What if you raised a human in completely scientificly " perfect " conditions?

[happyskunky]

"scientifically " <--- sorry

 

I would like to say hello to all of you. I am just a High school educated nobody who likes science.

 

I am IN no way smart, I was just searching the internet for a place that I could post this thought / question and get some replies.

 

I have always thought about , what if you could raise a human in as near perfect conditions for their entire life into adulthood including everything highly controlled during the birth to warrant the best baby possible ? No expense is too much and you get top scientists and doctors including Dermatologists.

 

You raise them in a room that has the same filtration system as Intel has in their chip manufacturing department. You give them the best food literally by raising and growing everything in the most ideal conditions. You teach them with scientifically proven methods and courses.

 

What kind of person would this be at age 18 ? Will they be super smart ? Will they have a weak immune system?

 

What are your thoughts on this ? I think it would be super cool and I would love to meet said person but I know this probably will never happen.

 

Sorry if this sounds stupid at all

Edited April 1, 2016 by happyskunky

[hypervalent_iodine]

Briefly, I would venture that it's impossible to say. Genetics plays a large role in some traits, and I don't think we know enough about the brain or how some behaviours develop / manifest to even know what 'perfect conditions' are (never mind the fact that such conditions would surely be unique to each person).

[Sirona]

As Iodine said, it depends because in some cases genetics may play a much more significant factor. It seems that environmental factors plays a significant role in human immune variation based on twin study. A Stanford study led by Mark Davis, discovered that exposure to a single chronic, viral infection could have a significant effect on the system’s composition and responsiveness. It seems that non genetic influences, especially microbes, play a large part in driving immune variation.

[CharonY]

As noted we know far to little about (human) biology to be able to decide what is the best. Even for seemingly small things we are unsure about the outcome. E.g. early exposure to peanuts have been shown to increase or decrease likelihood of peanut allergy, depending on study. And on top, things interact with each other. Seemingly "good" things may in some circumstances be bad.
Bottom line is we are adapted to survive under suboptimal conditions. We may actually not do well under seemingly optimal ones.

 

Also, it is difficult to determine an optimal outcome. Assume, for example that there is a way to increase longevity, but it is associated with higher risk of depression. What would be optimized? Or would one look for a sweet spot to balance the two risks against each other?

Edited April 1, 2016 by CharonY