Human Breeding

[Hegel]

One of my crazier ideas. It goes something like this.

Everyone is sterilized (so as not to have none program births...and it also removes the possiblity for pregnancy too. Then if anyone wants to have a child they could go to the breeding program, and have the "best match" i.e. the person whose genetic makeup would match with thiers in a way to improve the genepool on a spectrum of qualities (the first of which would probably being removal of most genetic diseases from full double recessive statis, or even out of the gene pool all together.

This system is better than a eugenics program, because no one is denied. Anyone who wants a child gets one, and only people who want children get them. The difference between this system and now is that this system would be more selective in who breeds with whom, through artificial insemination, and therefore put an intellegence (even if it is a group intellegence) behind something that is extremely important to the survival of the human species! After all what is more important than reproduction

Well what do you think. Agree with parts? Disagree with parts? Don't hold anything back. Oh yeah, and what qualities would you have them breed for and against if it was put in place?

 

[Melissa Johnson]

In theory, it sounds great. No one is prohibited from having children, etc., you get to concentrate on beneficial genetics, etc.--

In practice, it would stink. The reason? The human factor. Screw-ups occur. Sperm gets switched, eggs are damaged, whatever--child ends up with defects, who gets sued? Unscrupulous people would abuse the system. And what about unplanned pregnancies? Even with 98% effective contraception, you still have the occasional oops. Is an abortion mandatory? What if the parents refuse? Who gets to enforce the genetic purity? You'd have to regulate, build a plutocracy, so forth. Jeeze, I just had an idea for a book, but Huxley beat me to it.

Social engineering sucks--my two bits worth Chaos is much more splendid.

 

[Upchurch]

Well what do you think. Agree with parts? Disagree with parts? Don't hold anything back. Oh yeah, and what qualities would you have them breed for and against if it was put in place?

Well that's just the problem. Your system would circumnavigate mutation and natural selection. By only selecting those traits that fit within a currently perceived "best traits" category, you risk big time stagnation of the gene pool. ick.

 

[LeFevre]

Re: Re: Human Breeding

Well that's just the problem. Your system would circumnavigate mutation and natural selection. By only selecting those traits that fit within a currently perceived "best traits" category, you risk big time stagnation of the gene pool. ick.

or risk a Kwisatz Haderach

 

[aggle_rithm]

Re: Re: Human Breeding

Well that's just the problem. Your system would circumnavigate mutation and natural selection. By only selecting those traits that fit within a currently perceived "best traits" category, you risk big time stagnation of the gene pool. ick.

I think we're already circumnavigating mutation and natural selection. Our species is so successful that natural selection has become almost irrelevant. A human can thrive and reproduce in the modern world even with defective genes. Also, mutations are likely to get swallowed up and homogeonized pretty quickly by the gene pool.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Human Breeding

I think we're already circumnavigating mutation and natural selection. Our species is so successful that natural selection has become almost irrelevant. A human can thrive and reproduce in the modern world even with defective genes.

This is not within my field of study, but it seems to me that even with modern medicine compensating for our weaknesses, couldn't natural selection still be at play, except that other traits are needed to survive and thrive? I dunno...

 

[Dymanic]

I think we're already circumnavigating mutation...

If anything, our exposure to the toxins that accompany our modern lifestyle has probably served to increase the mutation rate.

...and natural selection. Our species is so successful that natural selection has become almost irrelevant. A human can thrive and reproduce in the modern world even with defective genes.

As I pointed out in another recent thread (that began with a very similar opening post) there are still places in the world where survival to reproductive age is by no means guaranteed.

Reproductive success cannot always be measured in terms of absolute failure versus absolute success. Even in other species, individuals may manage to reproduce despite possessing arguably sub-optimal genes--some simply manage to do so more successfully than others. If a certain set of traits confers even a very small advantage in the number of offspring which will themselves reach reproductive age, then after a large number of generations, those traits will be far more prevelant in the gene pool. The action of such slight advantages--especially in a slow-breeding species like humans--would be invisible to anything but the cumulative results of careful observation over considerable time.

Also, mutations are likely to get swallowed up and homogeonized pretty quickly by the gene pool.

Huh?

I think that we have been practicing eugenics right along in our own gene pool, just as we have with cattle, dogs, wheat, etc. We suddenly find ourselves in possession of much more effective means of doing so is all. The question is not "Should we use these tools". We will use these tools. The question is "How should we use these tools?". As distasteful as many of us find it, we must begin to address this.

What are the goals of such a directed breeding program? Longevity of species first, I should think. Toward that end, the three most important things are: diversity, diversity, and diversity. We can do a better job of this than nature, maybe (one example of nature failing to adhere to this is the cheeta--so lacking in variation and so inbred that its survival is threatened). We have no way of knowing what changes may be in store for us, so we should encourage as much variation as possible in our gene pool. If something radical happens, maybe a few, a lucky few, will happen to have the 'right stuff'.

 

[c4ts]

One of my crazier ideas. It goes something like this.

Everyone is sterilized (so as not to have none program births...and it also removes the possiblity for pregnancy too. Then if anyone wants to have a child they could go to the breeding program, and have the "best match" i.e. the person whose genetic makeup would match with thiers in a way to improve the genepool on a spectrum of qualities (the first of which would probably being removal of most genetic diseases from full double recessive statis, or even out of the gene pool all together.

I've read about that. It was part of the society Plato's Republic. Or was that 1984?

 

[Agammamon]

Re: Re: Re: Human Breeding

or risk a Kwisatz Haderach

If only that damn woman did as she was told then we could've avoided 3000 years of tyranny.