Demographic Engineering: From Cash Incentives to Polygenic Screening

Coverage of lessw-blog

ยท PSEEDR Editorial

In a recent analysis, lessw-blog explores the intersection of aggressive fertility incentives and the emerging capabilities of polygenic embryo selection.

In a recent post, lessw-blog discusses the dual levers available to societies facing demographic collapse: economic force and technological intervention. Titled "Fertility Roundup #6: The Art of More Dakka," the analysis posits that declining birth rates are not an inevitability but a choice that can be influenced through substantial resource allocation and the adoption of advanced reproductive technologies.

The post opens with a macroeconomic argument regarding fertility incentives. The author suggests that while cultural shifts are complex, humans respond reliably to incentives involving money, time, and status. The analysis proposes that direct cash transfers-potentially as high as $300,000 per birth-could be net profitable for the state when accounting for the long-term economic contributions of the next generation. This section challenges the notion that fiscal austerity should limit demographic policy, arguing instead for massive investment.

However, the core technical signal of the post lies in its detailed examination of polygenic embryo testing (PGT-A). The author highlights the transition of IVF from a medical necessity for infertility to a platform for genetic optimization. Specifically, the post profiles Herasight and its polygenic predictors, such as CogPGT. The author notes claims that such screening could potentially boost offspring IQ by up to 9 points and significantly reduce risks for conditions like Alzheimer's and schizophrenia.

Crucially, the post addresses the regulatory landscape, noting that frameworks like HIPAA (in the US) and GDPR (in Europe) provide individuals with legal rights to their raw PGT-A data. This suggests a growing pathway for parents to bypass traditional medical gatekeepers and access advanced genetic insights directly. The author adopts an accelerationist stance, arguing that genetic selection is a moral positive that should be encouraged rather than restricted.

This publication is relevant for observers of the biotech and longevity sectors, as it outlines how consumer demand for "designer" traits is beginning to intersect with available medical data and legal rights.

Read the full post at LessWrong

Key Takeaways

Read the original post at lessw-blog

Sources