> If societal IQ was as pervasively tracked as global temperature
Part of the reason we're not ready for it is that any notion of "societal IQ" is simply not as mature, well-understood, proven, or even useful as our understanding of climate science. Scientists who studied the topic understood the greenhouse effect and the potential for CO2 emissions to result in global warming over 100 years ago. Meanwhile, nobody can agree on whether the Myers-Briggs personality test means anything at all.
We just don't have a way to "rate" humans in a general sense, nor is it obvious that increasing their "rating" would even be a good thing. Selecting for humans with the highest IQ would be like selecting for crops that grow the tallest. Sure, sometimes that's a good measure of general health, but it's so blunt compared to the intricate nuances of how DNA works and the huge variety of outcomes we'd like from our crops. Besides, it's just a weird stance to want to create a "superior human". Why do we want to do that? So they can solve humanity's problems (no pressure!)? So we can have sex with them? So we can "purify our gene pool" (shudder)? So they can live a happier life and avoid disease? Some of those reasons are much better than others.
Yes, messing with the climate has risks, but global climate is a lot less complicated than the DNA of a single human. And we know our climate is headed for disaster if we do nothing, so the risk of not messing with it is much higher. Similarly, we know people with certain genes are doomed to a die young or doomed to have certain major disabilities. Those will (and should) be our first targets of human gene editing, because the risks of not doing anything are higher.
And of course we already are practicing a light form of selective breeding at IVF clinics during embryo selection. Mostly they look for chromosomal abnormalities, but I'd guess there are clinics out there that offer more advanced gene selection (if not now, then soon).
Part of the reason we're not ready for it is that any notion of "societal IQ" is simply not as mature, well-understood, proven, or even useful as our understanding of climate science. Scientists who studied the topic understood the greenhouse effect and the potential for CO2 emissions to result in global warming over 100 years ago. Meanwhile, nobody can agree on whether the Myers-Briggs personality test means anything at all.
We just don't have a way to "rate" humans in a general sense, nor is it obvious that increasing their "rating" would even be a good thing. Selecting for humans with the highest IQ would be like selecting for crops that grow the tallest. Sure, sometimes that's a good measure of general health, but it's so blunt compared to the intricate nuances of how DNA works and the huge variety of outcomes we'd like from our crops. Besides, it's just a weird stance to want to create a "superior human". Why do we want to do that? So they can solve humanity's problems (no pressure!)? So we can have sex with them? So we can "purify our gene pool" (shudder)? So they can live a happier life and avoid disease? Some of those reasons are much better than others.
Yes, messing with the climate has risks, but global climate is a lot less complicated than the DNA of a single human. And we know our climate is headed for disaster if we do nothing, so the risk of not messing with it is much higher. Similarly, we know people with certain genes are doomed to a die young or doomed to have certain major disabilities. Those will (and should) be our first targets of human gene editing, because the risks of not doing anything are higher.
And of course we already are practicing a light form of selective breeding at IVF clinics during embryo selection. Mostly they look for chromosomal abnormalities, but I'd guess there are clinics out there that offer more advanced gene selection (if not now, then soon).