To do it right -- to propose something like that that isn't just an off the cuff manifesto -- you'd have to do a lot of research and work out all the economics and game theory everything out. You'd have to do a real scholarly treatment of it. It'd take at least someone deeply educated in economics with several years to dedicate.

Then you'd have to steel yourself against the howling, since if you actually put something like that out there you'd be a communist baby eating God hating liberal right winger Illuminati Satan worshipper who wants to poison us all with GMO from fracking wastewater and torture kittens and make us all take the mark of the beast, or something.

So, basically, you'd be me. Well, except for the Mark of the Beast thing: I think even wearing a logo on a T-shirt is a little too dehumanizing.

1) Be relentlessly practical. No "magic happens here" utopian vaporware bullshit.

2) Be historically practical. Don't presuppose the existence of a purely volitional state from which all initiation of force or fraud has been outlawed, or other such bits of moral futurism. We are simply nowhere near such things. Grapple with political realities. We still live in a world that is absolutely ruled by force and arbitrary authority. If we want to get beyond that, we have to chart a practical course toward the betterment of the human condition that begins where we are now and takes concrete understandable steps.

3) Put forward a vision, but also talk about baby steps -- about things we might do here and now to evolve toward a condition like this without requiring the whole kabang to be sold at once.

4) I'd suggest dealing with the critics -- and there will be shitloads of them from every quarter of the political landscape -- by turning sanctimonious moral arguments around. A conservative is implicitly advocating the maintenance of the present condition and its state of injustice and suffering, etc. A liberal is inconsistent -- claiming to advocate progress while opposing its concrete methods. Greens (of the "religious" sort) have simply made a god out of fate -- the naturalistic fallacy.

5) One specific thing you'll get is the Hitler comparison. Anyone who advocates going beyond the human condition in some deep or fundamental way gets compared to Hitler. In addition to pointing it out as dishonest hyperbole, it's important to point out that Hitlerian eugenics is the opposite of this. It's curing the disease by killing the patient... the very opposite of making the means of human betterment more universally available.

You can only pull off multiple exclamation points once in a lifetime.

(Real answer: I'm a computer scientist, not a geneticist :-(.)

While you could do what you say, you could also do a billion other things. I consider desire control to be one of the most subversive technologies possible. We are to a great extent enslaved through the manipulation of inborn and conditioned desire. If we can manipulate our own desires...

I'd expect the first applications to be essentially medicinal: helping people overcome persistent unwanted urges like addictions, pedophilia, or obsessive compulsive disorders. But think about where it could go from there.

Making yourself "want to work" for example could be either empowering or disempowering depending on the context. Making yourself not care about hierarchy could be both as well. For example: how much money could you save if you genuinely no longer cared about status symbols?

On the other hand, we hear almost nothing about such "desire/mind shaping" technologies, and in general people people show little interest in them. I wonder, why is that?

I may try one of these tDCS devices soon. If I do I will blog it.

And clearly you're an exception. And i'm not talking about buying - just general awareness about that tech and it's possibilities(which might be tied to more investment and faster development of the tech).