4 ms·

How exactly would they inherit the genes if it causes sterility?

RcrdBrt 6y ago
Sterility for only 1 sex type maybe?
niea_11 6y ago
Sterility is just one example of gene modification. A harmful modification that doesn't cause sterility will propagate across generations if the indivuals are able to reproduce. For example a scenario where we see the symptoms but we don't know that they are caused by a gene modification. And where individuals are still able to live and have children. And I'm not saying that the tech is bad. I'm sure that people can come up with a lot of good use cases.
- mattmanser 6y ago
  That's not how evolution works. If it's harmful, it will get selected against, and will disappear rather rapidly. There's a reason why they need to release 750 million genetically modified mosquitos, and not just 1.
  - nelsontodd 6y ago
    Well i’d say the inability to understand probability is a harmful trait but you’re clearly still here and might even have kids. And everyone with asthma, type 1 diabetes, and a tiny dick would like a word with you. Idiot
    - mattmanser 6y ago
      I'm sorry, it must be tough having those three conditions, but unfortunately that has little to do with what we're discussing. With 6 billion people in the world today, even if our nefarious post-doc somehow gene-spliced 100 people with a 100% probability transmit of a "bad" recessive gene, it would take so many generations for any effect to be felt. By then, we can assume, it would be trivial to reverse the "damage" caused. Hence the eye-rolling at the idea that one post-doc could be any serious threat.
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    Does evolution in that manner really apply to humans anymore? I'm basically blind without glasses and I still get to have kids, probably would have died as a useless child in caveman days Edit: I'm downvoted but I'm curious why. It seems to me that modern medicine has eliminated large parts of natural selection for humans. Is that not the case?
    - andrewflnr 6y ago
      Presumably your mental abilities have compensated for your physical issues, thus increasing your fitness. That's valid evolutionary logic as well.
    - mcjkrw 6y ago
      I think it's about that the natural selection applies only to the current environment. We are not to be fit to live in caveman days, but in the modern society. If having a condition does not present an obstacle to navigate the world and mate, then it won't be selected against.
  - brixon 6y ago
    evolution and rapidly don't go together.
    - mattmanser 6y ago
      Rapidly in evolutionary terms.
tim333 6y ago
I think the idea with gene drive is the offspring are sterile so if you went with one of the genetically modified guys you'd get kids but not grandkids. You could always have a tick box for it on the Tinder profile.

Sterility for only 1 sex type maybe?

Sterility is just one example of gene modification. A harmful modification that doesn't cause sterility will propagate across generations if the indivuals are able to reproduce. For example a scenario where we see the symptoms but we don't know that they are caused by a gene modification. And where individuals are still able to live and have children. And I'm not saying that the tech is bad. I'm sure that people can come up with a lot of good use cases.

mattmanser 6y ago
That's not how evolution works. If it's harmful, it will get selected against, and will disappear rather rapidly. There's a reason why they need to release 750 million genetically modified mosquitos, and not just 1.
- nelsontodd 6y ago
  Well i’d say the inability to understand probability is a harmful trait but you’re clearly still here and might even have kids. And everyone with asthma, type 1 diabetes, and a tiny dick would like a word with you. Idiot
  - mattmanser 6y ago
    I'm sorry, it must be tough having those three conditions, but unfortunately that has little to do with what we're discussing. With 6 billion people in the world today, even if our nefarious post-doc somehow gene-spliced 100 people with a 100% probability transmit of a "bad" recessive gene, it would take so many generations for any effect to be felt. By then, we can assume, it would be trivial to reverse the "damage" caused. Hence the eye-rolling at the idea that one post-doc could be any serious threat.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  Does evolution in that manner really apply to humans anymore? I'm basically blind without glasses and I still get to have kids, probably would have died as a useless child in caveman days Edit: I'm downvoted but I'm curious why. It seems to me that modern medicine has eliminated large parts of natural selection for humans. Is that not the case?
  - andrewflnr 6y ago
    Presumably your mental abilities have compensated for your physical issues, thus increasing your fitness. That's valid evolutionary logic as well.
  - mcjkrw 6y ago
    I think it's about that the natural selection applies only to the current environment. We are not to be fit to live in caveman days, but in the modern society. If having a condition does not present an obstacle to navigate the world and mate, then it won't be selected against.
- brixon 6y ago
  evolution and rapidly don't go together.
  - mattmanser 6y ago
    Rapidly in evolutionary terms.

tim333 6y ago

I think the idea with gene drive is the offspring are sterile so if you went with one of the genetically modified guys you'd get kids but not grandkids. You could always have a tick box for it on the Tinder profile.