Children are able to learn music theory very quickly, and produce music. Are they able to retain that knowledge through adulthood, or must they continuously relearn it?
as with any activity, if you keep at it, you would develop more neurons in that area. children can mimic just about anything and are more easily able to absorb information because they are more of a blank slate. but only if it's their own genuine passion that they want to pursue will they be motivated to innovate or create. you can't learn or force inspiration and what inspires is usually pointing to your natural abilities or what you tend to be best or talented at. in other words, it truly has to be their own talent, not something they are forced into or else each step of advancement is too straining or unnatural or they will lose interest altogether. paradoxically, art is not something you can master just by practice or using logic/reason as with other areas of practical application. in art, it's only useful for improving on the method or technique. logic only apply in some sense of form or structure but there really is no way to describe the holistic inspiration to fill in the rest which will be different and varied each time. it's as if it's coming from someplace else or tapping into some invisible universal source.
I wonder how gene-editing would affect the neuron development, artistic sense and passions of people after it is fully implemented on our society? It might be possible in the near-future for unborn children or living people to be modified to have their retention skills vastly improved, maybe to a superhuman level Passion and Artistic sense can be modified through changing our very brains. Editing our genes COULD affect the neurons and what signals they give and in turn affect our natural abilities and talents? I wonder if we will be ready for the time comes when every 5 year old has Four PhDs?
You can see on youtube a microorganism chasing down another microorganism and eating it. These things have no brains, no nervous systems, no senses. The patterns of gene expression serve biological imperatives, and life is evolutionary. My guess is that introducing change to that evolutionary vector is risky at best. There are more pressing things to do, like stopping diseases from spreading, and isolating deadly viruses.
