This is an article that you need to read critically, beyond the headline.
Even a few paragraphs down they say this:
> The optimal age to freeze eggs varies depending on the source and metric, but almost all sources agree it's sometime between 19 and 26.
So there's some heavy bias inserted already into the title.
The next chart shows a peak around 19, but if you read the fine print it's not a chart about eggs at all. The subtitle says it shows:
> probability of getting pregnant for couples not on birth control
Not the quality of eggs frozen. They're saying one thing in text and showing a chart of something else. If you can't imagine why couples in their early 20s might have a higher rate of pregnancy than couples in their 50s then you might want to think a little deeper about the factors that go into that.
The writeup then goes into polygenic embryo screening, which then jumps to improving IQ by selecting embryos, which gets to their final argument which is that it's easier to collect more eggs when younger. So freezing a lot of eggs when you're younger allows for more boosting of your child's IQ through genetic screening based on a company called Herasight's data. Herasight has been widely criticized for overselling their abilities. Also, why do so many rationalist writeups end up back at a conversation about genetics and IQ?
Well, the website is called lesswrong.com, and not correct.com.
I tried not to comment directly on the site because I wanted my points to stand on their own. However, Lesswrong has a long history on the internet. It’s part of the “rationalist” writing sphere which has become oddly preoccupied with topics like race and IQ, eugenics-adjacent topics, and never ending flirtations with reactionary ideologies.
That is true but also a bit unfair, they've also been oddly preoccupied with topics like trying to help the most people and frequently promote giving money to efficient charities to fight against malaria, vitamin A deficiencies and help vaccinate children in very poor countries.
That's their marketing pitch, but revealed preferences are stronger signals than stated ones.
I agree that revealed preferences are stronger signals than stated ones. https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/ shows 52000 donors for $110M, https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/ says more than 10000 donors and more than $490M given.
Oh, yeah, I'm aware.
[flagged]
They could have called it morewrong.com or morallywrong for all the right mathematical reasons instead. Their eugenics agenda is really more than a little bit tiresome at this point.
Yes, this is utterly fucking bonkers.