaries or opportunities for advancement. With the results in hand, it is time for us to re-examine the efficacy and desirability of genetic engineering.

The intentions behind the Gene Equality Project were good. Therapeutic genetic interventions, such as correcting the genes that cause cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease, have been covered by Medicare ever since their approval by the Food and Drug Administration, making them available to the children of low-income parents. However, augmentations like cognitive enhancements have never been covered — not even by private insurance — and were available only to affluent parents. Amid fears that we were witnessing the creation of a caste system based on genetic differences, the Gene Equality Project was begun 25 years ago, enabling 500 pairs of low-income parents to increase the intelligence of their children.

The project offered a common cognitive-enhancement protocol involving modifications to 80 genes associated with intelligence. Each individual modification had only a small effect on intelligence, but in combination they typically gave a child an I.Q. of 130, putting the child in the top 5 percent of the population. This protocol has become one of the most popular enhancements purchased by affluent parents, and it is often referenced in media profiles of the “New Elite,” the genetically engineered young people who are increasingly prevalent in management positions of corporate America today. Yet the 500 subjects of the Gene Equality Project are not enjoying career success that is remotely comparable to the success of the New Elite, despite having received the same protocol.

A range of explanations has been offered for the project’s results. White supremacist groups have claimed that its failure shows that certain races are incapable of being improved, given that many — although by no means all — of the beneficiaries of the project were people of color. Conspiracy theorists have accused the participating geneticists of malfeasance, claiming that they pursued a secret agenda to withhold genetic enhancements from the lower classes. But these explanations are unnecessary when one realizes the fundamental mistake underlying the Gene Equality Project: Cognitive enhancements are useful only when you live in a society that rewards ability, and the United States isn’t one.

It has long been known that a person’s ZIP code is an excellent predictor of lifetime income, educational success and health. Yet we continue to ignore this because it runs counter to one of the founding myths of this nation: that anyone who is smart and hardworking can get ahead. Our lack of hereditary titles has made it easy for people to dismiss the importance of family wealth and claim that everyone who is successful has earned it. The fact that affluent parents believe that genetic enhancements will improve their children’s prospects is a sign of this: They believe that ability will lead to success because they assume that their own success was a result of their ability.

For those who assume that the New Elite are ascending the corporate ladder purely on the basis of merit, consider that many of them are in leadership positions, but I.Q. has historically had only a weak correlation with effectiveness as a leader. Also consider that genetic height enhancement is frequently purchased by affluent parents, and the tendency to view taller individuals as more capable leaders is well documented. In a society increasingly obsessed with credentials, being genetically engineered is like having an Ivy-League M.B.A.: It is a marker of status that makes a candidate a safe bet for hiring, rather than an indicator of actual competence.

This is not to say that the genes associated with intelligence play no role in creating successful individuals — they absolutely do. They are an essential part of a positive feedback loop: When children demonstrate an aptitude at any activity, we reward them with more resources — equipment, private tutors, encouragement — to develop that aptitude; their genes enable them to translate those resources into improved performance, which we reward with even better resources, and the cycle continues until as adults they achieve exceptional career success. But low-income families living in neighborhoods with underfunded public schools often cannot sustain this feedback loop; the Gene Equality Project didn’t offer any resources besides better genes, and without these additional resources, the full potential of those genes was never realized.

We are indeed witnessing the creation of a caste system, not one based on biological differences in ability, but one that uses biology as a justification to solidify existing class distinctions. It is imperative that we put an end to this, but doing so will take more than free genetic enhancements supplied by a philanthropic foundation. It will require us to address structural inequalities in every aspect of our society, from housing to education to jobs. We won’t solve this by trying to improve people; we’ll only solve it by trying to improve the way we treat people.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the Gene Equality Project is something that never needs to be repeated. Instead of thinking of it as a cure to an illness, we could think of it as a diagnostic test — something we would conduct at regular intervals to gauge how close we are to reaching our goal. When the beneficiaries of free genetic cognitive enhancements become as successful as the ones whose parents bought the enhancements for them, only then will we have reason to believe that we live in an equitable society.

Finally, let’s recall one of the arguments made during the original debate about legalizing genetic cognitive enhancements. Some proponents claimed that we had an ethical obligation to pursue cognitive enhancements because of the benefits to humanity that would accrue as a result. But there have surely been many geniuses whose world-changing contributions were lost because their potential was crushed by their impoverished surroundings.

Our goal should be to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential, no matter the circumstances of birth. That course of action would be just as beneficial to humanity as pursuing genetic cognitive enhancements, and it would do a much better job of fulfilling our ethical obligations.

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 7 years ago

Yet we continue to ignore this because it runs counter to one of the founding myths of this nation: that anyone who is smart and hardworking can get ahead. Our lack of hereditary titles has made it easy for people to dismiss the importance of family wealth and claim that everyone who is successful has earned it.

Who your parents are has always mattered. Parents being able to give their children an advantage in the world is, in general, a good thing. Even the preamble to the Constitution of the United States talks about securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

It is human nature to want to work hard to better your offspring. It is one of the main motivating factors for many people. Any attempt to remove this advantage is bound to fail.

We need to stop looking at individual opportunity as much as look at the bigger generational picture. As many have pointed out rags to riches in a single generation is very rare. However, rags to riches in 2 or 3 generations is not uncommon (see especially the experience with Asian immigrants). We need it so that anyone who is smart and hard working can end up better off than their parents, and ensure a better starting position for their own kids who if they are also smart and hard working end up even better.

Any Procrustean policy of trying to make it irrelevant who your parents are is always going to end in frustration.

CobrastanJorji• 7 years ago

If rhetorical flourishes from US government founding documents are significant evidence, I would remind you that all men are created equal.

ergothus• 7 years ago

One change I'd like to see is in the opposite direction: We (U.S. society) should stop assuming that someone who has wealth is automatically more meritorious than someone without. We've taken the concept that "someone who is smart and hard working CAN improve their situation" and flipped it to be "someone in an improved situation MUST be smart and hard working".

We should also watch out for what we consider "smart". Someone that is a complete manipulative and exploitative jerk can leverage that to become quite wealthy. They will defend it as "smart", and perhaps it is, but if don't consider that behavior valuable, we should stop pretending the wealthy cases are exceptions.

And of course, to agree with some of your points, we shouldn't toss the baby with the bathwater, nor paint with too wide of a brush. That said, the American narrative and American reality are somewhat dramatically out of sync right now, so some adjustment seems prudent. When the U.S., champion of socio-economic mobility, is ranked rather poorly at the same compared to other developed nations, we become delusional hypocrites, not champions.

katabasis• 7 years ago

The way things seem to be heading, I'm afraid we're going to have much bigger problems by 2059 to worry about.

politician4• 7 years ago

Unless the rich are going to start building domed cities for themselves, they might be better off making their designer children smaller, vegan, and tolerant of lower levels of oxygen.

chrisco2552• 7 years ago

The hyperbole is strong with this one.

aeternus• 7 years ago

How about robot children: - No oxygen required - No food required - Can be made quite small - 50% lower chance of uprising when compared to humans

strken2• 7 years ago

The atmosphere is 20% oxygen and 0.04% carbon dioxide, climate change isn't going to deoxygenate it enough to have any noticeable impact on breathing.

StavrosK2• 7 years ago

I watched a very interesting TED talk related to this the other day. The premise is the question "Where in the world is it easiest to get rich?". The answer won't surprise you if I tell you the answer will surprise you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU

wolco• 7 years ago

Define rich.

StavrosK2• 7 years ago

He does.

starpilot• 7 years ago

He says Scandinavia and uses number of wealthy per capita and social mobility rankings. He then comes up with a narrative supporting his theory in a pat me on the back tone.

goldemerald• 7 years ago

This article isn't too surprising. Modern studies only find a small positive connection between IQ and lifetime success (0.25 correlation). Even so, there is no single element predictor that can better measure success compared to IQ. I would hope that by 2059, social scientists can find an accurate way to determine how being rich contributes to "winning".

yocheckit• 7 years ago

Do they? My experience reading them doesn't indicate that at all, IQ is enormously important in determining lifetime success it's just there are different plateaus.

Once you achieve a certain IQ threshold (be it 115, 130, 145, whatever) then other factors play a bigger role but before you hit that threshold your outcomes statistically will be much worse than even the lowest performers who do make the cutoff.

neilv2• 7 years ago

In a society increasingly obsessed with credentials, being genetically engineered is like having an Ivy-League M.B.A.: It is a marker of status that makes a candidate a safe bet for hiring, rather than an indicator of actual competence.

Not specific to fancy MBA programs, but sometimes credentials means more than a safe bet, but also a fraternity or cabal.

Imagine that, by default, there's a level playing field for everyone, but a subgroup of people collude to trade favors amongst themselves. That group will have an advantage over everyone outside the group who are playing by the egalitarian rules.

RhysU• 7 years ago

Imagine that, by default, there's a level playing field for everyone, but a subgroup of people share some common background and therefore they can form trusted connections amongst themselves at lower cost vs the overhead to establish such connections between any two parties who don't know each other from Adam. I claim this not nefarious situation is indistinguishable from your sinister finger pointing.

neilv2• 7 years ago

How do you mean "trust"? Possibilities include:

1. Trust that the person is capable at particular things. (This you might get from credentials, which perhaps also defines a group, and accomplishments.)

2. Trust that the person is truthful with you, and will honor agreements with you. (This you might get from their reputation within your network/group.)

3. Trust that the person will give preferential treatment to you/group, and that they do this because there is mutual advantage to a subgroup doing that, separate from trust in ability and honesty. (Maybe sometimes this is called loyalty to the group, though you might say you trust in their loyalty. Or maybe it's merely understood.)

I'm pretty sure I've seen #3 happen in business/opportunities, read about it in news, and heard people talk firsthand about it, in ways not always covered by #1 and #2.

chr12• 7 years ago

This assumes that applying edits is hard and expensive while finding what to edit is easy and can be done without multiyear tests. But the reality is exactly the opposite.

More likely outcome is that genetic editing companies will be paying poor people to be able to test effectiveness of therapies on their children, and instead of direct payments will use long term contracts taking percentage from the child's future income.

And if you think this business model is immoral and horrible, notice that this is the business model governments are meant to perform with taxes and social payments, they just fail miserably because of their monopoly.

It's 2059, and the Rich Kids Are Still Winning – Ted Chiang

Related Stories