Genetics doomsday

[Bogey]

I'm not sure, but it might be worth pointing out that as soon as society steps in to give a helping hand to those with "defects", then it is, in a sense, "interfering" with the "natural" course of events.
Of course, I'm not advocating leaving the blind, the crippled and the terminally rubbish to fend for themselves and get eaten by tigers, but in terms of evolution that is what's "supposed" to happen.

So yeah, my point is that we've been interfering for ages already.

[glitch]

Imagine a world without manic depressives, what a bland place to be.

There is a line that we are now crossing with regards to preventative disease, fair enough humans discover medicine and surgery, this is a natural response to curing people who are physically dying.

And to a certain extent, yes, this will effect evolution of the human race, but in a controlled way.

Medicine already has affected evolution: in a world with good healthcare, no longer do "the strong survive" - any sod can. And for the most part does, resulting in a slowly spreading oil slick in the gene pool.

Personally I still think eugenics is a valid idea, despite the negative associations with Hitler. And why did that idea go wrong? By limiting the gene pool too tightly.

I'm not advocating a Brave New World hierarchical society through eugenics, just cutting the wheat from the chaff.

I also hold the opinion that everyone with a genetically-passed on medical condition should be sterilised. No allowances made. You want kids, adopt. There's more than enough unwanted kids in this world, just jig the numbers until the parent:child ratio is a bit more healthy.

You disapprove? Well, too bad! We're in this for the species, boys and girls.

Think of all the conditions that could be wiped out within a generation or two. Of course, no political party is going to do this and it'd have to be a worldwide policy or it's missing the point.

[ziggy starbucks]

Overpopulation is less likely to be a problem now, most serious projections expect global population decline after about 2050. The most serious problem with population growth is feeding it, and that's a distribution rather than supply problem.

malthus predicted population catastrophes as a natural phenomenon in his 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population. We haven't seen these population crashes despite war and disease. Other 'serious' model projections predict that human populations will stabilise around a state of equilibrium rather than crash.  

I think my problem with this debate is the dramatic overstatement of human knowledge. So far we have done pretty good job of coding the human genome and identifying genes. However we have very little idea what any of these genes actually do. Genes code for proteins and it is the proteins that drive the metabolic, structural and developmental processes. To understand these processes, we need to know what proteins are responsible, how they interact with each other and how these interactions are altered and moderated by sugars, lipids etc. Even traits with a simple genetic basis may be a product of a very complex series of cellular and energetic actions. If we are to eugenically change any trait, we need to understand these interactions and monitor what other metabolic roles these elements play. Perhaps removing certain genes involved in MS may cause fatal problems in other areas.

I often hear on the news about how scientists have found a gene for alcoholism or depression or whatever. In the majority of cases, these studies are not supported by other research (where other people have used the same technqiues and found the same results). This method of verification forms the basis for modern science and yet is not prevalent in thses genetic studies. Its because these scientists are keen to get as much attention and funding as possible and so will present their work as if it is grounded in absolute fact using foolproof techniques. It is sensible to be sceptical about the accuracy and the applications of this technology.

p.s. I'm currently writing my thesis so I apologise for the shitty way I've wriiten all this.

[Matthias]

Koreans claiming to have cloned humans doesn't count, as they all look alike anyway. It's like Dolly the sheep. A fucking sheep. They all look different don't they? What next? Cloning Arabs??

[sproggy]

ziggy starbucks like wot the man said^^

Very eloquently put, and I agree wholeheartedly.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

Koreans claiming to have cloned humans doesn't count, as they all look alike anyway

*laughs*

or

*cries*

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

malthus predicted population catastrophes as a natural phenomenon in his 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population. We haven't seen these population crashes despite war and disease. Other 'serious' model projections predict that human populations will stabilise around a state of equilibrium rather than crash.

Sorry, you misunderstand. There's decline, but no crash - expectations are a a peak at about 8bn, followed by a very genteel decline. Nothing dramatic.

I think my problem with this debate is the dramatic overstatement of human knowledge.

Which is a fair point. I object to the blanket objection to genetic alteration. I don't believe it to be a panacea, and it is undoubtedly mroe complex than just switching a gene here or there on or off.

There's a lot of misunderstanding about the subject, which I think leads to the knee jerk 'Frankenfoods' type thinking. I understand the balance between scientific progress and the need for ethical considerations - but think common sense seems to have left the discussion table on this topic.

[sproggy]

Sorry, you misunderstand. There's decline, but no crash - expectations are a a peak at about 8bn, followed by a very genteel decline. Nothing dramatic.

I'd like to interject if I may, your theory was based upon population decline due to food distribution problems.  I suggested this may be due to the predicted drop in fossil fuel availability.  With this in mind I would expect the population drop will be much sharper and more severe than your figures indicate.

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

I'd like to interject if I may, your theory was based upon population decline due to food distribution problems.  I suggested this may be due to the predicted drop in fossil fuel availability.  With this in mind I would expect the population drop will be much sharper and more severe than your figures indicate.

You may interject - However I didn't actually say anything about the cause of the decline, merely that food distribution was one of the problems with a large population, not a restrictive one.

I also take no claim for the figures, they come from the UN, here. i've no idea of their methodologies, or whether peak oil is taken into account.