This appears to be a blog argument with little relevance to HN.<p>I'll summarize it as: Physicist Hsu argues that there are techniques by which it may be possible to genetically engineer hyper-intelligent humans. Biologist Myers argues that it's hard to measure intelligence, it's not clear that intelligence can easily be tweaked through the genes, and other biological complications, as well as questions about ethics and the observation that better "sociology and education and social services" is already known to lead to more intelligent people, so why not focus on that instead of "mad scientist" research.<p>Hsu responds by arguing that population genetics is more additive than biologists - especially evo-devo biologists like Myers - believe, and since chickens can be bred to be bigger and faster maturing, so can human be bred to be more intelligent.<p>Hsu's response depends strongly on 1) being able to measure a correlation between intelligence and SNPs, and 2) the assumption that these SNPs are "roughly additive" in benefit. See his preprint at <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421</a> . I attempted to read it, but Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" strongly affect my understanding of the topic; and Hsu's preprint appears to accept what Gould calls the two deep fallacies of reification and ranking. I do not not have the knowledge to evaluate the abstract in its full context. I do think his discussion of the Flynn effect reveals a severe misunderstanding of history and people.<p>Hsu does not address the ethical and moral issues that Myers raised.