Scott hasn't really thought this one through. He's writing as though this technology is going to have massive society-wide impact, but that's actually quite impossible. Because:
- As he notes, only ~2% of children in the US are born via IVF, and in many other countries that fraction is even smaller.
- IVF is already very expensive. Adding +$50k or even +$20k to its cost will seem unreasonably burdensome to most people, especially as...
- The embryo you select, at exorbitant cost, is not likely to survive! Attrition rates, at every step of the process, are significant. "Most people who go through IVF, regardless of their age, do not have a baby after one cycle." https://www.varta.org.au/resources/news-and-blogs/how-likely...
At best this will be a niche IVF-add-on that appeals to the LessWrong/FHI crowd, but that's probably as far as it goes.
And we should hope so. Not because of the ethical concerns raised in the post, but because if this stuff is normalized fertility rates are sure to drop even further into the abyss. When it costs $100k just to have a child that can compete on fair footing, far fewer people are going to bother. (IVF x2 = $30k, screening and embryo selection x2 = ~$20-50k, medical treatment etc. = remainder.) What's more, people may even abort children who were accidentally conceived naturally.
Kids used to be free. Hell, they used to work on your farm or in your workshop. Now they are a massive cost burden. This sort of thing is part of the problem -- crashing TFR with no survivors.
- As he notes, only ~2% of children in the US are born via IVF, and in many other countries that fraction is even smaller.
- IVF is already very expensive. Adding +$50k or even +$20k to its cost will seem unreasonably burdensome to most people, especially as...
- The embryo you select, at exorbitant cost, is not likely to survive! Attrition rates, at every step of the process, are significant. "Most people who go through IVF, regardless of their age, do not have a baby after one cycle." https://www.varta.org.au/resources/news-and-blogs/how-likely...
At best this will be a niche IVF-add-on that appeals to the LessWrong/FHI crowd, but that's probably as far as it goes.
And we should hope so. Not because of the ethical concerns raised in the post, but because if this stuff is normalized fertility rates are sure to drop even further into the abyss. When it costs $100k just to have a child that can compete on fair footing, far fewer people are going to bother. (IVF x2 = $30k, screening and embryo selection x2 = ~$20-50k, medical treatment etc. = remainder.) What's more, people may even abort children who were accidentally conceived naturally.
Kids used to be free. Hell, they used to work on your farm or in your workshop. Now they are a massive cost burden. This sort of thing is part of the problem -- crashing TFR with no survivors.