I disagree. It may be a small distinction, but I'd say, the fit reproduce consistently, the unfit fail to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Ajax
Printable View
I disagree. It may be a small distinction, but I'd say, the fit reproduce consistently, the unfit fail to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Ajax
Plus all populaces produce their quota of what are inasmuch as the "selfish gene" is concerned failures, say sterile individuals, if only by random mutation and "copying error".
Whereas the "fit" die just the same when they fall off a cliff by accident.
:shrug:
Way of the world. I really don't see any need to start messing around with it, other than noting that once the techniques of genetic engineering reach the requisite level of refinement people with the necessary resources for it will start tailoring their damn kids' genetic sequence already at the germline stage, which is probably really rather rude when you think about it.
But then again, that's also the point where cultural evolution pretty much overtakes biological evolution for good and next we'll be "uplifting" octopi.
They question that secular or scientific types need to ask is not "why?" but "why not?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
It really isn't good enough to say "I really don't see a need to start messing around with it". Science needs to perpetually go forward - you can't stop concepts, unless you have a legitimate impediment, other that "i don't see why it is important". Maybe somebody else does. Ask "why shouldn't we start messing around with it?"
Well said. But we are no longer addressing the OP's question here. That question was: why do humans generally abhor eugenics?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I think retroactive eugenics (killing 'unworthy' life) runs against man's behavioural repertoire which is in many ways cooperative, altruistic, affective, even empathic (not unlike that of other primates).
Affective behaviour is prominent in all primates, as shown by their (our) ability to recognize and judge expressions, postures and sounds of other animals, to understand what state they are in and, when they spot an invalid, wounded or starving member of the species, to realise that 'there, but for the grace of God, go I'.
As to proactive eugenics (genetic manipulation) I think we generally abhor it because we associate it with monstrous outcomes, particularly outcomes that seem to erase the boundaries between our species and others which also appears to be a very old part of our behavioural repertoire. No doubt is has an evolutionary benefit, though I don't know Jack Squat about it.
To add to what Adrian has put so well, this seems to tie in with some of man's early creation narratives, such as the Sumerians and the Isrealites left us. There are certain passages which deal with the "gods" or the "sons of God" experimenting with genetic tampering-either through direct sexual contact, as is the case in Genesis, or through experimentation with the inter species breeding (probably through genetic experimentation) mentioned in the Sumerian epics. In both cases a price was to be paid for such "immoral" actions. In the Biblical account it led leads to the flood, whereas in the Sumerian story it results in rebellion and civil war between the gods. Perhaps, as I mentioned this is an instinctive fear woven into our very genetic code, and is passed down as a collective memory of what turned out to be a very negative outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
While this isn't quite the same as modern day scientists are seeking, still the question remains. If the very gods were chastised and punished for genetic tampering, what makes us think that we can escape such a judgment? Were not Adam and Eve punished for gaining knowledge of the "Tree of Life"-a description apt to the DNA tree? I realize I'm stretching it a bit here, but I'm hoping to provide one possible answer to the topic we are discussing.
Anyone care to expound on this idea?
...and Teh Wiki on the same. I really don't think it requires explaining why the old-school eugenical and racial-hygienic ideas, which involved interfering with peoples' choice of mates and in more radical forms forced sterilisation of rather arbitrarily determined "unfit" individuals (and in extreme forms such as practised by Nazis, their outright killing), are repugnant to the modern value-set.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
It's basically biological ideas applied in an interventionist fashion to society on the basis of some rather dodgy vulgar-evolutionary reasoning.
Inasmuch as they can be even defined under the same heading, the modern forms merely inform the parents of any problems detected with the developing fetus and give them the choice to either carry the pregnancy to term regardless, or, where it is a legal option, terminate it, as their conscience dictates.
Also...
...and Wiki.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
See the difference ?
Interesting. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
I am sure that the oldest written sources of man contain 'knowledge' (not in the modern systematic sense, but in the form of myths, of symbols and of do's and dont's) that reflects recent stages of our biological evolution.
I would like to look into this, if only I had the time.
Is there any literature on this particular subject? I know there is research being done into the evolutionary roots of religion, but I have never heard of ancient religious sources being studied for evolutionary clues.