You raise a lot of questions about whether there might be a downside to eliminating some mental illnesses. I have another point to add. Many of the functional mental illnesses like depression and schizophrenia are poorly understood and might be evolutionary adaptations that help us survive. C.A. Soper has a new theory that says that functional mental illness is an adaptation that keeps people from killing themselves. These illnesses kick in when people are in deep pain and numb, distract, and confuse them so that planning and action become difficult, which prevents them from forming and carrying out suicidal plans. Soper thinks functional mental illness is part of a psychological immune system that prevents suicide. So it might not be a good idea to get rid of these illnesses. More on this here: https://open.substack.com/pub/eclecticinquiries/p/what-if-mental-illnesses-arent-illnesses?r=4952v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Yeah I think a clear example you can see is how it's often better to have too much anxiety than too little, as people with too little end up in jail or dead from accidents. Maybe as the environment changes those issues become less of a worry but I agree we shouldn't underestimate how certain negative states can benefit us in moderation.
Ives, i have great respect for your work. I am very friendly with a number of older couples. Each couple created a large number of embryos and had all of their embryos tested by genomic prediction. Genomic Prediction is great, Genomic prediction has provided all the couples with their raw data. There is a very large number of genetic scientists willing to be engaged to analyze the genomes of the embryos and give a second opinion, in terms of the likely traits of each embryo. The problem is that genomic prediction has encoded their raw data in a special way that most genetic scientists do not have the key to unlock the data and analyze it. No one seems to know which scientists genomic prediction has given the "key" to and which scientists they refuse to give the key to
at the same time, orchid of course analyzes embryos and orchid does not encode the data. clients of orchid can easily send their embryo data to three outside scientists and get three different opinions
i am writing to ask you what you know about the key that unlocks genomic prediction data. are you friends with third party scientists who are experienced in unlocking genomic prediction data and giving an opinion on each embryo?
the whole polygenic embryo analysis space is going to grow very rapidly as an industry. There will be millions of embryos tested each year and many intended parents will want opinions on each embryo from multiple scientists.
You raise a lot of questions about whether there might be a downside to eliminating some mental illnesses. I have another point to add. Many of the functional mental illnesses like depression and schizophrenia are poorly understood and might be evolutionary adaptations that help us survive. C.A. Soper has a new theory that says that functional mental illness is an adaptation that keeps people from killing themselves. These illnesses kick in when people are in deep pain and numb, distract, and confuse them so that planning and action become difficult, which prevents them from forming and carrying out suicidal plans. Soper thinks functional mental illness is part of a psychological immune system that prevents suicide. So it might not be a good idea to get rid of these illnesses. More on this here: https://open.substack.com/pub/eclecticinquiries/p/what-if-mental-illnesses-arent-illnesses?r=4952v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Yeah I think a clear example you can see is how it's often better to have too much anxiety than too little, as people with too little end up in jail or dead from accidents. Maybe as the environment changes those issues become less of a worry but I agree we shouldn't underestimate how certain negative states can benefit us in moderation.
Ives, how do people in the polygenic embryo selection industry send you messages? You do not appear to be on linked in
Ives, i have great respect for your work. I am very friendly with a number of older couples. Each couple created a large number of embryos and had all of their embryos tested by genomic prediction. Genomic Prediction is great, Genomic prediction has provided all the couples with their raw data. There is a very large number of genetic scientists willing to be engaged to analyze the genomes of the embryos and give a second opinion, in terms of the likely traits of each embryo. The problem is that genomic prediction has encoded their raw data in a special way that most genetic scientists do not have the key to unlock the data and analyze it. No one seems to know which scientists genomic prediction has given the "key" to and which scientists they refuse to give the key to
at the same time, orchid of course analyzes embryos and orchid does not encode the data. clients of orchid can easily send their embryo data to three outside scientists and get three different opinions
i am writing to ask you what you know about the key that unlocks genomic prediction data. are you friends with third party scientists who are experienced in unlocking genomic prediction data and giving an opinion on each embryo?
the whole polygenic embryo analysis space is going to grow very rapidly as an industry. There will be millions of embryos tested each year and many intended parents will want opinions on each embryo from multiple scientists.