Mother nature has been combining and re-combining the genes for so long its hard to imagine that we could do much better in short run.
Meta: Here's a dangerous thought.
If nature designed humans to explore, create, and tinker with nature, then it is perfectly "natural" to do so, and thereby it is "mother nature" itself which is at work here.
By the same vein, it can be said that since all there exists is nature and that which is natural, then by extension (also an illusion) there can be no item in the Universe or action within which can be considered "unnatural".
Hence nothing unnatural exists.
Its not that we are not yet close to making a "designer" human--its that we know so little about the various interaction of the genes that even if we could pinpoint specific things (which we can't right now) we know next to nothing about the INTERACTION of such gene causes.
Meta: But we will, given time.
Finding the gene to say a "genius" is only the tip of the iceberg---we have to understand what cliking that gene on is going to do.
Meta: No one likes to even ponder the even remote possibility that there superior degrees of intelligence capability within human beings. Not even me.
It smacks of many things; The bogus notion of Eugenics being the worst.
Another problem is that unless the "super" humans can control the reproduction of the "norms" they wil lose to sheer weight of numbers.
Meta: My position is that they won't have to. Super-Humans will be created out of sheer desire by parents wanting to have their children to be competitive.
A physical example is to simply look at the number of how plastic surgery and dental correction patients have not only increased, but become younger in recent years.
A mental example would be the growth of commerically advertised "learning centers" such a Sylvan to provide children a competitive edge in scholastic development.
Gene work is so expensive and so difficult that the "Supers" would be in such a tiny minority that there would be little way for them to breed enough of them for them to overcome the "normals."
Meta: I submit to you that as with any technology, as it becomes pervasive, so does cost become lower.
Or as we know, all to often the "A" students end up working for the "C" students.
Meta: Generally, the opposite is true in a Capitalistic societies, so I wonder why would it be different in the future?
What if a persons "emotional" IQ is actually more important than raw brains or physical ability?
Meta: Is there such a thing as "emotional IQ?" Or even IQ as a concept?
Another thing to consider is that "smarter" is often as much a product of enviroment than it is a measure of raw brainpower.
Take brilliant guy and drop him in the middle of desert and suddenly he is not nearly as "smart" as the smallest child that actully lives there.
Meta: An excellent point. Wisdom often trumps "booksmarts."
As the world becomes more and more tech advanced--then more we DEPEND on the technology in order to function--and if something happens to that technology--then the smartest computer person in the world could well be SOL.
Meta: Did you ever see the film, "Escape from L.A.?"
I LOVED the ending to that movie.
But I think in reality, Pandora's box has been irrevocably blasted open.