We might not be able to live forever, but perhaps, with the right genetic engineering our children might, which begs the question. Can we design the next generation? In some sense, we already do. Whenever you pick someone to date, you are, to some degree, planning out the future inhabitants of this planet by sexual selection. When you choose a person to create life with, you select the biological limits and parameters that the child will fall under. However, after that life is created, we are still subject to a roll of the genetic dice to give us a decent combination of the available genes. If you get a very unfavorable combination or a genetic disease, you could be dooming a person on this Earth to a lifetime of suffering. However, with recent advances in medical science, those dark days are over. 2% of US births are already genetically engineered and many more are to come. “Designer babies” or the more scientific term “Germline engineering”, refers to changes made on sperm, eggs, or the embryo they combine into, offering us an opportunity to liberate the next generation from suffering. And perhaps then, we could also design the next generation to live forever. Using biotechnology like IVF, In-Vitro Fertilization, MRT, a form of Three Parent Fertilization, and IVE, In-vitro Eugenics, the age of customizable children is finally within our grasp.
IVF or In Vitro fertilization was originally a method for helping the 10% of the couples in the US who had trouble conceiving babies. In 1978 Louise Brown became the first quote unquote “test tube baby” to be born through IVF and today, more than 5 million children have been conceived through the technology. It is done by collecting an egg from a woman, putting it in a petri dish, and injecting it with a single sperm. A process called “Electrofusion” then hybridizes the sperm and egg using an electric current. Once the DNA of the sperm and egg fuse into a zygote, the resulting embryo is implanted into the mother’s uterus, where it grows into a fetus, and allows couples to conceive a baby without even having sex. But recently, we have discovered a new potential for IVF, creating custom “designer babies”. These could potentially be made by collecting dozens of eggs from a women by overstimulation with the FSH hormone, then injecting each of those eggs with sperm to create multiple candidates for implantation, allowing mom and dad to pick and choose the one they want. The dozens of zygotes can now be genetically screened using a new technology called PGD, or, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, to select the best possible candidate based on the parent’s preferences. We can measure the genetic code of each one to see which has the best potential of becoming a genetic Ubermensch and leading to a happier child. At first, PGD was used only to identify and reject embryos that had fatal infant diseases and the procedure used to be illegal for anyone who wasn’t a high risk couple. But nowadays, any parents who can pay a little extra use it to also weed out unfavorable NON-fatal diseases, benign disorders, and cosmetic traits, leading to the possible phenomena of “Embryo shopping”. Because of better genetic testing, increased accessibility, and diminishing cost, commercialized artificial babymaking now has the potential to outpace natural reproduction within the next decade, allowing every couple to discriminate for genetic preferences which will increase the overall health, strength, intelligence, and life expectancy of the species. On a further note, in vitro fertilization just might be the solution to the rapidly rising Dysgenics of our pathologically altruistic society. In may come as a surprise to learn that, despite having technology like the internet at our fingertips, humans are getting stupider and stupider. Global IQ has been falling since the start of the 21st century, mostly because people who should be dying off as a result of their own darwin award worthy behavior are being bailed out by medical technology, social welfare programs, and the advent of a democracy where they gain mob-rule, forcing everyone else to finance their increasingly rapid breeding. The sci fi film idiocracy explores this concept in a very comedic way, forcasting a dystopian future created by the feedback loops between stupidity, democracy, and high birth rates. People who should have died out from low IQ and low time preference instead survived, using their voting majority to acquire social programs that not only keep them alive, but offer them welfare incentives which allow them to have increasingly more children. Studies have shown that most of intelligence is inherited, and the tendancy of lower IQ people to breed faster further amplifies the downward spiral. Many in the past have tried to reverse these exponentially compounding feedback loops through sterilization and genocide, but perhaps, a more humane and ethical method would be to just screen for embryos that won’t be as dumb their parents. We could also potentially choose how prone our future children would be to autism, sociopathy, bipolar disorder, depression, and social anxiety, given that we ever discover the genes for them. At this point, why would any person want to have a baby the natural way when they could just create whatever kind of child they want? However, this idea has one small problem, if we’re going to select for things like preferred eye color and preferred hair color, who decides what the best traits are? Because there is no golden standard for most traits, and an advantage in some parts of the world, might be a disadvantage in other parts of the world (show nig with vitamin d deficiency). What is the best race? What is the best hair color? What is the best body type? And most importantly, what is the best gender? We’ve already seen the dark demographic effects of China’s one child policy, where parents preferred male children to the point of committing infanticide on any inconvenient female children that were born. This dysgenic phenomenon resulted in a Chinese population with dramatically more males than females, with millions of males doomed to a life of loneliness even if they had good genes. If parents are allowed to select for gender using PGD, could we see a similar demographic imbalance take place again and reduce the number of couples? Even if it does, the effects of IVF on the concept of family and the institution of marriage could be even more devastating. What happens if humans never want to give natural birth again? The rise of the gender divide, the MGTOW phenomenon, and the “Herbivore man” in Japan has already resulted in millions of men refusing to get married. One of the only things left keeping the two genders together is the desire to one day have children. However, what happens if all the herbivore men just freeze their sperm for IVF babies and pay third world surrogate mothers minimum wage to carry them? Single fatherhood might very well become the new norm, shattering the structure of the family as we know it. We don’t know what the social implications of an entire generation raised by single mothers and single fathers would be, but the situation we have so far does not look promising.
But even though we can now customize the genetic combinations of any two people, sexual reproduction between ONLY 2 people may eventually be deemed inferior. Wouldn’t it be better if in-vitro fertilization could be done with more than 2 parents? This brings us to MRT, or “Mitochondrial recombination therapy”, a form of “3 parent fertilization”. Sex is the greatest creative force on the planet, it mixes the DNA of 2 people into novel and remarkable combinations. Without sex there’d be no Mozart, no Henry Ford, no Elon Musk. And the more DNA you have to choose from, the more creative possibilities you can create. Of course, the problem with only having 2 parents ids that we are limited to selecting from only 2 genetic codes. But what if we could have more than two parents? Doctor Doug Turnbull of Newcastle University recently invented MRT, a procedure for creating a child with 3 genetic parents by adding in a Mitochondrial donor as well. The procedure was originally invented to cure genetic diseases where the mitochondria does not produce enough energy for the body’s cells. In case you don’t already know, every cell in our body has Mitochondria, ancient symbiotic bacteria with their own DNA that our cells absorbed millions of years ago to outsource their energy production. The mitochondria provide power by taking material from the foods we eat and converting it into ATP, the molecule that powers all biochemical machinery in our cells. However, if the mitochondria of the mother’s egg is defective, the resulting child will be very low energy, even to the point of causing serious problems, like blindness, deafness, and dementia, because their brain cells can’t power themselves. Since Mitoichondria have their own DNA and have nothing to do with the sperm or egg, we can customize them without affecting the mother and father’s Chromosomes. Dr. Turnbull’s procedure removes the Chromosomes from the Mother’s egg with inferior Mitochondria and puts them into an empty cell filled with healthy mitochondria, which is provided by a third parent. Modifiying the DNA in eggs, sperm, AND mitochondria could create children that could truly be 100% free of genetic disease. Unfortunately MRT has now been declared illegal in most Western nations, where bioethicists believe it will create an era of Fascist Mitochondrial Eugenics. Many scientists are trying to change the laws, arguing that legal Eugenics is a small price to pay if we could eradicate all mitochondrial disease. However, the law hasn’t stopped everyone from doing it. Just last year, pioneer physician John Zhang and his team created the world’s first 3-parent baby in order to help a 36-year-old woman with a mitochondrial disease. But Because MRT is illegal under U.S. federal law, the procedure had to be done in Mexico to avoid FDA intervention. The experiment surprisingly resulted in the birth of a healthy baby boy and dr. Zhang’s work was published in the Journal Nature, outlining his patented method called “Spindal Nuclear Transfer”. Zhang now claims the technique could even be used to edit genes, allowing parents to select for hair, eye color, and potentially, even IQ. In MIT technology review Zhang said quote “Everything we do is a step toward designer babies, and with nuclear transfer and gene editing together, we can do anything we want.” Later that following January, a team of Ukrainian scientists led by Dr. Valery Zukin were able to create yet another 3 parent baby, successfully giving birth a healthy baby girl through another MRT process called “pronuclear transfer”, so the technology is really catching on. The baby was born at the Nadiya Clinic in Kiev, Ukraine, which, like Mexico, has become another popular hub for Black Market biotechnology. Today, dr. Zhang runs a startup company called “Darwin Life”, offering designer babies to post-menopausal women ages 42 to 47. Darwin Life charges a hefty fee of 100,000 dollars per baby and their doors are open to all women who fail to get pregnant by legal IVF procedures. It’s very unlikely the price will drop until the US government legalizes designer babies, so if you want one right now you’ll just have to get the money. Dozens more designer babies are to be born this year, babies unlike any other on earth. But with that said, why stop at 3 parents? What if thousands of people worldwide could be your parents? This brings us to an interesting possibility. Why not have a database, a library of all genes on Earth and just pick the best possible combinations. It will soon allow mothers to not only select from a catelog of sperm, but also from a catelog of the most efficient mitochondria possible, letting their future children to flourish as high energy superhumans.
IVE is eugenics taken to it’s logical conclusion. It offers a new kind of designer baby where each and every gene of the child is selected from the best possible genetics worldwide, allowing us to create the ideal child from all the biological options globally available to us. In vitro Eugenics is superior to In Vivo Eugenics, which includes familiar things like deportation, genocide, or the voluntary sterilization of welfare recipients as a condition for receiving their benefits. The evolutionary progress from IVE is even faster because it allows for maximum optimization within just one generation of humans, and using CRISPR gene editing technology, scientists around the world have already taken the first steps. The CRISPR system is a genome editing tool developed 2 years ago that’s efficient, cheap, accurate, and easy to use, that the designer baby clinics of the future would be able to rapidly adopt it if we got the legal green light. Parents could select their child’s weight, the size of their nose, their race, and their athletic ability. If you want your child to have blue eyes then alter the OCA2, if you want more muscles then edit the myostatin gene, or if you want many decades of extra life expectancy then edit the Sirtuin genes. Those children would then pass on those genetic changes forever, which evokes the ethical question, is this crossing a line? We can further break the ethical issue of inheritance down into 5 Main ethical arguments commonly made for banning it. Number 1, the argument from consent, will our children want this? Number 2, the argument from inheritance, do we have a right to determine the genetic destiny of the future species? Number 3, the argument from property, could a corporation be allowed to have designer babies as well and could these same corporations own the genes they create, as well as the children they put them in? Number 4, the argument from convergence, what if we all get the same upgrades, snuffing out all genetic variation of the human species. And humber 5, will genetic inequality create a global genetic caste system?
First there’s the argument from Genetic Consent. Since it is impossible to get informed consent from a child, does this mean that it’s impossible for designer babies to ever be ethical? After all, the child might hate the genes you get them just like they hate the sweater you got them for Christmas. With that said, who is the ultimate authority that decides what the superior genes are? The parents and the child might disagree about what a superior human even is. Even things we think a child might want, like intelligence and attractiveness, might not necessarily be favorable to them, because Intelligence is highly correlated with depression and attractiveness is correlated with higher rates of divorce.After all, humans only want more intelligent people because they are useful for building technology for us. We only want more attractive people in the world because the’re sexually useful to us. So does it cross the line to give children something they don’t want just because we’re greedy? It may be wrong to selfishly force our ideal image onto our children, but what if we do it for their own good?But this isn’t that good of an argument, because humans already make life-altering decisions for things like resuscitating a suicide victim even if they don’t want it. Or getting a surgery done un your unconscious grandfather even doesn’t want it. Is it really so wrong for parents to feel pressured to do things to benefit their children, even if those children don’t want them? The concept of parents editing their child’s athletic ability against the child’s will tends to create knee jerk reactions in people. For some reason, if parents want their kids to have the same muscle producing genes as Tom Brady it is ethically wrong, but those same parents forcing their child to work out and play football 8 hours a day is perfectly acceptable. Why should a child be a famous football player if it doesn’t want to? We also do things essential for our child’s health, like forcing them to go to the doctor, so why is it bad if we give them disease fighting genes too? We don’t hate parents for forcing their children to study countless hours, forcing them to eat their Broccoli, or making them go to bed on time. However, to be fair, forcing your child to eat broccoli is not nearly the same thing as changing their genetic identity forever, as well as the biological destiny of their millions of descendants.
This brings us to the second issue, the argument from genetic inheritance. We can all agree there’s some genes people might not want, but what about genes for immortality, isn’t that universally a good thing? Well, even a long life might not be favorable, because some people think life sucks. While biotechnology, nanotechnology, and cybernetics may all have the common goal of extending lifespan, Bioborgs are often seen as more unethical than Nanoborgs and Cyborgs because biological changes are inheritable, permenantly altering an entire genetic lineage for the rest of it’s existence. If you edit the DNA of a person before they’re born, you’re not just editing that person, but all the descendents they will have for the rest of time. However, this is not the best argument against Designer Babies, because there are already plenty of decisions we make for our children already affect their Epigenetics, which also pass on to their descendants. We control what age they can buy alcohol, when they can drink, and what they’re allowed to eat, which all change the rate certain genes are expressed. Yet these things are not considered child abuse, because if the child hates them, then they can chose not to carry on these practices for their own children. So why should the same not go for genetic engineering? It might not even be that big of a deal. If you don’t like the genes your parents gave you, you might still be able to edit them later, and if you don’t want to pass on a certain designer gene, then just edit it out when you have your own designer babies. The argument from inheritance just doesn’t work, because there are so many other things we do for our children that permanently affect their genes. If you move your family to Australia, the high UV exposure in that region of the world could increase the number of genetic mutations in the child’s DNA, changes they will pass onto their offspring forever. But we look upon those mutations a lot more unfavorably when they’re done with CRISPR. We already unconsciously mold our descendants into do what we want them to be and have been doing genetic engineering for centuries, the only real difference is that we didn’t know how DNA worked. Even if you do believe forcing your kids to move to Australia is child abuse, then the real question you’re looking for is not whether it’s okay to change your children, but whether parents actually OWN their children. So with that said, are our genes also our genetic property?
This brings us to the third issue, the argument from genetic property. With reference to my talks on Xenobiology and Synthetic biology, if we ever create a catalogue of synthetic proteins and designer genes, then who owns the genes that are sold there? Will we allow corporations to patent the genes the genes that they create? And if so, will they be allowed to patent our children as well? Companies like Monsanto already claim the rights to any new plants produced by accidental pollination of their GMO plants with non-modified plants, even if those plants grow in an adjacent farmer’s field. So if a designer baby grows up, has their own child, and passes their synthetic genes onto them, does the corporation own that new baby? Would you have to pay the corporation royalties every time you give birth a child carrying their synthetic genes? Could they confiscate your children if you don’t? After all, if the child’s genes come from thousands of people worldwide, don’t those donors have some claim to biological paternity or maternity? Of course, realistically, these people might not want those kids and relinquish their rights, but what if tons of people actually do want to have the same child. One example could be a giant commune of 50 free-love polyamorous hippies choosing to have their own single child, made by combining all 50 of their genomes into one. For all legal purposes, this would give the child 50 biological parents who are all married to each other. Would this child grow up healthy? Or should we only allow traditional families? Some people would be fine with this, as the child would get plenty of attention, but what about even larger groups of people having the same children. Who’s to say a corporation can’t legally have millions of children, with thousands of donor patriarchs, donor matriarchs, and mitochondrial surrogate mothers all around the world being quote unquote “genetic shareholders” of those children? Could a child have thousands of parents as well as millions of siblings? One big happy corporate family that have legal parental rights to all those children. These families could certainly behave collectivistically and turn smaller families into outgroups. For example, Rich CEOs like Martin Shkreli and Meg Whitman could potentially afford to have tens of thousands of designer children in a single year, using thousands third world women as surrogate mothers to incubate them. This whole argument from property often has a simple rebuttal: redefine the concept of biological parenthood, redefine the concept of a “direct legal guardian”, ban non-traditional families, and also ban corporations from patenting genes. But even if these multinational conglomerates of genetic CEO superhumans are limited to only a few children each, those superchildren will surely compete with your own children, which makes you want to upgrade yours too.
This brings us to the fourth issue, the argument from Genetic Convergence, where we should ban IVE because the very idea that other people have GMO children makes us want to get them too, leading to a world of peer pressure. With that said, could in vitro Eugenics ever lead to a dystopian society? If everyone else’s child has been genetically modified, should I get the same modifications for my children as well? Are we only gonna breed designer humans from now on? What if everyone in the world wants to have the same ideal genetic code, which would create mass-uniformity, a world where everyone is the same. Yes, we’d have world where humans have no genetic disorders or inferiorities, but a world where everyone is an Ubermensch actually sounds pretty boring. How many of your child’s genes will you replace with genes from other people before they become “Not Your Children”. If most of the quote unquote “superior genes” in your designer child come from other people around the world, then it makes genetically inferior couples nothing more than cuckolded wet nurses raising someone else’s kids. But even if you don’t want to upgrade your children, the global genetic elite could even pay you to upgrade your kids with their superior genes and give you minimum wage to raise them. This would allow the most rich, talented, and intelligent people in the world to spread their genetically engineered seed very quickly, having Genghis Khan sized families outsourced to quote unquote “professional cuckolds” who take care of them, while having no children of their own. There could be millions of children running around with a CEO, genetic shareholders, or a corporation as their parents, so they could behave in predictable and collectivist ways, replacing the unmodified population all around the world. Of course, inbreeding wouldn’t be a problem because of customizable genomes, so will the entirety of earth one day be populated with the descendants of only a few million rich first world humans? This could create a serious problem. Would the lack of variation in the global gene pool destroy human ingenuity and creativity? Or would the eugenic push for higher intelligence actually create MORE creativity? This can also be an existential risk. If we all get the exact same genetic upgrades, the lack of genetic variation could lead to the end of evolution and the extinction of our species. But this might be a terrible argument, because it assumes everyone’s vision of the ideal Overman is the same. But even if we don’t have mass uniformity and maintain genetic diversity, peer pressure can still have dystopian effects. What if the government and insurance companies refuse to help people who have not done genetic modification to eliminate pre-existing conditions, obesity genes, or genetic diseases? An inability to edit predispositions out of your children could very well make them lifelong ineligible for insurance, medicare, or medicaid. But many other things would not be uniform, such as the type of skills, personality, and appearance we prefer. So it is unlikely we will converge to the same genetic code. It is human nature to stand out from the crowd, because we will not WANT to look and act the same. Genetic equality is a dream for many, but we must face the fact that different people will want different things when they customize their children. But what if you can’t afford to edit your children even if you want to?
This brings us to the fifth issue for banning designer babies, the argument from genetic divergence. Refer to the dystopian sci fi film Gattaca, a prophetic tale about the possible split into multiple human caste systems. Where society self-segregates into the genetic haves and the genetic have nots. The most significant opposition to self-enhancement comes from the EU, the UK, and the US, where concerns address the so called “inequality” that would result from an upper middle class of “Bioborgs” and a lower class of so called “Baselines”. The rich will be able to afford it at first, and they’ll make their children smart, more handsom, more athletic, and perhaps even immortal. As the income gap, achievement gap, and intelligence gap grows between the Bioborgs and the Baselines, you could end up with 2 different species, where one rules the other. Human genetics alert director dr. David King, has even called for immediate global ban on designer babies, as have many social justice advocates, claiming that it may increase racism if humanity splits into 2 seperate species. Suggesting that most of the Genetic Elite would be mostly composed of Asians, Latinos, and Caucasians, while most baselines would be Africans, potentially creating a never before seen level of global genetic rivalry between the enhanced and the unenhanced. You may think this scenario sounds far off in the distant future, but the age of in vitro eugenics is already here and China is leading the way, having already created embryos resistant to certain diseases. Many scientists are calling it “The Wild West of Genetic Engineering”, and just because the west bans it doesn’t mean they will. In a 2015 study published in the journal nature, Chinese scientists have engineered the world’s first custom human embryos. Last year, a study from the Guangzhou Medical University in China published in the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics called “Introducing precise genetic modifications into human 3PN embryos by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing”, used CRISPR/Cas 9 to genetically modify a specific gene that codes for a protein found on the surface of cells, making them all immune to HIV. The team started with over 200 zygotes, edited 26 for modification, and successfully produced 4 viable embryos. However, despite east Asians embracing the technology, western countries are pursuing opposing goals, prioritizing equality and egalitarianism over curing disease and extending lifespan. Eugenics has been deemed a dirty word by the western academic establishment and embryo engineering is currently banned in every first world European country. Because if first world parents can buy their babies genetic advantages that third world parents cannot afford for theirs, then classes will harden into castes. Some genetic upgrades may even cost millions, so subheirarchies within these castes will break down into genetic clades, thedes, tribes, and clans, all of which will depend on how much money your parents had. As a result, western nations have unanimously backed away from the technology. However, this argument isn’t really different from literally any other argument made from inequality. Does this mean it’s wrong for parents to raise their children with more effort and care than other parents, because it gives their child more talent, more money, and better psychological health than the others? We say parents editing their child with genes for mathematical capability is unethical because it gives them an unfair advantage. However, if those parents used their vast wealth to hire math tutors from oxford to give their child the exact same unfair advantages, it’s now socially acceptable. Rich parents already send their kids to the best schools, give them the best medical care, and provide access to the best social circles. So unless you go full on Marxist and try to eliminate all concepts of nation, family, inheritance, race, religion, identity, and every club or in-group that could ever give someone an advantage, then the argument from inequality won’t make much sense, because these same inequalities will still persist even without genetic engineering. The dark truth is that there is no such thing as equality. We could be equal in standard of living, but then unequal in the amount of love and attention we get. If you got rid of money, people would use something else as their currency, like their time, their sex appeal, or their special talents and skills. Humans are hierarchical by evolutionary nature, so the less we make money matter, the more attractiveness, strength, intelligence, attention, and personality will matter. All egalitarian societies ever attempted have collapsed into hierarchy, despite being equal in wealth. There is no such thing as a true egalitarian. A communist who is highly charismatic but poor is no better than a capitalist who is ugly but rich. They both want to be at the top of the pyramid, they just use different political systems to get there because they are good at different things. Economic egalitarianism does not level the playing field, it just shifts the balance of power to a different hierarchy that favors different kinds of advantages. So unless we are all identical clones who possess the exact same brains and bodies, there will ALWAYS be someone who possesses an advantage. There will always be hierarchy. Eastern capitalist governments like Japan, China, and Singapore already understand this basic principle, and for them, genetic engineering bans are just unenforcable guildelines rather than actual legislation or restriction. This is because terms “Eugenics” and “Inequality” don’t have the same stigma or ethical taboo in the East as they do in the west. With that said, it’s very likely that American, European, and Australian first worlders will join third worlders as “Baselines” too, due to their highly restrictive legislation, with East Asians being the only nations on earth that can both afford and choose to pursue genetic enhancement. Which leaves us Americans with a decision. At first, it seems like we must make a decision between being unenhanced but equal and being enhanced but unequal. However that’s not actually the case, because the Chinese and Japanese are pursuing the technology regardless of what we pick, creating a global genetic caste system either way. This means Equality is not an option, as the threat of being outcompeted by the genetically superior Chinese will see to that. So if you can’t beat em, might as well join em. At first, the cost of enhancement would likely be tens of thousands of dollars, and it might be a few years before market competition can reduce the cost to a level affordable for everyone in the world. But if you’re poor like I am or most people are, don’t be afraid, because it’s not necessarily a zero sum game. If the technology develops rapidly enough, then everyone on Earth could very well be able to enhance their genes within our lifetime. Let this be our goal, to give every human the capability to become their own genetic ubermensch by the end of the century and take civilization to the next level. And there is still hope for us yet. Last year in July, A group of American scientists in Oregon broke China’s monopoly and successfully edited the genes of human embryos, but because of federal restrictions, were required to destroy them immediately after and not allowed to study them in development. This leaves us at a crossroads, we could either loosen regulations to let scientists do their work and create a new renaissance of human achievement, or we could all remain equally sick, equally weak, and equally stupid while a genetic elite casts an inevitable shadow over our self-enforced mediocrity.
In Conclusion, we seem to be moving towards an unforseen future where most children might have 2 parents that raised them, yet thousand parents that made them. A future where corporations could create private armies and even new races of people. A future where nations around the world race to self-enhancement lest they be left in the biological underclass. These changes will send shockwaves through our society, but it seems as though we have no other choice than to brace for them. But on the bright side, the customizability of our genes will remove our need to hate each other for them. The falling cost of designer babies will bring an end to both racism and forced egalitarianism, as we could all edit our race, attractiveness, and abilities toward our preferences anytime we want. We could be witnessing a never before seen blossoming of civilization, accelerating towards a biotechnological singularity and exceeding the speed of evolution as we know it. Immortality, total disease immunity, and unprecedented intelligence could soon be in our grasp. The term “Autoevolution” refers to when Evolution becomes directed by intelligent beings instead of natural selection, and through this technology, we’ve finally appeared to have passed that threshold. A threshold where we are officially no longer the slaves of evolution, but it’s masters.
Zhang’s team has provided more details about a healthy conception they helped bring about in a paper published on 3 April in Reproductive Biomedicine Online.