Bad traits not evolving away?

[lister]

The other thread got me to thinking about how humanity has evolved, and wondering whether our rapid increase in medical knowledge is going to cause evolution to slow down or stop to some degree?

In other words, "survival of the fittest" no longer applies, since we are able to medically help people with sub optimal genes so that they have lives that are just as fruitful as "normal" people.

Not that I am suggesting that this is a bad thing of course, but I remember seeing a recent announcement that we will all be 7 foot square jawed heros in the future (well the women at least). I was just wondering whether this would indeed be the case since bad traits are now much less likely to be bred out of the gene pool.

 

[Mercutio]

"Survival of the fittest" still applies as it always did; "fittest" is defined in terms of reproduction, not size or strength or intelligence.

There is still the very scary possibility that some new superbug will pop up and make the black plague look like a bad weekend, and faster than our technology can come up with a decent vaccine. Those of us (I optimistically include myself) with a natural immunity will be selected for. Same as always.

 

[The Kilted Yaksman]

Those of us (I optimistically include myself) with a natural immunity will be selected for. Same as always.

But the last of us dying out degenerates will overwhelm and kill all of the genetically "superior" people left and the world will be free at last of the scourge of humanity...

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, it's good to have a plan.

 

[Horatius]

Not that I am suggesting that this is a bad thing of course, but I remember seeing a recent announcement that we will all be 7 foot square jawed heros in the future (well the women at least). I was just wondering whether this would indeed be the case since bad traits are now much less likely to be bred out of the gene pool.

You also have to allow for the possibility of genetic engineering. It's not very popular here and now, but there's no reason to suppose that state of affairs will continue forever. At some point we will have the technology to engineer our offspring, and at some time after that point, someone will use it. It's just a matter of when, who and why.

Once someone does it without causing the end of the world, others will do it too. Eventually it will probably become the norm, and people will look back in horror at the old days (that is, now) when people just had to accept the genetic throw of the dice, the same way we feel about people with diseases before the development of antibiotics.

 

[Dragonrock]

You also have to allow for the possibility of genetic engineering. It's not very popular here and now, but there's no reason to suppose that state of affairs will continue forever. At some point we will have the technology to engineer our offspring, and at some time after that point, someone will use it. It's just a matter of when, who and why.

Once someone does it without causing the end of the world, others will do it too. Eventually it will probably become the norm, and people will look back in horror at the old days (that is, now) when people just had to accept the genetic throw of the dice, the same way we feel about people with diseases before the development of antibiotics.

I read a book about that. I forgot the title, but what I remember was that the genetic designers were like fashion designers today. They called themselves "life stylists" but the common term for them was "body builders". They would design a new look for people which would take in account what they would look like throughout the entire life style. Parents would choose a model (they had names like "King Edward") and then about 10% of the parent's genes would be combined with the chosen model to ensure that it was the parent's child. Whenever the hero of the story would meet someone he would tell us that they were a "Queen Sheba" or whatever their model was. It really seemed to take the humanity out of being human.

 

[CapelDodger]

But the last of us dying out degenerates will overwhelm and kill all of the genetically "superior" people left and the world will be free at last of the scourge of humanity...

... and the playground of the scourge that is post-humanity - any and all successor species of Hom Sap. Descended from, say, masters of the oil economy so even their females look like Dick Cheney. Yes, it'll be good to be extinct.

Of course there may not be any successors, this whole big-brain-and-technology strategy might turn out to be an evolutionary dead-end. I hope the bonobos surivive in that case. And I hope the domestic cat comes into the abyss with us.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The other thread got me to thinking about how humanity has evolved,

Thanks. It is nice to know that I encourage thought!

It encourages me to post more insightful threads.

 

[CapelDodger]

Eugenics is a lot quicker and cheaper than genetic engineering, and the techniques - basically those of oppressive social regulation - are available and well-rehearsed. The murderous Nazi policy is only an extreme.

Eugenics was perfectly respectable before the Nazi taint, and the stink of that is wearing off. Come up with a new name and you could be onto a winner in times of social stress. It smacks of strengthening the community when it feels under threat. And there's going to be a lot of that in the near-future, what with 6+ billion people involved in this technological/urban experiment that's getting very much out of hand.

 

[CaptainManacles]

most species get to an equalibrium point within their own niche. Saying evolution doesn't apply to us because of medicine is like saying newton's laws don't apply to my table because it's not moving. And there still are a large percentage of humans who do not reproduce.

 

[Horatius]

Eugenics is a lot quicker and cheaper than genetic engineering, and the techniques - basically those of oppressive social regulation - are available and well-rehearsed. The murderous Nazi policy is only an extreme.

Yes, but genetic engineering has the benfit of not needing oppression and social regulation. What I do with my kids has little or no bearing on what you choose to do.

And the techniques will be perfected on things like plants and animals, wether or not they're applied to humans. Once you can engineer a large mammal, you can engineer a human, so long as you have the will to do so.

I expect that for quite some time there will be a lot of overlap between engineered and non-engineered people, and the social effects of that divide will be quite....interesting.

Also note, such engineering doesn't have to be purely a question of looks, or exotic manipulations. Simple things like correcting tendencies to bad eyesight or obesity are also possible. That's the sort of thing I'd expect the first few generations to focus on.

Extra hands on the tops of our heads comes later

 

[Soapy Sam]

"Survival of the fittest" still applies as it always did; "fittest" is defined in terms of reproduction, not size or strength or intelligence.

There is still the very scary possibility that some new superbug will pop up and make the black plague look like a bad weekend, and faster than our technology can come up with a decent vaccine. Those of us (I optimistically include myself) with a natural immunity will be selected for. Same as always.

Remember- "survival of the fittest" was Spencer's term , not Darwin's.

"Fittest" means " best fitting". Those who breed most successfully are those who are best fitted to breed in a certain environment.
The human environment is, increasingly, other humans, human memes and mores, parasites and population pressure.
Those who breed most will continue to propagate more copies of their genes than those who breed less. That's it. Our beliefs, education, cultural sophistication and bank balance has no bearing on the issue. It really is astonishingly simple.