Yes those Silicon Valley bros will end up imposing “smart baby” selection. Sounds awful/immoral, until enough ambitious parents participate, and drag everyone into the ultimate arms race. Same escalation mechanism as elite schools, tutors, admissions consultants etc, except moved 9 months earlier. Most parents probably don't particularly want the optimisation arms race. But once enough ambitious parents participate, opting out starts feeling less like moral restraint and more like voluntarily disadvantaging your kid. The usual status mechanics kick in: Rich weirdos test something → successful/high-status people normalise it → upper-middle class copies it → opting out becomes the weird choice. Health will probably be how the whole thing becomes socially acceptable too. Nobody wants to say “we paid to make our baby smarter”. But screening embryos for lower Alzheimer’s, heart disease or diabetes risk sounds pretty reasonable. Then once you have 10 embryos ranked on a screen, I’m not sure humans will be very good at deliberately ignoring the height / intelligence / longevity columns next to it. And tbh rich parents already spend fortunes buying better probabilities for their children after birth (postcode, private school, tutors, sports coaching, internships, connections etc.) and everyone finds that normal. But somehow buying better odds before birth suddenly feels dystopian. The optimiser class was probably always going to end up here anyway, having spent the last 30 years moving the optimisation of childhood earlier and earlier: university consultants → tutors → elite nursery → prenatal testing → egg freezing/IVF. Embryo selection is just the point where competitive parenting finally reaches before the child exists.