posted
ok, so i'm gonna put forth a few postulates (basic idea stolen from another thread):
1) success/failure (selection) in modern-day human cultures is significantly (arguably primarily) determined by mental, rather than physiological, aptitude.
2) modern medical practice is learning to ameliorate the effects of physiological genetic mutations which prior to the scientific revolution would have been extremely difficult to cope with.
3) our culture is less phobic of mental disorders/variations, as well as physical disorders/variations (trying not to be insulting to anyone here)
and now, i pose my question: as a species, we have largely circumvented the process by which moderately debilitating genetic mutations are eliminated in non-intelligent species. while eugenics or sterilization and obviously unacceptable, is there any other way which we as a species can promote the diffusion of genotypes which are beneficial, but not necessarily selected for in human breeding? How do you feel about the (hypothetical) prospect of removing nasty mutations from an individual's genetic code, or of screening children for genetic disorders? If medicine continues to advance in such a way that "disorders" are not problemmatic is this issue even worth discussing? What type of criteria would be useful in deciding what is a disorder as opposed to a mutation?
Considering its history as a pseudoscientific underpinning for widespread injustices here and across the world in the 20th century, it's about as conducive to a thoughtful discussion as a title reading "fascism is cool" or "totalitarianism is cool."
For a brief education of how it felt to be on the receiving end of this, check out this first-person account from someone who realized one of the U.S. sterilization laws might apply to him when it originally passed.:
posted
i've been reading Steven Jay Gould's book "The Mismeasure of Man", it's a history of "scientific" intellectual classification, starting with craniometry and social darwinism and all that. i find it disturbing the way science is used to justify mistreatment, and i hope it was clear that isn't what i'm talking about.
i guess if nobody's interested in talking about this it sort of answers my question: nobody views the genetic mutations as something worth worrying about.
of course, we are doing something about it: pre-natal testing and cultural responses such as community homes, mental hospitals, etc, all act as a way of effectively removing affected individuals from the cultural mainstream.
maybe it's beyond our control.
the thread title was obviously intended to be facetious
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As it turns out, I was just thinking about this mere minutes before seeing the topic.
Forgetting for now the moral and humanitarian aspects (as all good scientists must), this is the situation as I see it:
1) Humans are no longer subject to natural selection to the same degree as any other species on the planet.
2) Human society as it exists today serves not to encourage beneficial traits, but rather to spread all traits, both positive and negative, across the population.
Allow me to explaian...
Part of the reason natural selection works is that entities with harmful variations tend to die before they have a chance to reproduce. If a lion or a tiger is born with a gimp leg, chances are it will die long before it reaches maturity, and thus the trait will not pass to the next generation. (I'm assuming here that it's a genetic variation, but even if it isn't, the cub still dies before reproducing, so in any case, the cub's lineage stops there.) On the other hand, a trait can be harmful, but still not a barrier to living; in this case, it might still be a barrier to reproduction, because the trait might make the entity an undesirable prospect for mating. If the trait is somehow not harmful enough to impede living or reproducing, then it really isn't much of a problem in the first place (although it's possible that descendents that carry this trait might have a significantly lessened prospect for survival).
With technology where it is in today's society, a lot of otherwise devastating mutations can be corrected, at least in terms of symptoms, without degrading chances for survival or reproduction. In the case of genetic variance, this trait is then passed through descendents without barrier to the rest of the human race, potentially requiring all future humans to undergo treatment (wisdom teeth come to mind, though the situation there is somewhat different; wisdom teeth used to be beneficial back when you couldn't be expected to keep all your teeth until adulthood, but thanks to Crest and millions of dentists everywhere, wisdom teeth are now a problem for just about any first-world citizen).
On top of all of this, we have institutions and programs to help the mentally handicapped live something approaching a normal life, which once again affords them opportunities for growth and reproduction. However, thanks to kerinin's point 1 above, these people still don't reproduce at nearly the rate of the majority of the human population. The point nonetheless remains that society's "help the helpless" attitude serves to promote the traits that made the helpless helpless in the first place.
The only area we are still really evolving is in the area of sexual attraction, and even there, we have sperm banks to help thwart natural selection.
When you think about it, the whole of society is entirely based on the idea that you can thwart natural selection and allow the species to survive against any odds.
So: how does a species that has stepped outside the bounds of natural selection improve itself from a genetic standpoint?
One option, as stated above, is eugenics, but that runs contrary to the societal urge to preserve as much of the species as possible. The only option that I see remaining is genetic engineering (or genetic enhancement). This would be unlikely to work on grown humans, but it might work with very young fetuses, particularly in the zygote stage. In this way, genetic disorders could be removed from the gene pool, and new designed genes could be introduced without having to wait for a random mutation.
I was thinking a few minutes ago about a scene from season 1 of Babylon 5, wherein G'Kar is talking to Catherine Sakai, who has just returned from a rather frightening experience involving an ancient alien race that nearly destroyed her craft, apparently without even noticing that she was there.
"What was that?" she asks. G'Kar points out an ant cralling on a flower, and picks it up on the tip of his glove. He then says, "Here, I have picked up this ant on the tip of my glove. If I were to put it back again and it asks another ant, 'What was that?' how would it explain?" He goes on: "There are beings in the universe millions of years older than either of our two races, and if they notice us at all it is only as ants. We have learned that we can either be stepped on, or keep out from underfoot."
Thinking of this, I considered the vast gap in intelligence between the smartest ant and the dumbest human. There are things that humans understand instinctively that an ant can never be taught, and the same would have to be true for a species as far beyond us as we are beyond the ant. Perhaps it would have an instinctive understanding of calculus, for example, or even some aspects of quantum mechanics.
It occurred to me that such a species could never evolve naturally. In order to do so, it would first have to pass through the stage we're in, which if I'm to be believed would place it outside the realm of natural selection. Thus, said species could only have been designed, perhaps bit by bit, through genetic manipulation or otherwise.
Okay, now that I've said all that, let me bring morality and humanitarianism back into the picture.
Is it right for us to tamper with our own genetic code to eliminate genetic disorders?
I can only say yes to that. I don't think there's anyone here who would disagree that it is better to save people from the trouble these disorders cause if we can. The danger here lies in the fact that the ability to do so can and probably will be abused, though your definition of abuse probably depends a great deal on your answer to the next question:
Is it right to introduce designed genetics into our genetic code?
I honestly don't have an answer to that. Maybe some alterations would be good, but others wouldn't. I just don't know.
posted
My two cents: If I could keep my kids from having the same health problems that I have, I think I would. But that's all I would do—no custom-made superkids for me.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Forgetting for now the moral and humanitarian aspects (as all good scientists must), this is the situation as I see it:
1) Humans are no longer subject to natural selection to the same degree as any other species on the planet.
2) Human society as it exists today serves not to encourage beneficial traits, but rather to spread all traits, both positive and negative, across the population.
First, what scientists actually do is make value judgments and call them "objective" - it sometimes (as in the case of the eugenicists) was used as a badge of authority - not unlike a theologian pointing to their authority from a god.
Second, let's at least acknowledge this isn't some new, cool idea. It was was worked to death by the eugenicists I mentioned before.
There are lots of problems with the basic premises you're asking people to sign onto - I'll go with one. The "good" being defined is that of the physical and mental ability of individual members of the species. When it comes to survival, how do we know that is what is important to our long-term survival? What benefits us more? Resistance to disease? Or the willingness to work together cooperatively to help each other when disease strikes?
I don't propose an answer - because we don't know what the relevant factors to survival are in the long term. The difference is that y'all are asking to me to pretend that you DO know.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why you guys humor this person. As far as I've been told, this is just another one of the pseudonyms of Cedrios.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Natural selection is a descriptive theory, not prescriptive.
And again,
Natural selection is a descriptive theory, not prescriptive.
If an organism of any sort survives to pass on genes, then that organism is at least partially suited to the environment. If the environment is changed (say, to be more conducive to other traits), then the set of characteristics of those who survive will be changed accordingly.
You don't get to lay down the law about whether the new environment is better or worse, kerinin. Regardless of whether you approve, neither science nor the world gives a flying rat's butt about what you like and dislike. That premise comes out of your own head, not out of the theory.
quote:we have largely circumvented the process by which moderately debilitating genetic mutations are eliminated in non-intelligent species
Listen closely: this means that those genetic mutations are no longer debilitating. The environment changed, so the set of characteristics relevant to survival changed. Know what? If you live in the developed world, there are a lot of conditions which no longer are selected against. This doesn't mean that we are "weaker" as a society -- it just means that the environment we have created is conducive to survival in a broader range of traits.
Any stamp you put on that, pro or con, is out of your own head. My head says it's progress, but that's my opinion. None of us, however, get to sneak own opinions in without making making it clear that these are our own biases and beliefs, and they do not arise out of scientific theory.. Got it?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So: how does a species that has stepped outside the bounds of natural selection improve itself from a genetic standpoint?
We cannot step outside the bounds of natural selection. We are merely being selected on the basis of a different (broader) range of traits.
quote:When you think about it, the whole of society is entirely based on the idea that you can thwart natural selection and allow the species to survive against any odds.
If you think you can "thwart" natural selection, then I've got some nice swampland to sell you.
Natural selection is a descriptive theory, not prescriptive. It describes the process of genetic transfer in a given environment; it does not limit or judge or in any way comment on the environment itself.
quote:My two cents: If I could keep my kids from having the same health problems that I have, I think I would. But that's all I would do—no custom-made superkids for me.
Fair enough. But it is commendable to be clear that the judgments you make about what are good and bad regarding health characteristics arise out of your own value system, not out of a scientific theory such as natural selection.
If a health condition is not conducive to survival for gene-passing in a given environment, then it will not be a trait which is selected. Over and above that, it's all your own choice stamped on top of the science.
quote:The "good" being defined is that of the physical and mental ability of individual members of the species. When it comes to survival, how do we know that is what is important to our long-term survival? What benefits us more? Resistance to disease? Or the willingness to work together cooperatively to help each other when disease strikes?
You have a very good point there (although I intentionally never defined anything as "good"); I certainly can't argue that that willingness is not a survival trait. The way I see it, it's that willingness that led to us having a population upwards of six billion. At the same time, though, I do posit that the "help everyone" mentality helps traits that are individually harmful to flourish in society.
Please understand that I am most certainly not advocating that the "help everyone" mentality is a problem that needs to be removed (though I actually have known people who would say that it is a problem and [/i]does[/i] need to be removed, for the good of all; those guys scare me).
quote:First, what scientists actually do is make value judgments and call them "objective"
Agreed... which is why I put that line in there, as a subtle dig at that practice. Guess it was too subtle.
quote:As far as I've been told, this is just another one of the pseudonyms of Cedrios.
Referring to kerinin here? As near as I can tell, kerinin's not trolling, so I don't see any particular reason not to pay attention. As for this Cedrios... I haven't been here long enough, so I don't know the history there.
Edit:
quote:Natural selection is a descriptive theory, not prescriptive.
Thanks, CT, for pointing out something I was struggling to explain about my post above.
Science can never tell us what we ought to do - it can only tell us what we ought to do to achieve a particular effect. Selecting the particular effect to be achieved is outside the bounds of science.
Messing with that boundary is bad for science and humanity.
Note, I didn't say scientists can't decide what effect should be sought, just that the process of choosing is not a scientific inquiry, it's a moral one. And scientists and science are absolutely essential in choosing what we should do, because they're essential to telling us how to achieve different effects.
Dagonee Alai's Echo - please see my response in this thread.
quote:At the same time, though, I do posit that the "help everyone" mentality helps traits that are individually harmful to flourish in society.
You do agree that what you believe to be "individually harmful" is not a matter of science, but a matter of your own value, yes? (Doesn't mean it's wrong, doesn't mean it isn't arguable or defensible, just that it is subject to being argued and defended. That is, the facts do not speak for themselves -- you are their interpreter. )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Dagonee, I feel like a vile and seething pit of bitterness. Maybe that is better. Yesterday it was a bottomless pit of anger, bile, and bitterness. At least now I have depths.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, some. I don't finish until midnight tomorrow, as they have me on call until their malpractice coverage of me runs out. *grin
I've been planning to fly up to Vancouver to be with my hubby (at a conference) over the weekend, but I might just lay in bed for four days straight. I can chew on the cats if I get hungry. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"i guess if nobody's interested in talking about this..."
On the contrary, the topic is facinating. The title sucks. The idiots who dreamed up "social darwinism" understood neither society nor science. They especially misunderstood Darwin's Theory, and replaced it with the old, old, old politically correct "good breeding" nonsense promulgated by the aristocracy.
posted
The worst was that no matter how debilitated I was, I couldn't turn over care of the kids to someone else without compromising that care. Nobody knew their complicated histories and plans as well as I, and I was in no good shape to "sign them out" (i.e., go over their cases system-by-system in order to transfer responsibility). Usually we have at least three knowledgable and fully informed residents on our team so that we can cover for each other, but it was just me and two brand-spanking new interns. They had no idea how to arrange anesthesia for kids going to the OR -- in fact, they didn't yet know they had to make that arrangement, or the case would be cancelled.
Even calling in another senior resident would have meant going over each case in detail to cover all that needed yet to be done, and there was just no time. It was the perfect storm -- we had three babies come in with ALTEs (acute life-threatening events) where they would choke and stop breathing -- it was up to me, as the senior resident on the floor, to resuscitate them and arrange in the middle of the night all the tests we needed to differentiate seizures from severe reflux from heart problems -- auugggh. The attendings were unavailable, dealling with 5 traumas in the ER, and I was vomiting in the bathroom, having completely lost the vision out of one eye. Migraines suck.
Every time someone asked me anything, even an innocent friendly "say, whatcha doin' after you graduate ?" I felt like screaming "don't you know I'm in hell? Go away! Go away!"
Okay, I won't complain anymore. But I will say that I learned what it is like to walk around mad all the time, and I don't like myself like that. I'm never going to do call or cross-cover again, even if it means wating tables at TGI Friday's. Never, never, never.
"the aristocracy" included a lot of academics, "progressive" social reformers, (paradoxically) women's rights advocates and some unabashed racists thrown in for good measure.
Eugenics and social darwinism serve as cautionary tales that secular humanists should tell to themselves (they don't, mostly) - so they can appreciate they're as vulnerable to excess and zealotry as any person professing a faith in any one of the major religions.
Just for clarification - I'm an agnostic, so I tend to treat all claims to truth with a grain of salt - often more.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Glad to see you back and on the road to recovery, but sad about the 'con.
I may send you some email in a day or two. It's about the concert you and David will be going to here in Chicago - wasn't planning on going (even before your plight became public), but wanted to leave open the possibility of a short meet as Starbucks if you both come in early.
And thanks for jumping in on this - was feeling overwhelmed and my thoughts still are not organizing themselves well.
posted
CT: Here's the thing... I agree with you on absolutely every point. If you thought I was assigning a moral value to any given trait, or stating that society needs to change in some way, then either I wasn't clear in my writing, for which I will readily apologize as soon as you show me a single instance of it, or you read with built-in misconceptions of what I was saying.
Let me take your points one at a time....
quote:If an organism of any sort survives to pass on genes, then that organism is at least partially suited to the environment. If the environment is changed (say, to be more conducive to other traits), then the set of characteristics of those who survive will be changed accordingly.
This is absolutely correct, and here I will readily admit that I hadn't thought quite in those absolute terms. Society is very much a part of the environment that we all live in, and as such we are becoming more and more suited to that environment all the time.
quote:You don't get to lay down the law about whether the new environment is better or worse, kerinin.
Agreed, but I don't recall kerinin ever stating approval or disapproval. Maybe I just missed it.
quote:Listen closely: this means that those genetic mutations are no longer debilitating. The environment changed, so the set of characteristics relevant to survival changed.
Absolutely correct. My thinking was this: Remove an individual from the society, where the proper treatment simply isn't available, and the trait becomes debilitating again. I know, I know; I'm cheating by changing the environment. Nonetheless, you have to admit that those without this trait will have a better chance of surviving that cheat, and the spread of the trait makes the species as a whole less resistant to change.
quote:If you live in the developed world, there are a lot of conditions which no longer are selected against. This doesn't mean that we are "weaker" as a society -- it just means that the environment we have created is conducive to survival in a broader range of traits.
Once again, I absolutely agree.
quote:Any stamp you put on that, pro or con, is out of your own head.
Agreed yet again. I also don't recall ever putting a pro or con stamp on it. For the record:
quote:My head says it's progress, but that's my opinion.
...I once again agree.
quote:We cannot step outside the bounds of natural selection. We are merely being selected on the basis of a different (broader) range of traits.
Correct; as stated above, I wasn't thinking in quite those absolute terms.
Edit:
quote:You do agree that what you believe to be "individually harmful" is not a matter of science, but a matter of your own value, yes?
In this instance, no; maybe I should have clarified what I meant by "harmful." When I said "harmful" (just as when I said "beneficial"), I meant that the trait somehow impacts survivability or the ability to reproduce, nothing more.
I'll bump the latest FAQ for you -- it helps (at least at first) to make sense of a pretty crazy place. Enjoy.
Thanks! I've actually been here for a few weeks now (I think), leaving the rare post or two, but even before that I did some lurking.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you thought I was assigning a moral value to any given trait, or stating that society needs to change in some way, then either I wasn't clear in my writing, for which I will readily apologize as soon as you show me a single instance of it, or you read with built-in misconceptions of what I was saying.
Both are possible, but you would need to apologize for neither. I am quite willing to admit that I am prone to approach this particular discussion with preconceptions about what I am likely to read.
quote:In this way, genetic disorders could be removed from the gene pool, and new designed genes could be introduced without having to wait for a random mutation.
Here and in other places where you use "genetic disorder" as a term, you presuppose that there are things which present themselves (on their own) as "genetic disorders." That does count as assigning a moral value to the given trait, or rather, asserting that there is a set of traits which could be assigned such a value -- that value which, in fact, is a matter of individual opinion. There are no genetic variants which present themselves a priori as disorders. Even those which are congenitally fatal are not "disorders" in a non-contextual sense.
Of course we can argue amongst ourselves (more or less persuasively) about which things should count as disorders, but the traits do not present themselves to us pre-ordered in such a way.
quote:Agreed, but I don't recall kerinin ever stating approval or disapproval. Maybe I just missed it.
Likely bias on my part. And irritability, gassiness, and hunger. I'll reread to see.
quote: Remove an individual from the society, where the proper treatment simply isn't available, and the trait becomes debilitating again. I know, I know; I'm cheating by changing the environment. Nonetheless, you have to admit that those without this trait will have a better chance of surviving that cheat, and the spread of the trait makes the species as a whole less resistant to change.
*shrug It isn't a cheat. Just means that when the environment changes, so will those characteristics selected for. [Jon Boy, don't pop your head over the dropped participle. ] I don't understand why one might think that any of these environments are privileged as being more important, though.
"and the spread of the trait makes the species as a whole less resistant to change." -- what do you mean? It makes society as a whole less resistant to one sort of change, but there are countless other contexts in which that trait may do the reverse. To wit, see sndrake above -- perhaps having members more fragile outside of society would make their participation in that society all the stronger. Which -- in a certain context -- may make the society less resistant to another sort of change (such as ability to work together and avoid nuclear war, for an extreme example).
Neither context is privileged a priori. They just are ... as possibilities.
quote:Agreed yet again. I also don't recall ever putting a pro or con stamp on it.
Not you -- was regarding my reading of kerinin, which, as I said, may be highly affected by my current surliness in general.
quote:Correct; as stated above, I wasn't thinking in quite those absolute terms.
I am afraid that if we are not precise in our language, we cannot be precise in our thinking. When the topic is important to us, we must be very precise, very rigorous, and very thorough. (Bek, we don't know each other, and I wonder if this compulsion on my part is a reflection of my age. I've had a lot of time to rue the imprecision of my thinking. On the other hand, you might be both older and less inept than I. My experience, though, is that emotional issues tend to be intellectually foggy for me, and as I care intensely about them, so must I push myself to honor those issues with the best I have to bring to them.)
Again, welcome to Hatrack. It is a true pleasure to have a discussion with you.
quote:Here and in other places where you use "genetic disorder" as a term, you presuppose that there are things which present themselves (on their own) as "genetic disorders."
Actually, I was referring specifically to that class of states already defined by the medical community as "genetic disorders." Not being a member of the medical community myself, it's possible that I've only heard that phrase on the news or in fiction; nonetheless, I thought the context was obvious.
quote:"and the spread of the trait makes the species as a whole less resistant to change." -- what do you mean?
Ack... lemme rephrase that: "less resistant to changes in the environment."
quote:Bek, we don't know each other, and I wonder if this compulsion on my part is a reflection of my age. I've had a lot of time to rue the imprecision of my thinking. On the other hand, you might be both older and less inept than I. My experience, though, is that emotional issues tend to be intellectually foggy for me, and as I care intensely about them, so must I push myself to honor those issues with the best I have to bring to them.
Let me remedy some of that, then:
I'm 23 years old, a year out of college. I graduated from Chapman University in Orange, CA with a computer science degree. I detest smilies of all types and never, ever use them, which sometimes means that others have trouble knowing when I'm serious or not serious. (This isn't to say, mind you, that I think other people should give up using them; I just prefer to avoid them myself.) I'm also something of a recluse, nocturnal at least as often as I'm diurnal, and an unabashed fan of all things Straczynski or Card.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, I was referring specifically to that class of states already defined by the medical community as "genetic disorders." Not being a member of the medical community myself, it's possible that I've only heard that phrase on the news or in fiction; nonetheless, I thought the context was obvious.
Those guys use it all the time as if it were clearly defined. They're wrong. *grin They're wrong about a lot of stuff. Thank god they're right about a lot of stuff, too. But physicians generally do not have any training in conceptual analysis -- they are technicians, so they practice the technique. (But they do not, in general, bother to analyze it.)
quote:Ack... lemme rephrase that: "less resistant to changes in the environment."
I still have a beef about that one, but that's another conversation for another day. We'll stash it on the back burner for now and let it simmer. Foreshadowing: a sign of quality literature.
quote:I'm 23 years old, a year out of college. I graduated from Chapman University in Orange, CA with a computer science degree. I detest smilies of all types and never, ever use them, which sometimes means that others have trouble knowing when I'm serious or not serious. (This isn't to say, mind you, that I think other people should give up using them; I just prefer to avoid them myself.) I'm also something of a recluse, nocturnal at least as often as I'm diurnal, and an unabashed fan of all things Straczynski or Card.
Nice to meet you. 34, pediatrician, cranky, two cats, one saintly husband. Foolishly devoted to Leonard Cohen and a bunch of yahoos that hang around at some place called Halftrack or the like.
I just want to thank CT for taking care of explaining why you can't escape natural selection. Means I get to be lazy, and just say I agree. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
so i sort of started this and then left... nobody was posting and i had to do some stuff.
Claudia i'd like to respond to some of the things you said.
quote:If an organism of any sort survives to pass on genes, then that organism is at least partially suited to the environment. If the environment is changed (say, to be more conducive to other traits), then the set of characteristics of those who survive will be changed accordingly
this is a slippery argument. at first glance it seems that if "disorders" (i'll use that term simply for brevity here) are passed on, they're not harmful (as you stated). on the other hand, if we adapt our definition of the "environment" to include the priority of intellectual traits in selection, we must also include the results of intelligence in how we look at selection of traits. what i'm trying to say is that if science allowed us to cut and paste "good" genes for "bad" genes, than this technology would have to likewise be viewed as part of the process of natural selection.
the point is that we cannot avoid the discussion of what to do about genes which are percieved as bad, because we have the ability to influence (through ideology and practice) the transmission of those genes. refusing to address the issue directly due to the heinous attempts of the past do not eliminate cultural gene selection.
bringing me to this:
quote:You don't get to lay down the law about whether the new environment is better or worse, kerinin. Regardless of whether you approve, neither science nor the world gives a flying rat's butt about what you like and dislike. That premise comes out of your own head, not out of the theory.
except that's not true, because the theory in our collective heads has an influence on which genes are selected for and against. we are well on our way to being a species which takes an active role in its own evolution, and while in a certain sense this is no different from natural selection in general, our specific belief systems and the way the choose to understand genetic variation and implement selection processes will influence the direction the species takes.
i agree with you about science being descriptive, not proscriptive, and while it may not sound like it, i'm not proposing that we begin trying to alter the fate of our species. i'm more interested in talking about the possible ramifications of specific cultural practices.
for instance: lets say your child is diognosed with parkinsons disease. it's late onset so you child would most likely pass the genes on if he had children. if you could replace the genes in question with "good" genes would you? most people would; they would make a subjective judgement that no parkinsons is better than parkinsons and wanting the best for their children they would make the change.
obviously gene replacement isn't possible, but abortion is, and thanks to pre-natal testing this sort of selection isn't really hypothetical. we're already influencing natural selection based upon those pro and con decisions made in our own heads. so no, selection against these genes do not arise out of scientific theory, but their slow diminuition is part of natural selection.
maybe the real question is how do we feel about that. we've done a pretty poor job of managing the planet's environment, what makes us think we'll do a better job of managing the gene pool. perhaps the real threat isn't "bad genes" but lack of genetic diversity. people never considered the possibility that producing massive amounts of hydrocarbon emmissions might cause massive environmental changes, what are possible side-effects of natural selection based on "science" and the judgement of "technicians" deciding which genes are good and bad?
i don't really have a position on any of this, i'm just airing questions and ideas that come to mind...
and sorry about the thread title, i suck.
i'm not anybody else but kerinin (well, i'm ryan irl, but that doesn't count)
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was an article in the most recent issue of Nature (maybe 1 week old) about the feedback loops of animals altering their environment which then pushes natural selection in a given direction, which changes how animals alter their environment and so on. I don't have it here. Did anybody else see it?
I believe its main focus is that we're not rare in that regard as previously thought. It mentions beavers and a certain type of songbird.
posted
As far as I know, evolutionary theorists have never thought we're rare in presence of interaction, only in degree of interaction. I've always been amused when people say that things we do are unnatural, when we are part of nature ourselves (viewed from an ecological/evolutionary standpoint), and by definition anything we do is a natural act.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Nature article couched it in terms of greatly expanding the extent to which animals who adapt their own environments actually effect their own evolution. Apparantly, it was considered much rarer before these studies.
It didn't seem like a surprising discovery to me, but I took it at face value.
posted
Dag, the process you're describing is exactly what Card means in his books every time the subject of Gaialogy comes up, based on the Gaia theory of James P. Lovelock (for whom the title character of Lovelock is named).
Posts: 293 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
" "the aristocracy" included a lot of academics, "progressive" social reformers, (paradoxically) women's rights advocates and some unabashed racists thrown in for good measure. "
My sentence was "They...replaced [Darwin'sTheory]...with...old...nonsense promulgated by the aristocracy." I was well aware of the types of people you mentioned. And they were still brown-nosing idiots who assumed that imitating the mores of their "betters" gained them entrance into that class.
You can lead a whore through Harvard but you can't force him to think. Possessing a degree guarantees neither intelligence nor sanity. Past achievement does not confer freedom from having a severe headupass complex.
At best, they were functional illiterates: people who can read but fail to digest information in context, fail to remember more than slogans and soundbites. Hence their complete and total misunderstanding of "the survival of the fittest".
"Eugenics and social darwinism serve as cautionary tales that secular humanists should tell to themselves"
The eugenics crud wasn't particularly secular: the BibleBelt was heavily involved. And "medical"imprisonment and forced sterilization was often the result of a "religious" "morals" charge, though usually the victim was also of the "wrong" ethnicity or social/economic class.
posted
See, if you eliminate all those you perceive as genetic or social competitors by any means fair or foul, then that means you are the "fittest," because you survived and they didn't. Evolve at any cost! Except, what if that is actually the prescription for devolution, instead, and it is not the fittest, it is the most degenerate, who survive by such means?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The eugenics crud wasn't particularly secular: the BibleBelt was heavily involved. And "medical"imprisonment and forced sterilization was often the result of a "religious" "morals" charge, though usually the victim was also of the "wrong" ethnicity or social/economic class.
At the time of the eugenics movement, "moral development" was thought of as being related to "good breeding" - the condemnation of "loose morals" wasn't limited to conservative religious folks. My texts are a little scattered right now, but here are a few basics from memory.
The national leaders of the eugenics movement came from the sciences, medicine and academia. Unitarians were pretty well represented within the movement, along with representatives of "liberal" prostestant denominations.
For the most part, the states that sterilized the most people targeted poor uneducated whites - they were afraid the white race was getting watered down. At a later stage - post WWII - states like North Carolina started targeting blacks.
I'm not saying "progressives" were villains and "conservatives" were heroes. Truth is, both believed in social darwinism. The "progressives" supported social programs to help the underprivileged but supported compulsory sterilization to lower the numbers of the underclass.
Conservatives, according to one essay I read recently BY a conservative, preferred a "let nature take its course" approach. They opposed the sterilization, but would remove a lot of the relief programs aimed at the poor.
*takes pride in being annoyed and being annoying to both ends of the political spectrum*
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
to the title of the thread.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Yesterday it was a bottomless pit of anger, bile, and bitterness. At least now I have depths.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
)
