Redefining Reproductive Autonomy When we discuss the future of humanity, we often look toward the stars or the digital landscape, yet the most profound changes are happening at the microscopic level. Jonathan Anomaly suggests that we are entering an era where the "genetic dice roll" of natural conception is becoming an informed choice. This isn't about the science-fiction trope of creating designer babies with laser eyes; it's about using polygenic risk scores to understand the natural variation already present in a batch of embryos. During IVF, parents often produce multiple viable embryos. Traditionally, a clinician might select which one to implant based on basic morphology—how well the cells are shaped. By introducing deeper genetic data, companies like Herasight are simply pulling back the curtain on the information already contained within those cells. This shift challenges our traditional romanticism of mystery in childbirth. We tend to view the random nature of genetic inheritance as a sacred process, yet we already intervene in countless other ways to ensure our children's success. We move to better school districts, optimize prenatal nutrition, and seek the best medical care. Extending this intentionality to the pre-implantation phase is a logical step for those seeking to minimize suffering. By identifying risks for conditions like schizophrenia or Type 1 Diabetes, parents can select a path that offers their future child a smoother start in life. This isn't about engineering a person; it's about choosing the healthiest starting point from the options nature has provided. The Polygenic Revolution and Predictive Accuracy To understand why this technology is a leap forward, we must distinguish between monogenic and polygenic traits. Monogenic conditions, such as Cystic Fibrosis or Tay-Sachs, are caused by a single gene mutation. We have been screening for these for decades. However, the traits that most impact human flourishing—intelligence, height, and susceptibility to common diseases—are polygenic. They are influenced by hundreds or thousands of genetic variants. The innovation brought forward by Alex Young and the team at Herasight involves whole-genome sequencing of parents combined with a snapshot of the embryo's DNA to recreate a discrete genetic profile for each potential child. Scientific validation is the bedrock of this industry. Critics often dismiss genetic screening as "genomic astrology," but the data tells a different story. By conducting within-family studies—comparing the DNA of adult siblings against their real-world outcomes—researchers can prove that their models accurately predict differences in height, health, and cognitive ability. If a model can look at the DNA of two adult brothers and correctly identify which one is taller and which one has a higher risk of diabetes, that same model can be applied to embryos from the same parents. This validation process ensures that parents are making decisions based on rigorous statistical probability rather than empty marketing promises. Ancestry and the Data Gap One of the most significant challenges in modern genetics is the Eurocentric nature of current biobanks. Because the wealthiest countries funded the initial research, polygenic risk scores are currently most accurate for those of European descent. There is a documented loss of predictive power—sometimes up to 80%—when applying European-trained models to African or East Asian populations. Addressing this gap is a moral and scientific imperative. As more countries like China and Israel build their own massive biobanks, the technology will become increasingly democratic and accurate for all ancestry groups, preventing a future where genetic advantages are restricted by geography. The Ethics of Choice and Social Stigma Every technological leap brings the "slippery slope" argument, specifically the fear of eugenics. It is vital to distinguish between state-sponsored, coercive eugenics of the 20th century and the liberal eugenics of today, which focuses on individual autonomy. When a government forces a population to follow a specific reproductive path, it is a violation of human rights. When a parent chooses to minimize their child's risk of a debilitating disease, it is an act of care. The "nanny state" or overly paternalistic medical boards often try to act as gatekeepers, but the trend is moving toward radical transparency and patient empowerment. There is also a concern that selecting against certain conditions increases the stigma for people living with those disabilities today. However, the opposite is often true. As we understand the genetic roots of conditions like schizophrenia or autism, we move away from blaming individuals or their upbringing for their struggles. We realize that these are biological predispositions, not moral failings. Just as the existence of laser eye surgery hasn't made us hate people who wear glasses, the ability to select for health doesn't diminish the personhood of those already born with challenges. Compassion and technology can grow in tandem. Navigating the Non-Identity Problem Philosopher Derek Parfit famously explored the "non-identity problem," which is central to embryo selection. When parents choose to implant Embryo A over Embryo B, they aren't "curing" a person of a disease; they are choosing which person will come into existence. This is a profound distinction. If you select against a risk of breast cancer, you are bringing a child into the world who was always going to be healthier, rather than fixing a sick child. This reality forces us to confront our definitions of personhood. An embryo in a petri dish is a cluster of undifferentiated cells. While it has the potential to become a human, it lacks a nervous system, a heartbeat, and consciousness. We must balance our respect for potential life with our responsibility to the actual people who will live, breathe, and suffer in the future. By using the tools of behavioral genetics, we are taking responsibility for the starting conditions of the next generation. We are moving from being passive observers of our inheritance to being active participants in the flourishing of our descendants. Future Outlook: Global Competition and Norms In the next decade, embryo selection will likely move from a niche medical procedure to a standard part of family planning in many parts of the world. While some European nations currently maintain strict bans, the pressure of global competition will likely force a reversal. Countries that embrace this technology will see long-term improvements in public health, reduced healthcare costs, and potentially higher cognitive outcomes for their populations. This geographic inequality will act as a powerful catalyst for policy change. Ultimately, the success of this technology depends on the cultural norms we build around it. We must foster a society that values transparency, rigorous science, and individual choice. Technology is a tool—like fire or nuclear energy—that can be used for immense good or significant harm. By grounding our approach in empathy and the desire to reduce human suffering, we can ensure that the genetic revolution becomes a cornerstone of human progress. The goal isn't to create a master race, but to give every child the best possible chance at a long, healthy, and fulfilling life.
Diana Fleischman
People
Chris Williamson (7 mentions) explores Diana Fleischman's insights on genetic enhancement and eugenics, specifically referencing her work on 'lassitude' in videos like 'What Does Everyone Misunderstand About Eugenics?' and 'The Wild Ethics Of Human Genetic Enhancement.'
- Nov 8, 2025
- Jun 27, 2023
- Mar 6, 2023
- Feb 11, 2023
- Feb 6, 2023
The Unseen Architect of Human Behavior We often imagine ourselves as the intentional authors of our actions. We believe we buy a specific car because of its safety rating, or we pursue a degree because of a genuine passion for the subject matter. However, the reality of human psychology suggests something far more complex. We are not just participants in our lives; we are constant broadcasters. Every choice, from the pens on our desks to the tone of our voice in a meeting, serves as a signal—a leak of information about our resources, our character, and our social standing. Rob Henderson, a researcher specializing in evolutionary psychology, suggests that we are all playing a signaling game from which there is no escape. Even the act of claiming you do not care about what others think is, in itself, a signal designed to communicate a specific kind of rugged independence. This is the bedrock of social interaction: we are biological machines built to transmit data to those around us, often without our conscious consent. To understand why we do the things we do, we must look past our stated motivations and examine the evolutionary payoffs of the signals we send. The Anatomy of a Signal: Costly vs. Cheap Talk In the biological and economic world, not all information is treated equally. For a signal to be reliable, it often has to be expensive. This is known as the Handicap Principle or costly signaling. The classic example is the peacock's tail. From a survival standpoint, that tail is a disaster—it is heavy, it attracts predators, and it makes escaping a physical struggle nearly impossible. Yet, that is precisely why it works. Only a truly healthy, robust peacock can afford to waste energy and risk safety on such a decorative burden. The tail is an "honest signal" of genetic quality. Humans follow similar patterns. Consider the "stotting" behavior seen in gazelles. When a predator is near, a healthy gazelle will jump high into the air. It seems counterintuitive to waste energy when a lion is approaching, but the gazelle is signaling its fitness. It is telling the lion, "I am so strong that you will never catch me; go chase a weaker one." In the human realm, we see this in conspicuous consumption. A luxury car is rarely just about transportation; it is a signal of resourcefulness and conscientiousness. It communicates that the owner has the economic surplus to maintain a high-maintenance asset, effectively "stotting" in the social marketplace. Status, Dominance, and the Prestige Pathway Our drive to signal is almost always rooted in the pursuit of status. However, status is not a monolith. Psychology distinguishes between two primary pathways to the top: dominance and prestige. Dominance is the oldest form of status, rooted in the ability to impose physical or social costs on others. We see this in the "monkey dance" described by Rory Miller—the ritualized circling and posturing of two young men outside a nightclub. It is a primitive method of gauging strength and establishing a hierarchy through the threat of violence. In contrast, prestige is a more modern, uniquely human pathway. It is granted to individuals based on their skills, knowledge, or wisdom. While dominance is about what you can do *to* people, prestige is about what you can do *for* them. Signaling prestige involves demonstrating competence without looking like a "flashy" status-seeker. This is where counter-signaling comes into play. A professor at a top-tier university might insist on being called by their first name, whereas a professor at a lower-ranked institution might strictly enforce the use of their "Doctor" title. The high-status individual can afford to drop the formal signal because their brilliance is already assumed. They are signaling that they are so secure in their status that they don't need the "cheap talk" of a title. The Shadow Side: Envy and the Mechanics of Schadenfreude If signaling is the engine of social climbing, envy is the friction it creates. We rarely feel envy for those far above us; a common person doesn't typically resent George Clooney for his fame. Instead, we feel it for those similar to us—our peers, coworkers, and friends. This is because they are our direct competitors for resources, allies, and romantic partners. This proximity fuels schadenfreude, the pleasure derived from the misfortune of others. Research shows we feel this most acutely when someone similar to us—same gender, same age, same field—suffers a setback. In an evolutionary sense, their failure is our relative success. It moves us up the hierarchy by pulling them down. This also explains why we bond so tightly over shared dislikes. Negativity is a powerful social glue. When we collectively attack a "grifter" or a common enemy on the internet, we are signaling our shared values and identifying who is truly on our team. By exaggerating the misdeeds of others, we gain allies and pressure-test the loyalty of those in our circle. The Digital Shift: Signaling in the Age of Zoom The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered the signaling landscape. Before the shift to remote work, a boss could signal status through body language, expensive suits, or a commanding presence in a boardroom. Now, those signals are compressed into a tiny, pixelated box on a Zoom call. This has created what surgeons call the "Zoom Boom"—a massive spike in cosmetic procedures for the face and neck. Because we are now forced to look at our own "candid" image for hours every day, our self-perception has been disrupted. We are also finding new ways to signal through our digital environments. The books on the shelf behind you or the quality of your webcam have become the new markers of status. For introverts, this digital shift has been a boon, allowing them to network and signal competence through written text and carefully curated digital interactions rather than high-stakes physical posturing. However, the fundamental drive remains: even behind a screen, we are constantly leaking information, desperate to be seen as high-value members of the tribe. Conclusion: Awareness as a Tool for Growth Understanding signaling does not mean we can stop doing it. The game is too deeply ingrained in our biology. However, becoming aware of our hidden motives—what Robin Hanson calls our "ugly motives"—allows us to live more intentionally. When we recognize that our desire to buy a luxury item or our urge to feel joy at a rival's failure is just an evolutionary echo, we can choose to act differently. True growth happens when we move from being the "cargo" on the ship of our instincts to being the observers of the process. We may never fully control the steering wheel, but by recognizing the signals we send and receive, we can navigate our social worlds with more empathy, less envy, and a deeper understanding of the inherent strength required to be authentically human in a world of performance.
Mar 8, 2021The Hidden Psychology of Infection When we think about being sick, we usually focus on the physical: the fever, the cough, the exhaustion. We treat these as unfortunate mechanical failures of the body. However, evolutionary psychology suggests a much deeper, more intentional process is at play. When a virus like Covid-19 enters your system, it doesn't just trigger an immune response; it triggers a psychological overhaul. Your goals, priorities, and social preferences shift fundamentally as your biology prioritizes survival over exploration. This shift is not a glitch. It is a highly coordinated state change designed to solve the adaptive problem of being vulnerable. While healthy, your "source code" encourages you to take risks, meet new people, and seek out mating opportunities. Once infected, that same code pivots. You become more socially anxious, more sensitive to rejection, and more focused on the familiar. We are beginning to understand that personality is not a static monolith but a flexible strategy that adapts to our internal state of health. The Emotion of Lassitude Dr. Diana Fleischman identifies a specific emotional state that governs this transition: lassitude. While we recognize happiness or anger as primary emotions, we often dismiss the feeling of being sick as mere exhaustion. In reality, lassitude is a functional emotion designed to optimize behavior during infection. It encompasses more than just fatigue; it includes a heightened sensitivity to pain, a feeling of malaise, and a profound shift in social orientation. From an evolutionary perspective, lassitude serves two primary purposes. First, it forces energy conservation. Digestion and social interaction are metabolically expensive. By making you feel uninterested in the outside world, your brain shunts resources toward the immune system. Second, it signals vulnerability to allies while encouraging withdrawal from strangers. Strangers represent a double threat when you are ill: they might exploit your weakness, or they might introduce a secondary, novel pathogen that your already taxed immune system cannot handle. The Behavioral Immune System This psychological defense mechanism is often called the behavioral immune system. It acts as a frontline prophylactic, preventing further infection and managing current threats through behavioral choices. One fascinating manifestation of this is food preference. When you are sick, you rarely crave a novel, exotic cuisine. Instead, you want "comfort food"—highly familiar items like toast or broth. This preference isn't just about nostalgia; it’s about safety. Familiar foods are unlikely to contain new pathogens, whereas unfamiliar foods represent an unnecessary risk to an organism already in crisis. Social Dynamics and the Mating Mismatch Infection also rewrites the rules of attraction and social engagement. Extraversion is an "expensive" trait because it involves high energy expenditure and exposure to social risk. When Covid-19 or other inflammatory conditions take hold, extraversion typically plummets. This has profound implications for long-term relationships. We often promise to stay with partners "in sickness and in health," but we rarely consider that "sickness" might fundamentally change the person we fell in love with. A vivacious, risk-taking partner may become conservative, anxious, and withdrawn during chronic illness. Sexual Strategy and Pathogen Stress Sex differences also emerge in how we handle infection. Men, driven by a faster life history strategy, often maintain a higher libido even when fighting disease—a phenomenon observed in several species, including certain marsupial mice that mate until they literally fall apart. Women, however, tend to have a much more sensitive "infection threat" response. Because pregnancy and child-rearing are so biologically expensive, female biology is more likely to shut down mating drives when the environment is perceived as pathologically dangerous. This can create a significant libido mismatch in couples during or after a pandemic, as their biological systems respond to the same threat with different levels of caution. The Lingering Ghost: Chronic Inflammation One of the most concerning aspects of Covid-19 is the phenomenon of long-haulers. Even after the virus is gone, the immune system may remain on high alert, characterized by a "cytokine storm" or persistent inflammation. When the body stays in this inflammatory state, the psychology of lassitude doesn't turn off. This results in what many describe as "brain fog," but it might be better understood as a persistent state of energy conservation and social withdrawal. This aligns with the "smoke detector principle." Your body would rather keep the alarm of inflammation ringing too long than shut it off while a threat still exists. The cost of a false alarm (unnecessary fatigue and anxiety) is lower than the cost of a missed fire (death). However, in the modern world, this leads to long-term personality changes that can look like depression or anxiety disorders but are actually rooted in a persistent inflammatory response. Cultural Shifts and Pathogen Load Evidence suggests that the total pathogen load of a society influences its broader culture. Research by Randy Thornhill suggests that countries with higher historical pathogen loads tend to be more conservative and conformist. This makes evolutionary sense: if the environment is full of disease, sticking to traditional ways of cooking, socializing, and living reduces the risk of encountering new threats. Innovation is risky when the price of a mistake is an epidemic. As we move into a post-pandemic era, we may see a wider cultural shift toward conservatism and social skepticism. This isn't just a political trend; it’s a biological one. When the "behavioral immune system" of a large population is triggered simultaneously, it changes the collective appetite for risk, the openness to strangers, and the level of social trust. Peering Into the Source Code Understanding these biological drivers is a powerful tool for self-awareness. It allows us to view our own feelings—our social anxiety after a long illness or our sudden need for maternal comfort—not as personal failures, but as adaptive responses. It moves us away from a "dualistic" view where the mind is separate from the body. We are physically embodied beings, and our hormones, immune markers, and pathogens are the architects of our subjective reality. By recognizing that our personality can be a function of our physiological state, we can approach ourselves with more empathy. If you feel different after catching Covid-19, it isn't just in your head; it's in your biology. Growth begins with acknowledging the inherent strength of these ancient systems and intentionally navigating the shifts they produce in our modern lives.
Mar 5, 2021