Grayman
Soul Shade
What do you guys think of a breeding program for humans to counter the negative effects of de-evolution as a consequence of medicine and abundance?
-
OK, it's on.
Human Breeding Program
- Thread starter Grayman
- Start date
Grayman
Soul Shade
Reproduction permits available soon... It will happen when we become overpopulated and run out of resources. Why not dk it before we destroy our habitat and our genes?
Not Anyone To Care For
Ayy lmao
I don't see anything wrong with it biologically because farmers have been selective breeding for thousand upon thousands of years, it will come down to people's morals. Hitler had a similar view of weeding people out to get the 'Aryan Race' but he was killing people instead of select breeding them.
Yellow
for the glory of satan
... I think there are so many things wrong with that question it's hard to know where to start 
If I'm going to keep it brief, I'll start with the assumption that de-evolution is a thing. It's something that elitists throw around, most of whom are completely ignorant of population ecology and/or evolutionary genetics. (Yes, I realize that they are often found latching onto an offhand theoretical comment or a super-egoist tirade of someone technically qualified to be considered an "authority". That's not a viable authority source.)
Second, the idea that abundance or medical advance is a detriment to our population's natural viability. People survive in our current society who wouldn't have otherwise survived, but if that was a detriment, it would be seen now or in the future. ATM, we're continuing to advance in both regards, suggesting that what we've lost doesn't outweigh the gain. We are able to eek value out of individuals and populations that should be dead and it is contributing to a collective.
Why does no one realize that the mechanisms of evolution work on populations, not individuals. It's not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of the most stable genes within the population under the current circumstances". If we have stability as a population, then individual variance is moot.
Third, breeding programs are artificial selection, not natural selection, and strictly speaking, they can perhaps engineer a breed/variety, but they cannot make a new species.
Back to the first and second points: we may have mroe survivability of certain genes, but that doesn't have a huge impact on our genetic makeup. Behavior =/= molecules. Lifestyles and cultures change at the drop of a hat, but our chemistry is slower to alter.
Take orcas for example. There are the fish-eating orcas and the mammal-eating orcas. They can still interbreed, and theoretically, a fish-eating orca can be raised to be mammal-eaters. But they avoid each other. They are behaviorally, culturally different, and so they live different lifestyles. Maybe, maybe someday, if the circumstances change or exacerbate, they might undergo enough drastic speciation to be different from one another or from what one of them used to be, but that's not devolution.
If we took a human today and a human 1000 years ago, there'd be no difference that lifestyle couldn't account for.
Anyway, third, we already selectively breed. We selectively breed for our current breeding priorities. A breeding program would make almost no difference.
Let me give you a breeding-program example. Dogs. You can artificially select your dogs and make them look and act all kinds of weird. You have Pugs and Great Danes and everything in between. Give a pack of different painstakingly bred dogs a few generations, and they'll all look about the same. Because the genes never changed, just the gene expression.
The only "breeding program" that would work to "improve" human genes would take millenia, and an extreme authoritarianism. And that would be the classic one designed to make us live longer. You force generation 1 to not be allowed to start breeding until they're 28. Everyone that would have died before turning 28 won't live to pass on their genes (nor will those who can't produce viable young after 28). 100 years later, push the starting point back to 29 years old. 100 years later, add another year, and so on. It gives our bodies time to adapt to the ever-increasing age of reproduction, and slowly weeds out early-termination diseases that our ancestors had given us due to their early-death lifestyle.
If I'm going to keep it brief, I'll start with the assumption that de-evolution is a thing. It's something that elitists throw around, most of whom are completely ignorant of population ecology and/or evolutionary genetics. (Yes, I realize that they are often found latching onto an offhand theoretical comment or a super-egoist tirade of someone technically qualified to be considered an "authority". That's not a viable authority source.)
Second, the idea that abundance or medical advance is a detriment to our population's natural viability. People survive in our current society who wouldn't have otherwise survived, but if that was a detriment, it would be seen now or in the future. ATM, we're continuing to advance in both regards, suggesting that what we've lost doesn't outweigh the gain. We are able to eek value out of individuals and populations that should be dead and it is contributing to a collective.
Why does no one realize that the mechanisms of evolution work on populations, not individuals. It's not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of the most stable genes within the population under the current circumstances". If we have stability as a population, then individual variance is moot.
Third, breeding programs are artificial selection, not natural selection, and strictly speaking, they can perhaps engineer a breed/variety, but they cannot make a new species.
Back to the first and second points: we may have mroe survivability of certain genes, but that doesn't have a huge impact on our genetic makeup. Behavior =/= molecules. Lifestyles and cultures change at the drop of a hat, but our chemistry is slower to alter.
Take orcas for example. There are the fish-eating orcas and the mammal-eating orcas. They can still interbreed, and theoretically, a fish-eating orca can be raised to be mammal-eaters. But they avoid each other. They are behaviorally, culturally different, and so they live different lifestyles. Maybe, maybe someday, if the circumstances change or exacerbate, they might undergo enough drastic speciation to be different from one another or from what one of them used to be, but that's not devolution.
If we took a human today and a human 1000 years ago, there'd be no difference that lifestyle couldn't account for.
Anyway, third, we already selectively breed. We selectively breed for our current breeding priorities. A breeding program would make almost no difference.
Let me give you a breeding-program example. Dogs. You can artificially select your dogs and make them look and act all kinds of weird. You have Pugs and Great Danes and everything in between. Give a pack of different painstakingly bred dogs a few generations, and they'll all look about the same. Because the genes never changed, just the gene expression.
The only "breeding program" that would work to "improve" human genes would take millenia, and an extreme authoritarianism. And that would be the classic one designed to make us live longer. You force generation 1 to not be allowed to start breeding until they're 28. Everyone that would have died before turning 28 won't live to pass on their genes (nor will those who can't produce viable young after 28). 100 years later, push the starting point back to 29 years old. 100 years later, add another year, and so on. It gives our bodies time to adapt to the ever-increasing age of reproduction, and slowly weeds out early-termination diseases that our ancestors had given us due to their early-death lifestyle.
Ex-User (9086)
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 5:23 PM
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 4,758
It's tough, on one hand Yellow's explanation is so complete that I don't feel inclined to add much of my own, on the other hand I don't want to discourage Yellow from sharing excellent thoughts by possibly admitting that it's the effect her input has in many cases. So if you're Yellow, please ignore this message 
.
Eugenic agendas, including closet or hidden eugenic undertones embedded in many marketing/consumerist or mainstream philosophies take root often through relatively non-invasive and seemingly benign means, often spreading unintended as part of old structures or elements parallel to different ideas. What they actually aim for when followed to their logical endpoint is often so inhumane or destructive that it could only have been spawned in misanthropic or 'narcotic' minds, such that due to various circumstances operate on a different reality, often detached from the common denominator.
It's not out of the range of plausibility to think that it'll become increasingly possible to alter the genes of the offspring so as to avoid hereditary and other deficiencies. This most likely will first become available to the most wealthy and may or may not trickle down to the rest. Effectively this can significantly affect social hierarchy, or the way our species or multiple species change. Eugenics and genetic manipulation will become a significant source of worry in the coming years. After all, everything conceivable that man can, man will use to their advantage provided the price isn't too steep.
.Exactly. If we live in abundance then the best possible genes will account for provisions of welfare. The gene competition occurs on another level. We have little need of our ancestor's heightened flat spatial awareness or hunting prowess. We don't rely on our senses in the same way that we used to that secured access to next generations. Now we're more social than ever when it comes to reproduction, similarly our ability to adapt to new malleable surroundings and adapting those surroundings to us is quite different from having to survive in static conditions in the past. Those bits of genes will keep improving until the species progresses beyond its need for them, or beyond need for biological form in the most tech-intensive of futures.
Eugenic agendas, including closet or hidden eugenic undertones embedded in many marketing/consumerist or mainstream philosophies take root often through relatively non-invasive and seemingly benign means, often spreading unintended as part of old structures or elements parallel to different ideas. What they actually aim for when followed to their logical endpoint is often so inhumane or destructive that it could only have been spawned in misanthropic or 'narcotic' minds, such that due to various circumstances operate on a different reality, often detached from the common denominator.
It's not out of the range of plausibility to think that it'll become increasingly possible to alter the genes of the offspring so as to avoid hereditary and other deficiencies. This most likely will first become available to the most wealthy and may or may not trickle down to the rest. Effectively this can significantly affect social hierarchy, or the way our species or multiple species change. Eugenics and genetic manipulation will become a significant source of worry in the coming years. After all, everything conceivable that man can, man will use to their advantage provided the price isn't too steep.
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
What Yellow said.
Besides de-evolution implies that biological evolution has some higher purpose or progress.
Besides de-evolution implies that biological evolution has some higher purpose or progress.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
The mass adoption of college has already done this to some extent. Graduates usually marry other graduates. Class Structure is different from what it once was but this is all organic. People who attend college usually have babies in their 30's and have less of them because they do intellectual jobs instead of raising kids. If we wanted "smart" people to have more kids we would need to replace them with robots and restrict their access to books / internet. Books are a distraction when it comes to breeding. Robots would make good slaves but not really because they will be smarter than people quite soon.
Ex-User (9086)
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 5:23 PM
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 4,758
Wrong. He was doing both. As an example he supported adoption policies for racially promising children from occupied countries into german aryan families, he extended german status to similarly looking Volksdeutche citizens, he also sought to develop eugenic medicine and tech. Aryan carriers weren't allowed to publicly enter relationships with sub-races, thus restricting the gene pool. That's what was embedded in their ideology.
From the evolutionary standpoint there's little difference if you kill a man or if you deny them opportunities to thrive or reproduce, the end result is the same.
Grayman
Soul Shade
As Yellow said, evolution is about survival. That is the consequence of evolution. In more complex systems the adaptations we gain can be counter productive and fight each other. We feel pain and fear so that we avoid things that are detrimental to us and while this is good for survival, too much pain and suffering can break our minds.
I regard de-evolution as a point where our adaptations begin to work against our survival. It is a cancer.
Because of medicine we have a created a situation where certain genetic disorders that are truly detrimental to our survivability are allowed to spread like cancer hidden underneath the entire human gene pool.
Grayman
Soul Shade
I am curious if anyone supports a system of regulating reproduction for the overall benefit of society and if so I would be curious to hear what it is.
Personally I would not be suggesting a purist or supremacist view of breeding nor am I directly looking to focus on selective breeding for specific values and traits which is essentially what Hitler sought after.
I argue that my stance is more moral than that of the those who reject regulating reproduction in the name of freedom.
I would argue that we need to make it illegal for the youth to procreate and that all parents should have to take a test that shows they are ready and capable of taking care of a child before having one. The test would be no different than what adoptive parents are required to take.
It is detestable that so many people view their right to reproduce more important than the passing on of life destroying genes, neglected, abused, and suffering children. The least of their sins is in burdening society with their lack of responsibility and immaturity.
What I suggest is we breed responsibility, maturity, and health into the future of our children.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Paper Tests are bogus, just do a brain scan.
Not Anyone To Care For
Ayy lmao
Thanks for correcting me I am not a Hitler expert.
Grayman
Soul Shade
It seems that would increase the length a person lived while also decrease the number of births occurring and I am wondering how that would effect the overall population growth.
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
Fair point although cancer doesn't work that way so bad analogy.
You have to be specific though. Certain genetic disorders are inherited and some happen in the womb. Some disorders, like Down's Syndrome, reduces the likelihood of people having children or make them outright sterile.
Yellow
for the glory of satan
It would have an effect on population growth, in that it's a program designed to cull terminal defects from the gene pool. Then again, we're biological organisms, and we'll continue to follow the same biological laws we've always followed. I.e., our population will grow to the limits of our food ad resource availability. If there's enough room and food for 9 billion people, we'll get 9 billion people regardless of the presence of a breeding program (probably in defiance of it because again, biology always wins).
Yellow
for the glory of satan
Yellow didn't say that. Yellow said evolution is about stability.
You're getting confused again. We haven't gained any adaptations since our speciation. We know this because we're still the same species.
Luckily, we're surviving better than ever. Our intellect, curiosity, obsession with knowing the future, empathy, and collectivism have taken us to the point where the diseases and natural events that used to devastate us barely make a dent in our numbers.
You're seeing this from a very narrow POV. Genetic disorders have always existed. They've always existed because many are either recessive and/or they become more severe with age (allowing the affected young to breed before knowing they're affected). Medicine allows many medical concerns to be rendered inert, and therefore not a threat to our population stability.
It also allows us to detect and abort anomalies (which many parents opt to do), avoid breeding with another recessive for the same disease, and inform people of their diseases in general so they don't pass it on.
My INTJ, for example, chooses not to have children because he has a rare genetic disorder of the eyes that will render him completely blind by the time he's 45. His mother has it, her father has it, and in every generation as far back as the family can remember, the first-born has had it. But it stops here for this disease. There's an entire research institute that has collected enough information from this one family to detect it in children, decades before the first symptoms, and they can choose to reduce its frequency in the gene pool.
How about diseases like Huntington's? Now, if your parent has it, you get genetic testing. A large number of the affected youth are informed of what they carry, and choose not to pass it. This choice wasn't given to their parents.
Mixed race babies ftw.
Right at the top of my 'must have' list for potential life-partner was 'must be of another race'. Firstly, I find women of other races vastly more attractive (Caucasians bore me) and secondly, studies have shown that mixed race babies tend to be - unsurprisingly - healthier babies. I saw a documentary ages ago which also made a case for them being more intelligent, but I guess the verdict is still out on that one.
Point being, you can already see the benefits of mixed genes in my two year old. She's as big and strong as most four year olds, and she's incredibly intelligent (all parental bias aside). That's more than likely because she's bilingual, though.
If you want to help the gene pool, stick it in a woman of a dusky persuasion
#sciencefacts
#maximumpc
#notatalloffensive
##
Right at the top of my 'must have' list for potential life-partner was 'must be of another race'. Firstly, I find women of other races vastly more attractive (Caucasians bore me) and secondly, studies have shown that mixed race babies tend to be - unsurprisingly - healthier babies. I saw a documentary ages ago which also made a case for them being more intelligent, but I guess the verdict is still out on that one.
Point being, you can already see the benefits of mixed genes in my two year old. She's as big and strong as most four year olds, and she's incredibly intelligent (all parental bias aside). That's more than likely because she's bilingual, though.
If you want to help the gene pool, stick it in a woman of a dusky persuasion
#sciencefacts
#maximumpc
#notatalloffensive
##
dang
Active Member
- Local time
- Today 9:23 AM
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2016
- Messages
- 206
Mixed race babies ftw.
Right at the top of my 'must have' list for potential life-partner was 'must be of another race'. Firstly, I find women of other races vastly more attractive (Caucasians bore me) and secondly, studies have shown that mixed race babies tend to be - unsurprisingly - healthier babies. I saw a documentary ages ago which also made a case for them being more intelligent, but I guess the verdict is still out on that one.
Point being, you can already see the benefits of mixed genes in my two year old. She's as big and strong as most four year olds, and she's incredibly intelligent (all parental bias aside). That's more than likely because she's bilingual, though.
If you want to help the gene pool, stick it in a woman of a dusky persuasion
#sciencefacts
#maximumpc
#notatalloffensive
##
Good idea. Can you introduce me to Salma Hayek?
Two errors:
1) You assume that an INTJ's social circle is that extensive. Ha!
2) She's now 49, and therefore possibly past breeding age. Even if she can still reproduce, it isn't likely to be 'optimal'.
Ergo ergo ergo ergo, no. Find someone more fitting.
1) You assume that an INTJ's social circle is that extensive. Ha!
2) She's now 49, and therefore possibly past breeding age. Even if she can still reproduce, it isn't likely to be 'optimal'.
Ergo ergo ergo ergo, no. Find someone more fitting.
Ex-User (9086)
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 5:23 PM
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 4,758
Sufficiently expert to mention topics in which you aren't nearly knowledgeable enough it seems. Thanks for being a good sport and taking my correction well : ) .
Grayman
Soul Shade
Mixed race babies ftw.
Right at the top of my 'must have' list for potential life-partner was 'must be of another race'. Firstly, I find women of other races vastly more attractive (Caucasians bore me) and secondly, studies have shown that mixed race babies tend to be - unsurprisingly - healthier babies. I saw a documentary ages ago which also made a case for them being more intelligent, but I guess the verdict is still out on that one.
Point being, you can already see the benefits of mixed genes in my two year old. She's as big and strong as most four year olds, and she's incredibly intelligent (all parental bias aside). That's more than likely because she's bilingual, though.
If you want to help the gene pool, stick it in a woman of a dusky persuasion
#sciencefacts
#maximumpc
#notatalloffensive
##
It would also eliminate racial tension and racism being that we will end up with only one race.
Grayman
Soul Shade
A man who only comments on things he fully understands is a man who never speaks.
Not Anyone To Care For
Ayy lmao
I find this amusing. I take criticism extremely well but their is a difference between trying to help someone become more knowledgeable and strutting your intellectual ass up a notch and that pisses me off.
Not Anyone To Care For
Ayy lmao
Very true. Communication is how we learn after all, making mistakes gives us experience and it isn't something to be looked down upon.
Bock
caffeine fiend
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 225
Antinatalism or eugenics. IQ is largely hereditary and could be selected for/promoted for example.
Oh, absolutely. It's the future.
Grayman
Soul Shade
@yellow
To get us on the same track and using the same language to describe what I am concerned with. I see de-evolution as a set of adaptations that eventually lead to destabilization and our extinction. While the result seems far fetched and absurd, I believe that we should use our evolutionary abilities in predicting future possibilities and engineering solutions to avoid situations that contribute to this de-evolution as described.
I have more...
To get us on the same track and using the same language to describe what I am concerned with. I see de-evolution as a set of adaptations that eventually lead to destabilization and our extinction. While the result seems far fetched and absurd, I believe that we should use our evolutionary abilities in predicting future possibilities and engineering solutions to avoid situations that contribute to this de-evolution as described.
I have more...
Grayman
Soul Shade
A species isn't strictly defined by its adaptations but instead by reproductive factors. The various races are an example of adaptations. Things less observable such the ability ti process the sugars in cow milk is an adaptation. Evolution works through the smallest changes that eventually equal large changes.
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
"Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences"
- Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at Washington University
The Gopher
President
- Local time
- Tomorrow 4:23 AM
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 4,674
Aww I thought this was INTPf's idea of a dating thread.
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
I'll breed me. I'll breed me so hard.
Grayman
Soul Shade
Scientists can identify race by observing genetic markers. Visually and genetically you can see a biological basis. The lack of variations differences within the genes is a good argument against the idea that we are a different subspecies but still there are breeding factors to consider here with the Neanderthals. Although even that has minimal impact on our DNA.
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
citations please. Who are these "Scientists" you speak of?
Grayman
Soul Shade
https://dna.ancestry.com/
try it yourself if you want.
In action:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
Grayman, I appreciate the website but scientific proof of the political concept "race" just isn't really there.
Now can we get that stupid notion to rest already and come up with a solution?
I assume we both have the same goal of reducing maladaptive genes?
One big problem about selective breeding is that aside from reducing the bad genes you are also reducing the good ones. We can already see those in purebreed dogs and bananas. Your "one race" notion is not only scientifically inaccurate but will also cause us to be wiped out by a single virus/bacteria/cooties.
Honestly, Pmjpmj already "solved" it earlier. Screw everyone who is exotic in your eyes.
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
Those are SNP's Grayman. They don't make you black or white nor are they "race genes". They just happen to have higher frequency in certain populations.
SNP's might be useful for identifying maladaptive genes of partners undergoing genetic counseling though. If your breeding program is going for that genetic counseling route then that would be better.
Grayman
Soul Shade
How does screwing someone of a different social/political construct reduce maladaptive genes?
Grayman
Soul Shade
When two people of different and various genetic pools produce offspring, does the maladaptive gene not get transferred to the offspring or does it become more recessive?
I am currently looking at genetic disorders in dog breeds. The mutts have the least genetic issues. I recognize that dogs were not initially breed for health but for other reasons. I wonder if they had been bred for health if their genes would have been more free of such disorders.
I am currently looking at genetic disorders in dog breeds. The mutts have the least genetic issues. I recognize that dogs were not initially breed for health but for other reasons. I wonder if they had been bred for health if their genes would have been more free of such disorders.
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
Lowered chance of transfer.
Let's illustrate it with some High school Biology:
Suppose we have two carriers of the Sickle cell anemia with R as the dominant affected gene and r as the recessive normal gene.
As you can see we get one sufferer, 2 carriers and one unaffected offspring.
So that would be 50% chance of being a carrier and 25% chance to be afflicted by the disease.
Now suppose our Rr daddy get it on with an exotic rr lady of dusky persuasion. We now get 1 carrier and 3 unaffected offsprings.
So that would be 25% chance of being a carrier
AFAIK genes don't change their repressiveness. Of course, they may look dominant if the actual dominant genes are selected against within the species. For example, one type of having extra fingers is due to a dominant gene but it is selected against within our society so it's rarer than the recessive normal number of fingers.
Wonder no more. You are already seeing the results.
They obtained those disorders because they were bred to be healthy in certain fields. A greyhound would have the traits needed to speed through hunting while bulldogs were bred to tank blows from very angry bulls. Switching them to each other's field will yield very unhealthy results.
In the same way, if humans were bred solely to survive as strictly "one race" then they will only be adaptable to a limited amount of environments. This limited set of environments would be even narrower once you also exclude medicine in the mix.
When did I say that? I said screw someone. No idea why you still insist this socio-political discourse.
Last edited:
Grayman
Soul Shade
Mixed race babies ftw.
Right at the top of my 'must have' list for potential life-partner was 'must be of another race'. Firstly, I find women of other races vastly more attractive (Caucasians bore me) and secondly, studies have shown that mixed race babies tend to be - unsurprisingly - healthier babies. I saw a documentary ages ago which also made a case for them being more intelligent, but I guess the verdict is still out on that one.
Point being, you can already see the benefits of mixed genes in my two year old. She's as big and strong as most four year olds, and she's incredibly intelligent (all parental bias aside). That's more than likely because she's bilingual, though.
If you want to help the gene pool, stick it in a woman of a dusky persuasion
#sciencefacts
#maximumpc
#notatalloffensive
##
The basis of PMJ's argument was founded on 'race' which you deny exists and then later you say you support PMJ's argument. Alas I provide sarcasm.
While I disagree that 'race is not a biological concept' I do agree that race isn't a good indicator of genetic diversity. Therefore I also disagree with your idea of using 'looks exotic' as an indicator for genetic diversity.
But whatever, I get the portion of his argument you agree with which is that combining more diverse genes prevents genetic disease. You also argue that removing diversity in order to get rid of these maladaptive genes puts the entire human species at risk because we would all have the same weaknesses. Arguably the only solution to balance this is to do what is already being done and ban thing like incest or things that contribute to inbreeding.
Sinny91
Banned
I'd be up for selective breeding.
Can we not breed out disease and and mental handicaps?
I'm not knowledgeable at all in this subject.
But I think the human race should to stop breeding like rabbits.
I do not trust our Orwellian governments of today, but you know, if the psychopaths weren't in charge, I'd be more than happy to apply for a breeding licence.
My parents shouldn't have bred.
I'd rather not have been born.
Can we not breed out disease and and mental handicaps?
I'm not knowledgeable at all in this subject.
But I think the human race should to stop breeding like rabbits.
I do not trust our Orwellian governments of today, but you know, if the psychopaths weren't in charge, I'd be more than happy to apply for a breeding licence.
My parents shouldn't have bred.
I'd rather not have been born.
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
Oh come on. Is dusky a race now? Indians, Africans heck even certain Filipinos are dusky. Do they belong to the same race.
There we go.
See my first reply. Come on. Germans are exotic to me and the British are sexy af and Urdus are probably exotic to you. Does that mean that they're the same race?
It's a lot more complicated than that. As I said before, there's room for your breeding program. It's called genetic counselling. Your idea just needs refinement.
Grayman
Soul Shade
The people who would see a counselor would be a) intellectually capable b) forward thinking c) informed. The people who would refrain from having children if the couples likelihood of transference is high would be a) empathetic b) forward planning
I don't see a 'liberal form' of this working at changing anything for the population to any large degree. The maladaptive genes will still be transferred and only the worst of them might be staved off. The people who would continue carry the maladaptive genes would be the ones who don't have a strong amount of the traits seen above.
Authoritative approach. Ban reproducing outside of artificial insemination. Provide free service industries that has access to all the variety of genes (easier to get from an authoritarian stance than a liberal one) that can find and compare the best pairs on an individual basis instead of a 'race' or 'ethnicity' basis. This would take better advantage of the larger diversity amongst individuals. This service would be regulated by a scientific community that can adapt to newer and better DNA technologies and discoveries. The problem would be if people were allowed to choose traits they prefer to see in their child. If this occurred I would think it would result in the same problem we see with dog breeds and their various genetic disorders and issues. A compromise might be to allow them to select from a small group of options that are available based on the current diversity gene pool already in existence. In other words limit their choices to options that increase human variety while also mixing genes that are less likely to suffer defects.
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
We can incorporate it in a marriage counselling. It's really not that hard. All you need is a DNA sample.
Informing people (not actual teaching though, more like seminars) is kinda my thing IRL so I think it's possible convince people to be more forward thinking and informed. Lobbying can also help. I know scientists who lobbied hard to get useful medical laws passed.
We really can't completely eradicate maladaptive genes. Lacking 100% accuracy is an inherent problem in any scientific endeavor.
Another problem is certain maladaptive genes are actually advantageous. For example, the sickle anemia gene that I shown earlier helps people stave off malaria.
I'm not comfortable with giving my rights to chose to a "scientific community". Being a member of one, let's just say that I know that even the best and well-meaning scientists will make mistakes. There's also an insane amount of restrictions you'll have to pass before you go human experimentation. I think the regulations would be nightmarish.
I also prefer to educate people than act like some authority with my knowledge. Science isn't really that intimidating once you get the basics down.
Gene therapy isn't that functional yet but we can edit out defective genes and replace them with functional ones. Hopefully in the future we can do that.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Ex-User (9086)
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 5:23 PM
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 4,758
I find it quite "frightening" that before this video was posted so many people, including forumites, seemed to be unaware of the advances of genetic engineering.
I wonder what the future will hold, do we need to be spoon fed critical information about the future of our world?
Before someone triggers as it invariably tends to happen from time to time: I'm not trying to show superiority or "I knew this was coming", I'm genuinely surprised so few discussed those findings or shared it earlier. This clip cites results from 2015 and well before that, it was a game-changer then already. Should you accept it as game-changing because a 2016 video tells you it is?
I wonder what the future will hold, do we need to be spoon fed critical information about the future of our world?
Before someone triggers as it invariably tends to happen from time to time: I'm not trying to show superiority or "I knew this was coming", I'm genuinely surprised so few discussed those findings or shared it earlier. This clip cites results from 2015 and well before that, it was a game-changer then already. Should you accept it as game-changing because a 2016 video tells you it is?
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
I'm not in the field but I notice simple explanations are produced by experts that spent years looking for elegant solutions. Old wrong theories are replaced so time is not wasted on research that will not increase progress. You just need to be aware of why something did not work rather than taking years yourself finding out it was known not to work. It is much like wondering what happens when Moore's law ends. Research will not be focused on shrinking transistors mid-2020's. I don't read fast enough to understand everything. I don't even understand when I read slow most times. I am just glad spoon feeding exists, that does not mean I take everything as gospel. Doing that means you stop looking for better answers.
Pyropyro
Magos Biologis
Ah Cas9 was making waves a couple of years ago. It's quite awesome since traditional methods of genetic manipulation are like making lego models with boxing gloves on.
Genetic engineering isn't as mainstream like well... mechanical engineering so I'm not surprised that it's not discussed here. There's also very few forumites that have a background in Biology and Chemistry. I think Yellow, Patch and I are some of those members.
I think the best way a forumite can learn this critical info is to read scientific news articles, trace their source material (usually journals) and then study said source material.
CRISPR has been around since the early 2000s. It just lately became mainstream.
Grayman
Soul Shade
I have heard of a few things. One in particular. http://www.livescience.com/5721-therapy-fixes-color-blindness-monkeys.html
It was a neat article. But genetic engineering is different topic that deviates from my current social experiment.
I also wanted to discuss more along the lines of genetic 'evolution' in order to get a better understanding of what affects it and how.
It was a neat article. But genetic engineering is different topic that deviates from my current social experiment.
I also wanted to discuss more along the lines of genetic 'evolution' in order to get a better understanding of what affects it and how.