Self Reproduction

[Theo Mach II]

The vast majority of people will still reproduce the old fashioned way. A very small fraction will reproduce this way. And natural selection will judge the results.

Natural selection is no longer much of a factor in human reproduction. We've already developed enough medical tech to largely circumvent it.

If this is a viable means of reproduction, as you point out, only a fraction of people will use it. Most likely the very rich. Which probably has its own social implications.

--A

as I was listening to a discussion on the radio about it, this being a benefit to lgbt couples was mentioned. no longer having to adopt, and actually being able to make an embryo with dna from both partners (obviously females in this case) and have one (or both!) partners experience the joys of pregnancy without having to resort to donor sperm or eggs. I think most if not all would be delighted to have a child that was genetically descended from both partners, and I think these will be the ones who benefit the most and will be the largest pool of participants in this technology.

[Orlion]

Silly people and their 'natural selection' argument

Keep in mind, environment is part of "natural selection". One could be naturally selected to survive the best in a New York City ghetto but fail in the natural wilderness.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not seeing the silliness. Can you elaborate?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Given that we can, with some degree of certainty, manipulate genetic code in the proto-zygotes, we no longer have to limited by "natural selection". If we can identify a handful of traits that are beneficial then we could custom-design new offspring. Meaningless phenotype traits like skin color, eye color, hair color, etc are irrelevant; instead, I mean heightened intelligence of some form--mathematical, eidetic memory, musical ability, etc. Just like the "dozen Hawkings" mentioned ealrier, imagine an elementary school classroom full of budding geniuses and what that could mean for the future. Now imagine a dozen such classrooms--when all those kids start making scientific, artistic, and literary contributions then old limitations will be shattered.

Still...wouldn't that simply make them highly intelligent trained monkeys? "We made you smart, now perform".

Anyway...the point I was trying to make is that instead of being limited by natural selection we could actively begin to control our own evolution.

[Zarathustra]

Natural selection has never actively determined which kind of offspring are produced, only which ones of those produced end up continuing to exist. It works on the offspring after they are born. Those that find themselves to be apt for their environments such that they last long enough to mature and successfully breed have been "selected" by default, passively, indirectly. Mutation, for instance, has always produced random results that nature never "selected." The selection happens after that mutation is expressed in an organism. In addition to mutation, sexual reproduction has allowed organisms themselves to selectively choose traits for their children for 1000s of years. While this isn't always an accurate or precise prediction, our choice of sexual partner does allow us vast control over the quality of our offspring. Is that not natural selection merely because we're doing the choosing? Even more relevant to this discussion: human farming/agriculture, hybridization, breeding animals, domestication, etc. have been factors for 1000s of years. But none of that subverts or circumvents natural selection, either. No more than lions choosing the slow antelopes to eat circumvents natural selection. It's a misconception to think that natural selection selects the "candidates" for competition. If you want to use a sports metaphor, natural selection is the judge in this competition, not the talent scout, coach, trainer, drug tester (or anyone who determines eligibility to compete), etc. It merely picks losers, that's it. The process by which candidates are presented for nature's "selection" have nothing to do with natural selection.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

hrm...I can't argue with that assessment. Okay--I was slightly misusing or misrepresenting "natural selection".

Even in the context of the correct usage that Z states, if we start creating humans that are more intelligent then won't we be chosen as the "losers"? Isn't building better people something we should be doing? (by "better" I mean "more intelligent" or something else that is clearly beneficial)

[Vraith]

Even in the context of the correct usage that Z states, if we start creating humans that are more intelligent then won't we be chosen as the "losers"? Isn't building better people something we should be doing? (by "better" I mean "more intelligent" or something else that is clearly beneficial)

In the species-wide sense, no. We're performing our function by different means, is all. We want descendants, we want them to be equal/better than us, they always have/will replace us. [unless we become immortal, of course...that potentially changes the game].
On building better people...perhaps we "should." Again, we already try by nature, it's just that new means may now, definitely will eventually, be available. I know by saying "something clearly beneficial" you're trying to keep the topic off/out of the "But what is better, according to who" debate...so I'll stay away from that and ask a different question [which has some current evidence]: What do you do if/when enhancing/improving one beneficial thing requires/causes a loss/deficiency in some other beneficial thing?

[Orlion]

I'm not seeing the silliness. Can you elaborate?

As I said in the previous post, natural selection includes environment. The silliness comes from the narrow definition that most people use the term "natural selection", which then allows them to claim that humans are 'beating the system'. Just because we do not deal with the wilderness as much as we did does not mean that we've beaten natural selection. It just means the stage has changed as it continually changes. Like you said, we are still beneath its influence.

[Zarathustra]

Ah, I see Orlion. Yes, I agree. I think people want to take the man out of nature, instead of recognizing that what we do is still part of nature, just on a higher level. Beavers build dams. We split atoms. We're all just using the gifts that evolution gave us.

However, after doing a little bit of research to make sure I wasn't off-base, I started doubting my certainty. I got to thinking about how there is an important difference between, say, domesticating animals and genetic engineering. Domestication is still working with an available gene pool, and choosing members out of that gene pool. The animals' genes themselves either lend themselves to domestication or not. The ones that can produce docile members will find success in this "genetic strategy," and will successfully out breed their wilder counterparts by entering into symbiotic relationships with us.

But genetic engineering introduces new genes not previously available in the gene pool. It's not extracting useful qualities out of an existing population. It's introducing novelty.

I suppose that's closer to mutation, though not random. And if mutation doesn't violate natural selection, then this shouldn't either. I'm not sure why nonrandom novelty is significantly different. So I think I've talked myself out of my own doubts.

Carry on.

[Avatar]

You never circumvent natural selection. We might change the parameters of life, but nature will always decide who dies.

Maybe circumvent is not strictly the right word. But people who would have died in the past are now living and even reproducing because of our intervention, rather than failing to due to the pressures of natural selection.

--A

[Vraith]

You never circumvent natural selection. We might change the parameters of life, but nature will always decide who dies.

Maybe circumvent is not strictly the right word. But people who would have died in the past are now living and even reproducing because of our intervention, rather than failing to due to the pressures of natural selection.

--A

Lots of SF deals with this kind of thing...the first I remember noticing ATM, I was probably 13ish?... was just a throw-away, I think in a Niven work??? that everyone alive had bad eyesight cuz tech and lack of major vision advantage for hunting/gathering kept them from being sorted out.
But that doesn't alter natural selection. I've said before, for at least 100,000 years now, the single largest environmental factor affecting people is other people. [the plus side of that is what you mention...the people who were smart enough to keep others from dying came about by natural selection. It's a positive feedback spiral...it "centers" on survival, but while circling that it is climbing to include different levels/processes.]

[Avatar]

Yeah, I just can't help thinking of the Romans and the Byzantines and what-not.

--A

[Theo Mach II]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Strangely enough, the oblong oviod shape of peanut M&Ms form a maximally-dense packing, minimizing the open space left in between the objects when filling a given volume such as the inside of a jar or rectangular box.

I like the gladitorial contests idea, though. I think the key to strength and survivability would be in the sugar/caruba wax layer just under the outer food color layer. A thicker sublayer would increase the durability of the M&M significantly.

[Vraith]

Strangely enough, the oblong oviod shape of peanut M&Ms form a maximally-dense packing, minimizing the open space left in between the objects when filling a given volume such as the inside of a jar or rectangular box.

I like the gladitorial contests idea, though. I think the key to strength and survivability would be in the sugar/caruba wax layer just under the outer food color layer. A thicker sublayer would increase the durability of the M&M significantly.

I'm surprised you didn't note/take offense that the Green ones were ignored.

As usual.

/grumble grumble.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Traditionally, the green ones are used for purposes other than testing M&M durability. *ahem* *nudge* *wink*

That also depends upon which green ones you mean. There are the regular green ones in the normal packages, the pastel green ones from the Spring/Easter mixes, and the mix of green ones found in the difficult-to-track-down mint/dark chocolate bags.

[aliantha]

Is there a difference in, um, potency among the various green M&M hues?

I'm smelling fodder for a government-funded study...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Is there a difference in, um, potency among the various green M&M hues?

*shrug* I have no idea--I never used them in that manner.

[aliantha]

Me neither, of course. I only heard about it....

[Theo Mach II]

the power doesn't come from eating them yourself, but how you feed them to your partner