11 ms·
I think we should be aiming for major positive scenario. We don't have much choice, otherwise genetic malfunctions will get us sooner or later. The way we're h
by guard-of-terra 11y ago
I think we should be aiming for major positive scenario.
We don't have much choice, otherwise genetic malfunctions will get us sooner or later. The way we're having children now (few, low child mortality) is a way to breed genetic defects.
- Ygg2 11y agoOn the other hand, genetic malfunctions: A) Can lead to interesting discoveries B) Can have paradoxical effects - e.g. muscle degeneration in our ancestors lead to our weaker bit and consequently bigger brains, since skull could expand more because the muscles were weaker. http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040322/full/news040322-9.html http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040322/full/news040322-9.htm... Imagine if you don't want your child to have ADHD, and you screen for it. But it turns out that people with ADHD hold a mutation to even higher IQ.
- caskance 11y agoThen we will either tolerate the associated defect or find a way to achieve the benefit without it.
- guard-of-terra 11y agoYou're talking about human evolution. Human evolution won't work if we have almost zero child mortality and roughly two children per women. All we can do in this configuration is damage control. UPD: This configuration is also prone to splitting humanity into several casts just by biased marriage practices.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoSo in other words, we will have to do eugenics anyway - either high-tech by direct DNA manipulation, or the traditional way of having a lot of children and then getting rid of the weakest.
- guard-of-terra 11y agoYeah, that sums it up. Both might lead to civilization failure and new stone age, but in my opinion runaway genetic defects have more chance of causing this