The Future Of Human Genetics

 
I work to describe how humans can adapt genetically and strategically to survive and develop long term in the new ecology we have been building since we left the tribal world for the farms and cities of civilization. I started this when my biology teacher was talking about novel diseases, and I wondered how medicine could effect human evolution. A lot of people would die without modern medical intervention, especially vaccines. I seem to have a knack for biology, so I continued thinking about this when in college. This was back when genetic analysis was limited to zone electrophoresis, a very difficult and limited method. 

Basic biology says that every generation, some genes have mutations. Mutations are random changes in genetic sequences, sequences that are created over vast time periods by natural selection and evolution. Some very rare random changes might be good, but being random most mutations make the genes less functional and so are by definition "bad" or broken. At the time, I referred to these as non-integral genes. What we have been calling human progress is the removal of natural selection, something that will cause a dangerous genetic load of these broken genes. 

While DNA polymerase was discovered earlier, it was not until perhaps the late 1990s that it was used for genetic analysis. It could duplicate DNA strands, creating large quantities of DNA that were far easier to sequence. This analysis method was good for detecting these mutations, which they referred to as "de novo", Latin for "fresh". Whatever they were called, they were broken genes that the parents did not have.

In Lancet 2012; 380:1674-82 was an article that "compared exome sequences between patients and their parents to identify de-novo variants". The purpose was to "identify de-novo variants in individuals with sporadic non-syndromic intellectual disability", that is mental retardation, the most expensive disability. Findings were that from 33% to 66% of intellectual disability came from de novo mutations.

Keep in mind, they were only examining one the genes for one trait. De novo mutations are happening in all genetic systems and are major causes of cancers, mental illness and other diseases. It contributes to the current 15% infertility rate. Ask any doctor and they will tell that most chronic conditions are hereditary and the data shows that many of those are caused by de novo genes. Normally, natural selection would be removing these, but now, like genes do, they are adding up.

Move forward to 2024 and now genetic analysis is primarily done using CRISPR. See Professor Caroline Wright: Revisiting genetic determinism: evidence from large population cohorts June 5, 2024 
It describes results from looking at the UK Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database and research resource containing genetic and other health information from half a million UK participants. They have detected what they are calling a "public health hazard" and refer to it as "penetration", the extent that de novo mutations are accumulating to cause health problems. They know what that data means. They see what I saw long ago. If you remove natural selection, there will be  genetic load. It will grow, eventually causing genetic based diseases.

No species can survive without natural selection or some other mechanism to remove broken genes. Simply put; to survive as more than animals, we are going to have to figure out a way to husband our genes. If we do not, we will not be able to maintain our technology or even our civilization, and we will revert to a state where natural selection operated as it did before medicine. 

There is a way to husband our genes ethically and economically. Both will be required. CRISPR will not do it. It will have to be pre-implantation selection. It is ethical because it will result in healthy children and healthy families. This is not just for some elite. It has to be for everyone that uses DNA to reproduce. Doing this would have the benefit of allowing selection for the best genes of both parents. Natural selection cannot select for "good" genes and can only select against "bad" genes. That is a primary reason that evolution is so slow. Artificial selection would allow everyone to have health, beauty, and brains. This is not about superhumans, though I think humans are already pretty super. It does imply good health, the cost of which nations measure in GDP, often 15%. Everyone could have the beauty of health, that would last. Our intelligence is what got us here and will be our most important ability in the future. Since my study is meant as a study of how we can adapt to the next ecology, it does not speculate much on intelligence beyond what is required for survival in the next ecology. It is easy enough to say though that, since the genes are there, everyone could certainly have a minimum IQ of what we would currently call 120. That should have some economic value. 

Another consequence would be that not only would racism make no sense, but it would endanger us all because it is the genetic diversity of humanity that is what we have to work with to adapt to the unknown future.

Another moral aspect, and all of this must be examined in a moral context, is that already many people who are not so genetically or cognitively gifted, wonder if they or their children will have a future in this new world that is rushing towards us so fast. Using artificial selection, each generation could accumulate their parent’s best genes until they can compete with anyone, and be comfortable with whatever comes our way. This also applies to a person that knows they have genetic problems. Their children do not need to inherit them.

For more details, you could look at Genetics For A New Human Ecology (Transition), though it could use some touch up. That will come after I finish what I am working on now, which is the "Strategy For A New Human Ecology" book.