inquiry about "better humans"

[lockecole]

Would you accept that, somehow, the human reproduction was manipulated and controlled (that is, mating, conception and gestation) in order to prevent the transmission of undesirable characteristics (mental and physical deficiencies, degenerative diseases etc) and favour the transmission of other more desirable chracteristics (intelligence, strength, beauty etc)? Why?

[cookiemonster]

Absolutely. That's why women are beautiful.

cookiemonster

[MacTech]

um.. that is entirely what the point of reproduction is.. and always has... i have no idea why you doubted this to ask it.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by lockecole
Would you accept that, somehow, the human reproduction was manipulated and controlled (that is, mating, conception and gestation) in order to prevent the transmission of undesirable characteristics (mental and physical deficiencies, degenerative diseases etc) and favour the transmission of other more desirable chracteristics (intelligence, strength, beauty etc)? Why?

You're talking about the basic concepts of reproduction and evolution. As to the question of "why?", there is no scientific answer, as "why?" is not a scientific question. Now, if you are asking "why" a particular trait has been preserved while others died off, then that question can be rephrased as "what happens to traits that are not 'fit' for their particular niche?", and the answer is "they go extinct".

[Mentat]

btw, welcome to the PFs, lockecole. [:)]

Is there anything more specific that you are wondering about on this topic (reproduction, natural/sexual selection,etc), or are you interested in the subject as a whole?

[hypnagogue]

I think Locke was inquiring about the ethical feasibility of eugenics.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I think Locke was inquiring about the ethical feasibility of eugenics.

Which is the game nature has been playing for billions of years...if it is unethical for a human to do it, then the human standard of ethics must be "unnatural".

[Thallium]

Originally posted by Mentat
You're talking about the basic concepts of reproduction and evolution. As to the question of "why?", there is no scientific answer, as "why?" is not a scientific question.

In addition, "why?" belongs to philosophy( and religion).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Thallium
In addition, "why?" belongs to philosophy( and religion).

Sure, the question fits in right where it is, and I did attempt a scientific answer to a variant of the question.

[talus]

Originally posted by lockecole

Would you accept that, somehow, the human reproduction was manipulated and controlled (that is, mating, conception and gestation) in order to prevent the transmission of undesirable characteristics (mental and physical deficiencies, degenerative diseases etc) and favour the transmission of other more desirable chracteristics (intelligence, strength, beauty etc)? Why?

If I understand your question correctly I would have to say NO. If you say that natural mating, conception and gestation prevents undesirable progeny, then why are there so many children born with deformity, disease or mental illness.

If you are asking about human tinkering with procreation to eliminate the above, then you are talking about making a race of supermen and women. The nature of things would be disrupted with humans choosing who and what type of person should be replicated.

This is a very slippery slope. Who would be brilliant enough and moral enough to choose the most desirable traits. The loss of disease and deformity would eliminate the need for the healing profession and leave only the lawyers.

[Zero]

From a purely biological standpoint, we don't want to limit the geen pool excessively. Think about something like sickle-cell anemia...why has it lasted so long? Because it is bundled along with a resistance to malaria. The law of unintended consequences comes into play here...if we breed out "undesirable" qualities, which do we choose, where do we stop, and what do we do about unforseen outcomes?

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by lockecole
Would you accept that, somehow, the human reproduction was manipulated and controlled (that is, mating, conception and gestation) in order to prevent the transmission of undesirable characteristics (mental and physical deficiencies, degenerative diseases etc) and favour the transmission of other more desirable chracteristics (intelligence, strength, beauty etc)? Why?
there are no better humans! each of us enters the world to accomplish a personal goal. if it takes a strong body to achieve the desired goal, you born into a strong body.

if a sharp wit is required, you might have a very weak body so that you hone this wit.

IMHO, you not only get the physical body you need, but you are born into an enviornment that will assist as well. so, nature and nurture work together to help you reach the desired end.

a person might be born into the world with a very severe disease and have the mental capacity to find the cure. the disease itself might be a motivating agent for the person to use the mental resources to work toward that cure.

there is no good, better best OR bad, worse, worser, worsest - LOL -
there just - IS ! -

peace,

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by lockecole
If I understand your question correctly I would have to say NO. If you say that natural mating, conception and gestation prevents undesirable progeny, then why are there so many children born with deformity, disease or mental illness.

If you are asking about human tinkering with procreation to eliminate the above, then you are talking about making a race of supermen and women. The nature of things would be disrupted with humans choosing who and what type of person should be replicated.

This is a very slippery slope. Who would be brilliant enough and moral enough to choose the most desirable traits. The loss of disease and deformity would eliminate the need for the healing profession and leave only the lawyers.

This is a great answer!

What exactly is meant by a slippery slope argument?

Thanks!

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Mentat
Sure, the question fits in right where it is, and I did attempt a scientific answer to a variant of the question.

it was a good attempt mentat...but it's also okay to attempt it as a philosophical approach as well.[:)]

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by lockecole
Would you accept that, somehow, the human reproduction was manipulated and controlled (that is, mating, conception and gestation) in order to prevent the transmission of undesirable characteristics (mental and physical deficiencies, degenerative diseases etc) and favour the transmission of other more desirable chracteristics (intelligence, strength, beauty etc)? Why?

i don't think it's a good idea at all...we have already dabbled with "controlling" the natural world, and this led to extinction of so many different plants, insects and animals...controlling human reproduction for the most beautiful and "accepted" features could lead to the extinction of ourselves...allowing nature to take it's course-by allowing each individual human their choices of who they mate with-keeps our population diverse...

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Mentat
Which is the game nature has been playing for billions of years...if it is unethical for a human to do it, then the human standard of ethics must be "unnatural".

This is a bit facile, I think. Nature's evolution works based on simple principles of what does and does not work in the propogation of a system. If humanity started a eugenics program in earnest, it would not be a direct expression of what does and does not work in this way-- it would be an expression of what humans believe does and does not work. So now instead of dealing with nature, we would be dealing with models of nature, which of course are apt to be flawed in unforseen, and potentially dangerous, ways.

Furthermore, any human eugenics program would have massive social implications. We would have humans choosing in a direct and planned manner what is good and bad in our genes, in our physical makeup. This cannot help but create yet another kind of social stratification to be tacked onto the pre-existing ones involving economics, social status, race, religion, etc. Social stratification can lead to nasty things like discrimination, oppression, and conflict, so introducing such a stratification where it need not exist surely has considerable ethical implications to be accounted for.

So we can't just take principles from the system of nature at large and integrate them into human worldviews with the ethical justification that it must be OK because it's 'natural.' The circumstances are just too different. It's apples and oranges.

[talus]

Originally posted by hypnagogue

This is a bit facile, I think. Nature's evolution works based on simple principles of what does and does not work in the propogation of a system. If humanity started a eugenics program in earnest, it would not be a direct expression of what does and does not work in this way-- it would be an expression of what humans believe does and does not work. So now instead of dealing with nature, we would be dealing with models of nature, which of course are apt to be flawed in unforseen, and potentially dangerous, ways. Furthermore, any human eugenics program would have massive social implications. We would have humans choosing in a direct and planned manner what is good and bad in our genes, in our physical makeup. This cannot help but create yet another kind of social stratification to be tacked onto the pre-existing ones involving economics, social status, race, religion, etc. Social stratification can lead to nasty things like discrimination, oppression, and conflict, so introducing such a stratification where it need not exist surely has considerable ethical implications to be accounted for.

So we can't just take principles from the system of nature at large and integrate them into human worldviews with the ethical justification that it must be OK because it's 'natural.' The circumstances are just too different. It's apples and oranges.

Actually nature does have specie that artificially creates the type and class of each individual born into the society.

Elected government officials, once elected to office, and naturally the most intelligent among us, can formulate a system similar to the honey bees, ants and termites.

The queen lays all the eggs in small incubators. Depending on the food they are fed and the quantities of a special developmental queen food, can decide which ones become the male drones, the workers, the nurses and sundry others that keep the nest at the right temperature and humidity.

Think of it.... A class society created by the super senators and congressmen who decide who will prosper and who will live in poverty. Then like in India, an untouchable class that only serves the upper classes.

Sounds like a vote for the Democratic party of the USA and their dividing Americans into classes.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
This is a bit facile, I think. Nature's evolution works based on simple principles of what does and does not work in the propogation of a system. If humanity started a eugenics program in earnest, it would not be a direct expression of what does and does not work in this way-- it would be an expression of what humans believe does and does not work. So now instead of dealing with nature, we would be dealing with models of nature, which of course are apt to be flawed in unforseen, and potentially dangerous, ways.


Hold on a second...nature does not only produce "fit" beings, that's what extinction is for. Yes, a human eugenics program would probably produce some "failures", but so does nature. Indeed, humans (if there nature is as dangerous as it appears to be) may be a perfect example of one of those mistakes.


Furthermore, any human eugenics program would have massive social implications. We would have humans choosing in a direct and planned manner what is good and bad in our genes, in our physical makeup.


And what's the difference between this and normal Sexual Selection? It is merely a matter of degree.


So we can't just take principles from the system of nature at large and integrate them into human worldviews with the ethical justification that it must be OK because it's 'natural.' The circumstances are just too different. It's apples and oranges.

Actually, we can indeed take the principles of nature and integrate tem into our ethics/morals. We simply have to understand them better than we do. You see, Natural Selection (for example) is not "purposed" to destroy things or to retain things, it just does what it does. Humans, OTOH, have the ability to purposefully change whatever niche they're in, and thus are the ones in need of a moral framework (nature doesn't need any such framework, because it doesn't "purpose").

In the end, who is going to hold them accountable if they completely abandon all moral and ethical sense? Nature wont care. Unless you believe in God, the only ones that will hold humans accountable are other humans, and that may not even always hold true.

[Njorl]

There are some flawed assumptions in this thread that lead to flawed conclusions. Our evolution is not based on survival of the fittest individuals. It is based upon propogation of the genes most likely to be propogated. That may seem a silly distinction to make, but it is important.

The success of humans has not been due solely to the merits of individuals. It is more dependent upon our social evolution. The traits that make us work well together lead to our prosperity. Those traits enhance survival, and thus propogate. Some make the mistake that biological evolution and social evolution are seperate. They are intertwined.

Those traits that seem most desireable in an individual may be disasterous if they are widespread. For instance, what makes a good leader? Do we really want everyone in society to be a good leader? We need more good followers than leaders, but it is not as appealing a trait.

It may then seem only a matter of restraint. If we restrict ourselves to correcting genetic defects, eliminating genetic diseases and so on, it would not be harmful. But we do not exercise restraint well. If the infrastructure develops to routinely alter genes, a black market will develop to alter restricted genes. I do not suggest that we never cross this line, but that we delay until we know more about our genome, and how it affects not just one body, but a people as a whole.

Njorl

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Njorl
There are some flawed assumptions in this thread that lead to flawed conclusions. Our evolution is not based on survival of the fittest individuals. It is based upon propogation of the genes most likely to be propogated. That may seem a silly distinction to make, but it is important.

The success of humans has not been due solely to the merits of individuals. It is more dependent upon our social evolution. The traits that make us work well together lead to our prosperity. Those traits enhance survival, and thus propogate.


But isn't that just what causes us to be "fit" in all niches?

[talus]

Originally posted by Njorl

There are some flawed assumptions in this thread that lead to flawed conclusions. Our evolution is not based on survival of the fittest individuals. It is based upon propogation of the genes most likely to be propogated. That may seem a silly distinction to make, but it is important. The success of humans has not been due solely to the merits of individuals. It is more dependent upon our social evolution. The traits that make us work well together lead to our prosperity. Those traits enhance survival, and thus propogate. Some make the mistake that biological evolution and social evolution are seperate. They are intertwined.

I haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about. "Our evolution is based on propagation of genes most likely to be propagated." Anthropologists and archeologists cannot even agree if modern man evolved from earlier fossilized forms of homosapiens now long extinct. Modern mankind hasn't evolved one iota into improved models or more intelligent progeny than the previous ones. Social evolution is a joke as mankind remains as primitively violent and antisocial as seen from recorded history from time immemorial.

Traits that make mankind work well together are for the most part, non-existent. Today men and nations are friends working well together and tomorrow the same men and nations go to war against one another. My god is better than your god and my people are more pure blooded than yours while mankind goes onto create weapons of mass destruction. And yet, mankind has survived despite the tendency to self destruct. It is my belief that biological and social evolution is nothing more than a theory and in my opinion now discredited.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by talus
I haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about. "Our evolution is based on propagation of genes most likely to be propagated." Anthropologists and archeologists cannot even agree if modern man evolved from earlier fossilized forms of homosapiens now long extinct. Modern mankind hasn't evolved one iota into improved models or more intelligent progeny than the previous ones. Social evolution is a joke as mankind remains as primitively violent and antisocial as seen from recorded history from time immemorial. Njorl isn't talking about social evolution happening in the past 20,000 years, he's talking about it as a component of normal evolution which happens on a much longer timescale.

The corollary to "propagation of genes most likely to be propagated" is seen in the abundance of later-in-life genetic diseases. Since procreation occurs generally in your 20s to 30s, genetic flaws that only manifest later in life don't get filtered out. Flawed genes generally get filtered out - but if they don't affect procreation, they stay.

[Njorl]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Njorl isn't talking about social evolution happening in the past 20,000 years, he's talking about it as a component of normal evolution which happens on a much longer timescale.

The corollary to "propagation of genes most likely to be propagated" is seen in the abundance of later-in-life genetic diseases. Since procreation occurs generally in your 20s to 30s, genetic flaws that only manifest later in life don't get filtered out. Flawed genes generally get filtered out - but if they don't affect procreation, they stay.

Exactly. I am not just considering the evolution of our species since homo erectus, or even australo pithicus. I am considering whatever it was that made the first mother care for her young, whatever made the first male die protecting his mate, whatever made the first pack form etc. These developments are not just taught from one generation to the next, they are physical, genetic developments.

Once you get beyond animals with very simple social structures, evolution is no longer survival of the fittest individual, or even creation of progeny of the fittest individuals. Social effects start getting complicated. If your fitness aides a close relative in creating offspring, many of your genes will survive. Worker ants never breed, but their fitness is crucial to the survival of their genes anyway. A barren lioness might be a boon to a pride if it aides her hunting ability.

These socially beneficial traits are not going to be determined easily. We can easily pick out groups with alzheimers, cancer, high intelligence, long life, good singing voices, and try to find associated genes for those traits. But can we pick out "good" people and find those associated traits? I don't think it will happen anytime soon. While it may be that most of what makes a "good" person is not genetic, some of it certainly is. Until we can make fairly reasonable determinations in this regard, we should be very circumspect about messing with genes.

Njorl

[Imparcticle]

Originally posted by Njorl
There are some flawed assumptions in this thread that lead to flawed conclusions. Our evolution is not based on survival of the fittest individuals. It is based upon propogation of the genes most likely to be propogated.


And why are those genes most likely to be propogate? Isn't it because those genes that are most likely to propogate are the very genes that make [comptete] to make us the fittest?

[Polly]

Originally posted by Njorl


These socially beneficial traits are not going to be determined easily.

Njorl

Exactly, if we think carefully, even genetic disease has the "utility" of affording us an opportunity to practise and show compassion, acceptance and empathy (or kindness) for those who are less fortunate, all important traits for our peaceful co-existence. Where sexual selection is concerned, guys, kindness is a big ticket to a woman's heart. Statistics invariably show that women find intelligence, reliability and kindness the most attractive qualities in a man, more so than wealth and good looks.

[The Green Giant]

Have any of you heard of the Darwin Theory? If not, you should take a look at it. It has alot of answers unless your religous or even if you are, it's a good theory.

[Canute]

Originally posted by SquareItSalamander
And why are those genes most likely to be propogate? Isn't it because those genes that are most likely to propogate are the very genes that make [comptete] to make us the fittest? [/B]
What Njorl was originally saying (I think) is that 'fitness' is a tautological concept. A 'fit' human is one that passes on its genes successfully, and one that passes on its genes successfully is 'fit'. This is an old chestnut that still bothers many people, even some of the experts.

The concensus here seems to be that inerfering with human genes via eugenics is too dangerous to do. I wonder if it is any less dangerous to do it with other plants and animals.

Mentat - Just btw but you can't say that human beings "change the niche they are in on purpose" while you also assert that the 'hard problem' does not exist. Purpose implies freewill. If human beings have freewill then Neo-Darwinism is a massive over-simplification of evolutionary processes.

[talus]

Originally posted by russ_watters

Njorl isn't talking about social evolution happening in the past 20,000 years, he's talking about it as a component of normal evolution which happens on a much longer timescale. The corollary to "propagation of genes most likely to be propagated" is seen in the abundance of later-in-life genetic diseases. Since procreation occurs generally in your 20s to 30s, genetic flaws that only manifest later in life don't get filtered out. Flawed genes generally get filtered out - but if they don't affect procreation, they stay.

If I understand you correctly, eons of time have "propogated an abundance of later-in-life genetic diseases." Genetic flaws come in several flavors. Some are passed on through genetic lineage, some occur as inborn DNA errors and some are speculated to occur by chance when high energy particles travling through space, (like gamma rays) accidentally strike a particular individual's genetic chromosomes which can in some cases cause damgage that replicates into diseases such as cancer or later formation of glandular diseases such as connective tissue deseases. Procreation being most common in the 20 - 30s is found in our species as apposed to other mammals who procreate in the first, second or third year.

Flawed genes don't get filtered out as they usually end up either causing no damage or in some form of fatal diseases. If genetic material is flawed in the genes or during embryonic development, then most of the time the pregnancy results in a miscarriage or a child is born with deformity or disease. (i.e., children who develop cancer or diabetes, etc)

[talus]

Originally posted by Njorl

Exactly. I am not just considering the evolution of our species since homo erectus, or even australo pithicus. I am considering whatever it was that made the first mother care for her young, whatever made the first male die protecting his mate, whatever made the first pack form etc. These developments are not just taught from one generation to the next, they are physical, genetic developments.

I don't think you are talking about evolution or genetic developments when it comes to certain primal instincts seen in succeeding generations. Why do geese, each season seem to know which direction and when to take to wing? Or how does a mother instinctively nurture her child at the breast or how do salmon invariable find their way back to their breeding grounds, etc? They are not taught as these events happen in the animal world even if not taught by natural parents.

Have you ever wondered how the first homosapiens knew that to procreate and form new generations, the male had to mount the female and copulate? Do you really believe that this was evolution in action? I believe these natural phenomena are much more basic than finding the best orifice to make new generations.

Once you get beyond animals with very simple social structures, evolution is no longer survival of the fittest individual, or even creation of progeny of the fittest individuals. Social effects start getting complicated. If your fitness aides a close relative in creating offspring, many of your genes will survive. Worker ants never breed, but their fitness is crucial to the survival of their genes anyway. A barren lioness might be a boon to a pride if it aides her hunting ability.

Do you think that greater physical prowess, better appearance, or superior genes overpower those that do not fit into similar categories? Might it be that those animals that are more intelligent and able to adapt to environment are the ones who survive?

These socially beneficial traits are not going to be determined easily. We can easily pick out groups with alzheimers, cancer, high intelligence, long life, good singing voices, and try to find associated genes for those traits. But can we pick out "good" people and find those associated traits? I don't think it will happen anytime soon. While it may be that most of what makes a "good" person is not genetic, some of it certainly is. Until we can make fairly reasonable determinations in this regard, we should be very circumspect about messing with genes.

Genetic tinkering for progeny with superior traits like those you suggest is reminiscent of the superman Aryan race. It would come down to the elected suddenly brilliant ruling class (the government politicians) deciding for the rest of us the type of citizens to be born into civilization. Gravity and time are immutable laws and so much more random procreation with all its flaws.