Human species 'may split in two'

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: z42

Originally posted by: DougK62
This idea isn't too far-fetched. Genetic engineering could conceivably make a large difference.

I think genetic engineering is the only way this will actually happen.

People do NOT pick their partners based upon genetics. People pick their partners based on looks and wealth for the most part. The study assumes that attractive people are also smarter, and that is not necessarily true. I think Bill Gates has more women available to him than the manager at my local Blockbuster, regardless of who is better looking. It may be true that a "lower genetic class" is being created in the world's slums. I still think that there are enough social programs and adoptions that those genes are still cycled into the whole and not kept totally separate.

This all goes out the window if genetic engineering starts and is only accessable to the wealthy upper clas.

Gattaca here we come.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Not only do we not choose based on genetics, but we also have a whole system devoted to allowing weak genes to get through - the medical field. People who would otherwise die of natural causes, myself included, are kept alive by a variety of means. I probably would have died when I was little, when I got sick with something that had me throwing up anything, including water. My parents called the pediatrician, and she told my them that I should get to the hospital right away, because I might not survive the night. I was taken there pretty quickly and put on an IV. That part I do remember. I don't like needles, never have. Having one remaining stuck in my arm was especially unpleasant. That, or possibly some other illness would have gotten me.
I also had lousy teeth, and I get oral ulcers frequently, which are quite painful. Both would hinder my ability/desire to eat. Bad genes - less chance of surviving. But, I'm still here. And there are many others like me, I'm sure.

My feeling is that if humans weren't so petty and greedy, genetic engineering could work. It could be given to everyone at birth. Surely we have the resources to accomplish this. We're all too bent on either accumulating insane amounts of personal wealth, or busy finding ways to screw over or kill other people to be bothered with such trivial things as the welfare of the species. And once genetic engineering could be used to remove weaknesses and genetic defects, then who knows what more it could be used for in terms of enhancement. Better lungs, more efficient kidneys, eyes that can see a wider portion of the spectrum, or just a body meant for longevity, instead of the ones we have now, which are simply meant to let us survive long enough to breed effectively. Once that's done, as far as nature was concerned, anything else is just a bonus.

Our bodies evolved to survive in a VERY different environment than we live in. One in which food was scarce, predators abound, etc. We're built to function within these limitations. But these limitations no longer exist, and our design is frankly, obsolete. The ability to store excess amounts of fat, beat other men up, sleep through the night and run fast are no longer necessary in a first world society. What's needed is brainpower, creativity, fine dexterity perhaps, and our wish is clearly long enduring bodies. With those things, we can get around everything else. Physical strength is great for athletes, and unnecessary for most people. Pure muscles vs. Gun - muscles lose.

Precisely. Why is obesity a problem? In the wild, when you find a rich food source, you eat all that you can stand to eat, because it might be awhile before you find it again. And when you do so, your brain releases chemicals, dopamine I believe, to tell you "good job". This encourages you to eat that stuff again, because you enjoyed it so much the last time. Now we've learned how to separate the good taste from the nutrition that was supposed to accompany it.
Concerning muscles: I read in Scientific American that there is a gene that controls muscle loss, and that if it is suppressed, muscle tissue just grows like crazy. This exists because muscles take a lot of energy to maintain. If an organism got huge muscles from constant hard labor, but suddenly is in an environment where it isn't doing as much of it, the muscles go away, since they are just a waste of precious energy then. Now getting energy is not a problem, but our genes don't know that.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Not only do we not choose based on genetics, but we also have a whole system devoted to allowing weak genes to get through - the medical field. People who would otherwise die of natural causes, myself included, are kept alive by a variety of means. I probably would have died when I was little, when I got sick with something that had me throwing up anything, including water. My parents called the pediatrician, and she told my them that I should get to the hospital right away, because I might not survive the night. I was taken there pretty quickly and put on an IV. That part I do remember. I don't like needles, never have. Having one remaining stuck in my arm was especially unpleasant. That, or possibly some other illness would have gotten me. I also had lousy teeth, and I get oral ulcers frequently, which are quite painful. Both would hinder my ability/desire to eat. Bad genes - less chance of surviving. But, I'm still here. And there are many others like me, I'm sure.

Which I agree with, but has more to do with individual survival, rather than mate selection.

My feeling is that if humans weren't so petty and greedy, genetic engineering could work. It could be given to everyone at birth. Surely we have the resources to accomplish this. We're all too bent on either accumulating insane amounts of personal wealth, or busy finding ways to screw over or kill other people to be bothered with such trivial things as the welfare of the species. And once genetic engineering could be used to remove weaknesses and genetic defects, then who knows what more it could be used for in terms of enhancement. Better lungs, more efficient kidneys, eyes that can see a wider portion of the spectrum, or just a body meant for longevity, instead of the ones we have now, which are simply meant to let us survive long enough to breed effectively. Once that's done, as far as nature was concerned, anything else is just a bonus.

That sounds like one giant contradiction to me: "If we werent so petty and greedy, then we could all be petty and greedy. We're so bent on accumlating insane amounts of personal wealth, rather than obtaining "genetic wealth", because that is somehow different. We should stop trying to screw over our fellow man, that way we can enhance ourselves, which is important for the welfare of our species, because otherwise, we won't be able to compete with....other humans? Hmm..So we are good enough now, and could use a little fixing, even a little enhancement, because...we're not good enough already?"

And while none of what you're saying is *wrong*, I just dont understand the angle at which its coming. You said it yourself - anything else other than breeding is a bonus. So how then is doing anything but surviving and breeding, essentially being greedy and petty?

Regarding what you are saying more directly - it is and will remain very expensive for some time to come. Like it or not, we're not even close to being able to achieve engineering of embryos, let alone those already living. We havent even cloned a human yet, or fully understood the genome, and there is *massive* political and religious opposition to this. The consequences of such treatment are not even beginning to be considered. Before everyone lives forever, we have to figure out where to put everyone!

The super duper rich are the ones who are going to fund this research and development. They will be the first ones to benefit. Government is going to stay out of this picture for a very long time. It will slowly filter down through the population, as economies of scale begin to have an effect. If the government is going to give it out, everyone has to benefit equally, and it cannot be deleterious. Our gov can not handle that kind of responsibility, and most people would not stand for it. Playing with our genomes needs to be a personal choice. Hell, is it even fair to modify a child's genes, when he clearly never could have been consulted in the process?

Because like you said, everything but breeding is a bonus. I think it would be fantastic to have better lungs, and see a larger part of the spectrum, and take a trip to the moon. Does that mean everyone has to fund my aspirations to walk on the moon, because I think it'd be great, and maybe a lot of people agree with me? Something as radical as genetic engineering is exactly the kind of thing that we need people with large amounts of money, burning a hole in their pocket, to fund.

 

[UsandThem]

The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures....or Iowans as they are called right now.

 

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.

We already have this. 90% of americans would starve if grocery stores suddenly ceased to exist.

That is bullshit though... why should Americans waste their time learning how to kill animals, grow vegetables, etc, when it is a useless skill.

Extremely intelligent people could figure it out, but only if they had the time to teach themselves everything before starving to death.

 

[TheNinja]

There are already only 2 type of humans.

1. Ninjas and Ninjas Lovers
2. pirates and pirates lovers

You can only be one or the other. For your sake I hope you choose #1.

 

[AndrewR]

No one has mentioned Gattaca yet?? Geez, that's a perfect movie for this topic. I need to watch that again.

 

[Mucho]

Providing of course, they are still around.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Vic
Psuedo-scientific crap.

 

[RU482]

Hmm, what about smart, well off people looking to get their rocks off and having secks with the lower class...knocking them up unknowingly. and vice versa, of course

 

[IAteYourMother]

idiocracy ftw

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: zoiks
We are already split in 2. Men and Women

I take that back. I just realized San Francisco.

:laugh:

 

[The Pentium Guy]

Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

I'm already THERE .

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Vic
Psuedo-scientific crap.

This is where this thread should've ended.

 

[Zap Brannigan]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Vic
Psuedo-scientific crap.

This is where this thread should've ended.

It's not even Psuedo-science. I love when people make stupid theories with only two possible options that occur way into the future. That guy's "theory" is nothing more than his own personal opinion based on ignorance, H.G Wells, Orwell, and too many bong hits.

 

[Bushman5]

Sounds boring....... every 1 wants to ****** a skank eveyr now and again, u know get that dirty pussy hmmmmmmmmmmmm..... rite. Guys

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DaShen

That is why I said things tend to normalize over time.

If both your parents have an IQ score of 130, there is a higher percentage that your IQ will be lower than theirs. The is a possibility that both there Good IQ genes will be passed on, but by statistics your IQ will be lower.

If both your parent have an IQ of 70, you have a higher percentage that your IQ will be higher.

You're conveniently overlooking reality.

The reality of the situation is that two parents with an IQ of 130 are much, much more likely to have offspring with an IQ of around 130 than the parents with an IQ of 70.

It's just like tall/short people. Sure, two parents who come from families where everyone is 6'5 can have short children, and two very short parents can have tall children. But the likelihood of the tall parents having tall children is much greater.

When dealing with large numbers of people, it's all about probability. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but remember that they're exceptions, not the rule.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: torpid
I don't buy the lower IQ from high IQ parents theory. IQ is not 100% nature, there is a large nurture factor in it. If you have two high IQ parents, your environment will likely foster improved intelligence even if your genetics don't get the full combination of intelligence genes.

Wrong. IQ is all about nature. You cannot "learn" to have greater intelligence.

 

[91TTZ]

This is already happening. People in the slums in the inner cities are definitely genetically inferior. For one, if they good intelligence/good looks, they would have been chosen by a more desirable mate. But when you're poor and ugly, your options are limited. Since you'll most likely reproduce with another poor/ugly person, your children will most likely have those traits also.

Some people like to pick the exception rather than the rule, for political correctness reasons. But factor in the probability here. The chance of the exception occuring decreases rapidly with every new generation.

 

[Safeway]

LAWL. Which will YOU be in?! Har har har. I <3 AOL!!!1111 one one

 

[Toastedlightly]

Epsilon Semi-morons?!

 

[Rogodin2]

I'm the evolutionary apogee of godhood.

Rogo

 

[Rubycon]

Gotta wonder what "class" these folks belong to. :laugh:

 

[Rogodin2]

They're Norwegian Dawn

I'll post the norwegian pistol soon.

Rogo

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
They're Norwegian Dawn

I'll post the norwegian pistol soon.

Rogo

LOL that'll bluff right out. :laugh:

 

[thomsbrain]

too bad stupid people have way more kids than smart people. i automatically suspect the intelligence of anyone with more than two kids.