The cause of human intelligence amplification (aka HIA, human intelligence enhancement, human intelligence augmentation) seems to have very little discussion on this forum; those terms (in quotations) give only a handful of search results. I think this is a big mistake. In particular, I think that reprogenetics is a good cause area that should get more resources.

Reprogenetics is biotechnology used to empower parents to make genomic choices on behalf of their future children. Reprogenetics would most likely work for HIA, is morally good, and is likely technically feasible and acceleratable.

Let's have a discussion about this. We can talk here in comments. If you have substantial thoughts / a strong position against, we could have a discussion or debate on a call and post it to YouTube.

At a meta level, it may be that EA as a whole (or all the individual EAs, mysteriously) have simply dismissed HIA in general or reprogenetics in particular. In other words, some decision has already been made to not pursue those causes, and this decision is not open for discussion or debate. That would prima facie go against the ideals of EA. I think that would be ok, in some sense. A person or a group has some natural right to make a decision for itself, without having to explain it, and it makes sense for people to defer to leaders. However, I do think that if this is the case, then EA quite strongly owes a public statement to that effect. That way, interested parties can draw their own informed conclusions about how to pursue principles of actually effective actual altruism.

A few points:

• "This is actually immoral?"

  • I don't think so. I do think it requires a large ongoing conversation between society, various groups, scientists, and so on.
  • I also think there are genuine risks (see "Potential perils of germline genomic engineering"). These risks should be headed off with concrete actions and with theory. Accordingly, there are genuine open questions in how society can orient around reprogenetics beneficially.
  • But I think reprogenetics is fundamentally quite consonant with a very humanistic pluralistic liberal vision, that would be quite beneficial for nearly everyone, and that is deeply opposed to eugenics. See "The principle of genomic liberty" and "Genomic emancipation" and "Genomic emancipation contra eugenics".

• "This can't be accelerated because all the good science is already funded and you don't know anything about this."

  • I'm sympathetic to this; biotechnology is very difficult and can't be solved with anything like a drive-by investigation. I think most HIA methods are not promising (see "Overview of strong human intelligence amplification methods").
  • That said, I do think there are very significant areas (mainly in reprogenetics) that could benefit from a lot more funding. This is a question of priorities, and I think the current priorities are incorrect, because the upsides are so big.
  • I am not a trained biologist and these are not peer-reviewed articles, but my assertion is that the main conclusions of the reasoning I lay out in "Visual roadmap to strong human germline engineering" and in more detail in "Methods for strong human germline engineering" would largely stand up to critique. My conclusions imply several relevant areas that could very much use more funding to go faster.
  • If you'd like, you could nominate an expert in genetics and/or stem cell biology who you would believe, if they told you that reprogenetics is feasible and/or acceleratable. Then, if that person is game, I would gladly pay them for their time to critically evaluate my arguments in some form (after a discussion). (I have done this some, in a piecemeal way; I'm not fully satisfied with these verifications, and I'm happy to meet knowledgeable critics who will entertain technical questions about speculative biotechnologies.)

• "This is very taboo."

  • It's probably not nearly as taboo as you think it is. Public opinion is quite split (think something like 45/55 for preventing disease, 30/70 for increasing intelligence), and is probably open to discussion. You're probably being overly sensitive to low-context optics.
  • People want the potential downside risks to be taken very seriously; no one asked you to literally stop thinking about it.

• "Isn't this pointless because AGI is coming so soon?"

  • I don't think so. I don't think it makes sense to be super confident in short timelines—say, >80% on <15 years. See "Views on when AGI comes and on strategy to reduce existential risk" and "Do confident short timelines make sense?".
  • Further, the main plausible hope even on short timelines would be a pause / delay / slowdown. That is, of course, the top priority. But in the long run, you still need an out!
  • Even on pretty aggressive timelines (median <15 years), getting an out in 40 years rather than in 50 years (because you accelerated strong reprogenetics and strong HIA) is still a quite substantial decrease in existential risk. Like a percentage point or something. That's pretty good! Hello?!? (See "The benefit of intervening sooner", though some background assumptions there are rather questionable.)

• "Does this actually help with existential risk?"

  • I think so. See "HIA and X-risk part 1: Why it helps".
  • But I'm not sure; see "HIA and X-risk part 2: Why it hurts". I'm still thinking about this, but I do think it's likely quite helpful, and I'd love to discuss / debate.

• "EA can't do super weird stuff purely on the basis of existential risk."

  • I'm sympathetic to this. Pursuing a controversial, risky technology for intense, non-concrete reasons is a pretty fraught stance to take. One has to ask, am I doing bad things in bad ways for supposedly good reasons?
  • However, I think that HIA in general, and even more so reprogenetics in particular (because of empowering parents to decrease disease risks etc.), can be done in a way that is quite likely to be quite beneficial for almost all individuals and for society (humanity). (I don't think this should be obvious to you a priori, and I'm not so confident of this; let's discuss!)
  • Furthermore, if it is the case that reprogenetics is good for individuals and for humanity, then there is a way to pursue it that is top-to-bottom ethical. In other words, we can pursue this in a way that is truly and simply good; we can know that it's good and can stand tall about it.