Our Future "Genetic Load"

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,325
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Just in case you need a little more doom and gloom.

"Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration. Human somatic mutation rates are substantially elevated above those in the germline, but this is also seen in other species. What is exceptional about humans is the recent detachment from the challenges of the natural environment and the ability to modify phenotypic traits in ways that mitigate the fitness effects of mutations, e.g., precision and personalized medicine. This results in a relaxation of selection against mildly deleterious mutations, including those magnifying the mutation rate itself. The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition, potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies, and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern. Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention. Resolving the uncertainties of the magnitude and timescale of these effects will require the establishment of stable, standardized, multigenerational measurement procedures for various human traits. "

See: http://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/86
 
Just be happy we live at the begging of this. If they had non-lactose milk in 2000 BC, I wouldn't have my lactose-persistent mutations.
 
Just be happy we live at the begging of this. If they had non-lactose milk in 2000 BC, I wouldn't have my lactose-persistent mutations.

These alleles are handy to have, but let's not exaggerate. The Chinese (about 1/4 of the human race?), other East Asians, Latin Americans etc. plus Africans have done just fine without it.

@Bicicleur,

Indeed. It's also happening at the same time that automation and other technological innovations are removing the need for manual labor. It's a recipe for disaster.
 
Fitness of our brain becomes more important than our body's, in general. Good fitness of our brain will develop new technologies, which in turn will genetically fix our bodies. We'll be fit again as whole, to the perfection this time...
 
Last edited:
Indeed. It's also happening at the same time that automation and other technological innovations are removing the need for manual labor. It's a recipe for disaster.

I find it all a bit worriesome. We're mocking with nature.
 
I find it all a bit worriesome. We're mocking with nature.

Me too.

It seems to me that this will invariably lead to more and more social instability. It's already begun, as the great leveling effect of unionization is reversing, and we have a bigger divide between higher level white collar workers and the rest of the population.

As LeBroc says, it should be possible not terribly long in the future to genetically engineer babies and correct not only for health but for intelligence. However, who will be able to afford the technology. If it stays in private hands, the offspring of the rich will become supposed "super-humans", and the offspring of poorer people and countries will remain the same, or, if this is correct, even less adapted to life in the "brave new world". On the other hand, government could control it, but I, for one, don't trust them to know what they're doing or to do it benevolently.

Most important of all, selection has worked because of all the variety of genetic materials available. What are the unintended consequences of removing that variety for the species as a whole?
 
indeed, natural selection and survival of the fittest is not the same as engineering babies
the mechanism kicks in only after the seeds are sown and not before
 
Genetic engineering may solve this problem in the future.

On the other hand, encouraging some non-invasive eugenic policies might be good.

By non-invasive I mean not violating basic human rights.

BTW - natural selection is still working in some of the poorest Third World countries.

Angela said:
As LeBroc says, it should be possible not terribly long in the future to genetically engineer babies

Have you seen "Elysium", though?

Genetically engineering your baby will not be affordable for every "commoner", I guess.

 
As LeBroc says, it should be possible not terribly long in the future to genetically engineer babies and correct not only for health but for intelligence. However, who will be able to afford the technology. If it stays in private hands, the offspring of the rich will become supposed "super-humans", and the offspring of poorer people and countries will remain the same,
The beauty of technology is that it is actually a great equalizer. There is certainly a lag between technology receiving for rich and poor, but eventually and rather quickly technology gets very cheap and democratic. There was a time that only rich had cars, phones, cell phones or flew on a plane, but with technological progress few decades later everybody could enjoy the same. And the lag is shrinking and technology makes everything inexpensive. 15 years ago first genome was sequenced for a price of 2 billions, now 16 years later it is just 10,000 dollars. 15 years in the future cost will be few bucks and every doctor will have the sequencer in his office.
There is no reason to suspect that modifying human DNA will be expensive, and only for upper class.
It is not going to be a quick revolution type change. It will be a slow process highly regulated by government. Don't worry, no Frankenbabies.
 
Have you seen "Elysium", though?

Genetically engineering your baby will not be affordable for every "commoner", I guess.
You wouldn't want to watch a movie about a boring word where people are safe, equal, beautiful, smart and good, would you?
Hollywood needs dramma to sell the movie.
Check my post above.
 
Genetic engineering is very dangerous. I don't think any scientist or government is stupid enough to use it as much as in sci-fy movies. If genetic engineering was sold by private companies, the rich people's children would become a super race. If it was controlled by the government, they'd have to have a lot of knowledge to make sure they don't cause any harm. I say, why can't we just be happy with what we have? Yeah, advancing in technology is good, but at some point we have to say enough is enough.

The more we advance the potential for harm grows greater and greater. I'd rather life in the Stone age than a futuristic society, where the biology of every human is controlled by the government, with communist economics where everyone works like drones for the "common good", and you're killed if you rebel against the social-order designed to create a flawless society. If we decide how our world works on hardcore logic, we'll lose our humanity. Pain and suffering is good, and is needed to be a healthy human being.
 
Genetic engineering is very dangerous.
You have no grounds to think so. Don't base your opinion and fears on fictional movies. You have more information about danger of cars and fear them.

I don't think any scientist or government is stupid enough to use it as much as in sci-fy movies. If genetic engineering was sold by private companies, the rich people's children would become a super race. If it was controlled by the government, they'd have to have a lot of knowledge to make sure they don't cause any harm. I say, why can't we just be happy with what we have? Yeah, advancing in technology is good, but at some point we have to say enough is enough.
I wish you said enough before you bought your computer with internet connection. Let people decide about their lives and their children.


The more we advance the potential for harm grows greater and greater.
And yet we live longer and healthier, and there is more of us than ever. Potential doesn't equal reality. I have a feeling that you are ever more afraid of the outside world and any changes.
 
I'm out of here.
It is a dangerous evolution because we're of the beaten track.
What will happen now, it is all speculation.
 
Bicicleur is right: we're all just speculating. A lot of it boils down to whether we trust government and scientists with something so elemental. Personally, I don't. Correcting for disease is wonderful, but beyond that I think it's dangerous.

@Tomenable,
How could a "eugenics" program not be invasive and interfere with human rights, other than a personal decision not to procreate? This is fascist, Nazi ideology.
 
Bicicleur is right: we're all just speculating. A lot of it boils down to whether we trust government and scientists with something so elemental. Personally, I don't. Correcting for disease is wonderful, but beyond that I think it's dangerous.
Objection, leading. ;)

How will we know if it is working for us or not, if we are even afraid to try? If I could make an observation about human nature, and food for thought. All of you are displaying ultra conservative position on the subject. You would rather stick to the old ways, than try and experiment with something unknown. Just a thought of new and unknown seems to evoke feeling of fear and avoidance.

Conservative position is good and beneficial in many situations, because the new is not necessarily better than old. Conservative position is a safe bet most of the time, sticking to the ways that work before. However, keep in mind that without trying something new, experimenting with new ways and new things, we still would be sitting in caves or on trees being afraid of fire.
 
Objection, leading. ;)
How will we know if it is working for us or not, if we are even afraid to try?

There has to be controlled studies. That is how we achieved cures and other achievements which we literally take for granted these days. Many of them especially opening people up for operations and so on used to cause a certain degree of furor amoung people. There were times when experimentation used to be done underground, by time control studies have become more rigid and to much higher standards.
 
There has to be controlled studies. That is how we achieved cures and other achievements which we literally take for granted these days. Many of them especially opening people up for operations and so on used to cause a certain degree of furor amoung people. There were times when experimentation used to be done underground, by time control studies have become more rigid and to much higher standards.
I edited my post in meantime. Sorry.

Exactly. It is all in the open, controlled and done with most brilliant minds. We are not talking about implementing random mutations, throwing a dice, to check how it works. Actually, imagine backlash in society if we did experiments the nature way, doing changes to DNA and checking if someone lives or not. Now, when we want to use mind and logic to make people better, that's a no no. What if we screw up? What if rich benefit of it first?
The issue with this seems to be more psychological or equality-justice tybe thing, than anything else.
 
Gentlemen, it doesn't really matter what controls western governments attempt to put into place. The genie, or the technology, is out of the bottle. China will do what it wants, so will Russia, so maybe will North Korea, so will some billionaire who wants the "perfect child". This discussion is just an intellectual exercise on our parts. What will happen, will happen.

Yes, LeBroc, I'm rather fatalistic, as well as pessimistic, as well as conservative...well, in most things. :) It's the result of a perfect storm of genetics and life experience.
 
Angela said:
How could a "eugenics" program not be invasive and interfere with human rights, other than a personal decision not to procreate?

For example - financial incentives for certain people to stop procreating, and for other people to start procreating. Currently the institution of "welfare state" is encouraging less intelligent or less able people to breed fast, and does nothing to increase fertility of people who are more ambitious and continue education or pursue careers. So social policies in a welfare state are perhaps dysgenic.

This is fascist, Nazi ideology.

Nazis adopted eugenicism for their own purposes, but they didn't invent eugenics - it has a much longer history.

And I'm not aware of Fascists implementing any eugenic policies. Only Nazis did, AFAIK.

Did Fascists in Italy or elsewhere support eugenics ???
 

This thread has been viewed 15097 times.

Back
Top