Medical Technology Haulting Evolution
Mantrid
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
in Discussions
Its apparent that medical technology has almost completely stopped evolution. An easy example is people who are almost completely impotent due to genetic abnormalities. These people can be "helped" by medical technology to procreate, through methods such as artificial insemination. However, the traits which made them nearly impotent are also likely to be passed on to their offspring.
This lack of natural selection (ironic posting this here, isn't it) has brought evolution to screeching hault.
Now, what I wish to discuss is, is there a way to deal with this issue that won't turn the world into some sort of horrible Sci-Fi movie where the weak are called or sterilized?
Of course, once we have a way of manipulating genetic structure in the womb, these problems disappear. For the time being, we are still stuck with them.
This lack of natural selection (ironic posting this here, isn't it) has brought evolution to screeching hault.
Now, what I wish to discuss is, is there a way to deal with this issue that won't turn the world into some sort of horrible Sci-Fi movie where the weak are called or sterilized?
Of course, once we have a way of manipulating genetic structure in the womb, these problems disappear. For the time being, we are still stuck with them.
Comments
It wouldn't sit well if we told people that they couldn't have kids because their genes sucked.
Actually, the medical technology of Gattaca is quite plausable, and would produce people whose genes didn't suck without requiring that the parents be all that impressive. When selectivity of partners won't work, you can at least select the best possible combination of genes between the parents.
Of course, bigotry based on genetic superiority is an issue, but no greater than that of racism or sexism or agism. You can have the greatest genes on the planet and still be a jerk or a bum.
edit: in original post, "called or sterilized" should be "culled", as in to thin the herd.
Hey I'm all for the evolution of the species (meh wants telepathy!) but I value human rights over that (but I don't value ethics over technological advancement!).
The notion is based on the errenous assumption that genes can be categorized into 'valid' and 'invalid', and that a specific 'inferior' genetical trait marks the whole of ones genetical material as 'unfit', which is just not the case.
The person not capable of procreating in a natural fashion, for example, might well be graced with the genetical potential to have highly intelligent, physically healthy children, quite possibly thanks to the very same genes that made him/her impotent. These offsprings might not be capable of procreating naturally, either, but they'll nonetheless be 'fit' to survive in our society, indeed, they might excel in it.
Take a practical example - the most brilliant mathematicans and many clinically apathetic persons share the same gene, which may express itself either in the development of incredibly high logical abilities or the complete reclusion from reality. Trying to remove the one from our genepool will also lead to the exclusion of the other.
This is all to show that our advance has done nothing but to extend the size of the genetical pool humanity draws from. It is true that the harshness of the competition between different genes has minimalized, but this is not necessarily the end of our evolution, it merely marks the end of our evolution <i>dictated by natural selection</i> and replaces it with an evolution <i>dictated by humanity</i>.
Natural selection is necessary to the evolutionary process to allocate limited resources to the most fit specimens. The downside of discarding a lot of possibly highly potent genetical combinations during the process is tolerated as a necessity.
But now compare this crude, highly exhaustive system of resource allocation to the systems created by humanity. Granted, we're far from perfect, as well, but there are a number of economical systems that exceed natural selection by far in their efficiency with the human resource.
So what does this mean for our evolution? It means that it's in our own hands.
The fairer the economical systems we device, the better the medical systems we create, the less differentiated the societies we decide to live in, the better the chances that our genetical heritage will get the chance to meet its true potential.
Of course, medicine could get there faster.
Well, one could argue that medical advance is just the latest device of our evolution...
1.) No selection (this is where natural selection fits in)
2.) No mutation
3.) No migration
4.) No chance events
a.) random mating
b.) large population
5.) Dipoidy
6.) Sexual Reproduction
7.) Non-overlapping generations
Modern society comes close to no selection, can't do really anything about mutation, migrations are relatively commonplace, mating is random, large population, and the other three are true. Since not all conditions are accounted for, there is a small change of frequency over time and therefore evolution. Now if you begin to view the human population as the whole world rather than certain areas (like China's population), there is no migration so evolution overall is lessened but not elimated totally.
Well that is certainly an interesting way of looking at things.
I do essentially agree that with medical advances we are reducing selection pressures (from genetic disorders, IE cystic fibrosis and severe immunodeficiency disease). Then again, as I'm not really into eugenics (really dislike them too) I can't help but agree that we should attempt to help people with those disorders, and 'remove' their genes from the population via genetic engineering and the like.
I do not agree with removing people with genetic disorders by essentially detecting who they are (genetically) and then simply killing them to ensure nobody with those genes are born. That is a eugenics kind of idea and makes me rather uncomfortable.
Anyway, I'm not so sure I'd count out 'standard' evolution from the future of humanity. I can see the point of the first post, but do have to agree with NemZero overall... but as our environmental needs change as we become more advanced (props to Aldaris for making that point), the needs of the human body may be notably changed. I doubt we'll see anything to the point of, say, the Psilon in Master of Orion (a super-intelligent race with miniscule physical stature), but some level of physical adaptation to a world where most things are done for us wouldn't be surprising.
then again, <i>we</i> won't see <i>anything</i> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
something like that should be just included in the birthing process... Improve humanity as a whole.
Geneticism (or whatever its called) wouldn't happen as those with the inferior genes will simply die out before much commotion happens.
Eugenics is the bad way of doing this (IE let the person grow to the age where you can judge whether they are fit or not, kill em if they have attributes you dont want), but that will never work on earth because of the nearly 100% opposition to the killing of humans for that purpose. Plus its just a bad way of going about modifying the genome because its so slow and amazingly inexact. (although not as slow and inexact as normal evolution)
The next step is sperm & egg selection (IE looking at individual sperm and eggs, checking the resulting genome for good and bad things). This doesn't require killing anyone, and so should be much easier to accept. Its alot more exact as long as the technology is sufficient to know what each and every piece of DNA does for the organism. The rudimentary forms of this technology are already in place (mostly just checks for nasty genetic disorders now). But its still trial and error from picking a sperm/egg pair, checking the result, etc.
After that, we'll have gene splicing (IE taking useful bits of DNA from other critters and placing them in humans to improve us). There have been alot of advances here in all sorts of food products, but not in humans yet.
Then, the creation of bits of DNA from scratch to try really advanced gene splicing, IE the ability to splice in DNA sequences that aren't found in nature.
And finally, the creation of the DNA for an entire organism completely from scratch IE a designer organism. When we reach this point, science will have completely replaced evolution.
change of heart?
<span style='color:white'>Wasn't locked at any point I knew of. Move on.</span>
Would that mean more or less people are obese in comparison to the present day?
I'd hate to think that Snidely Jnr.^1000 will be spherical.
There won't be much to society if crippling diseases become wide-spread, or if very few people still have the mental capacity to get dressed or operate a spoon.
Certainly, progress can be made in other directions, but our genetics still have a profound effect on what we are capable of, and are the basis for other improvements. Even simply the economics of caring for a nation full of immunodeficient people could prevent prosperity. There is also a certain demand for skilled labor, and the basic abilities of the people have to be capable of supporting that.
Also, having good genes doesn't necisarilly mean you have to balance them with some horrid ones. A man can be smart without being extra likely to die of heart disease. It is a reasonable ideal and goal to be rid of the parts of our genetic heritage that plague us, diseases like hemophillia. Best of all, you don't even have to prevent anyone from having kids if you are selective about the egg/sperm, so non-obviously positive aspects (like the stuff on mathematicians above) aren't lost.
What is distressing is that those is poor living conditions (whether by poor decisions, government action, or genetic disability) are vastly outbreeding those who are successful. The topic of why is enourmously complex, so I won't go into that.