If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientastica)   I'm sorry Mr. Santorum. All 500 of your embryos are gay   (scientastica.com) divider line 145
    More: Scary, eugenics, genetic engineering, implantation, cystic fibrosis, embryos, fertilization, genetic screening, sperm donors  
•       •       •

24418 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 May 2012 at 1:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
Ant
2012-05-07 03:42:38 PM

Mugato: but as a function of making our species better and speeding up what natural selection is going to do anyway


Something tells me you don't understand natural selection. You think everything that comes out of natural selection is going to be a good thing for us as individuals?
 
2012-05-07 03:43:03 PM
My apologies if I'm unduly maligning the state adoption process.

I just know it can be incredibly tough to be a parent or relative of someone with a mental illness or developmental disability (or to have one, for that matter), and there's frequently not the outreach there for people to know what resources they can use and how to cope.

And it so doesn't help when all around you you've got clowns in lederhosen gravely and seriously doing the duck dance while they shake their finger in your face and sing the bootstrap chorus. (*cough* Glen Beck *coughcough*)
 
2012-05-07 03:44:41 PM
I, my father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were all adopted.
 
2012-05-07 03:49:50 PM

beefoe: chaoswolf: ANY woman should at ANY time have the right to abort a fetus growing within her body for ANY reason.

Well I guess we all now know Nancy Pelosi's Fark handle.


Fark you. I'm Wayne Brady, biatch.
 
2012-05-07 03:52:51 PM

neutronstar: Personally I think this is a step in the right direction. Why should we leave it the outcome of our lineage to be left up to chance when we can intelligently guide it and produce more healthy, resillient, intelligent and athletic children?

As it is now, our current trajectory is somewhere between the dystopian futures of Wall-E and Idiocracy.


All the science fiction that I've read and watched indicates that this is a bad idea.
Mostly because we don't know which hidden trait confers immunity in the coming zombie-apocalypse
 
2012-05-07 03:53:43 PM
www.dreamlandvisions.com
 
2012-05-07 03:54:03 PM

Wayne 985: ladyfortuna: My dad and brother in law were both adopted. Frankly it really bothers me that people go with in-vitro at all, when there are thousands of kids in foster care at any time and many times that in orphanages outside the country. My family members were lucky, they both had really good homes. I'm sure many of us have known adoptees that didn't.

I can understand that. I don't think it bothers me, but I certainly wonder why people don't simply adopt when they're struggling to have kids. HAVING to have your children biological seems kind of narcissistic.


Life is narcissistic.

In most animals, dominant males murder tribe offspring that aren't theirs. Be grateful humans don't practice the natural solution to orphans.
 
2012-05-07 03:54:53 PM

Julie Cochrane: Khellendros: Couples want to adopt a child they can nurture and raise as their own. Most of them don't want to provide a temporary home to a detached child who will bounce in and out of therapy until age 18. Thus the disconnect. The "damaged" children are pretty easy to place, if someone wants them. There are parents who will happily take a newborn/infant. But these two groups don't meet in the middle. Convincing Betsy Sue to give up her baby at birth won't happen, and convincing Preston and Dakota to adopt a 6 year old with ADD and attachment disorder won't happen. So you have couples without children, and children without parents.

There's a bit more to it with the damaged children, or the children who aren't newborns. A lot of the time there are other people in the children's lives who want to continue to see the child, or there are barriers to actually adopting the child, and these other folks in the children's lives are part of the dysfunctional environment that the damaged kid came from in the first place, so more often than not, they bring some significant negatives along with them.

There are race and culture issues where you have multiple factors to try to match when you're matching children with available foster families.

There are significant resource gaps in dealing with the care needs of these damaged children, where once you adopt that child, I would bet that in most cases the state's view is that the child is now your child and the child's health care and psychiatric care and behavioral care and disabilities are now your problem.

So the state, instead of being grateful that there are parents willing to adopt these children in terms of taking them into their homes and loving them as their children, completely abdicates its own responsibility for the damages those children suffered at society's hands because the state didn't do its own job better at preventing those damages or providing early and effective treatment to minimize the long-term damage ca ...


My list was by no means exhaustive. You definitely bring up important points. Five of my six siblings are adopted, and we've dealt with both state and private adoption processes. The state was pretty good about handling medical and psychiatric issues, but that doesn't make it much easier on the family. It's a grind.
 
2012-05-07 03:56:54 PM
Sigh....... for fun look up Buck v. Bell, one of America's darker moments in history. Read the case, read the decision by Oliver Wendell Holmes....

Then think about this, after the decision something like 37 states (the overwhelming majority) passed Eugenics Laws and began forcibly sterilizing people for a laundry list of wrong.

It's a hard circle to square, allowing positive eugenics (designer baby's, etc), with negative eugenics (throwing people out of the gene pool), and people's rights to do either....

This kind of stuff HONESTLY depresses me...

/seriously though, read Buck v. Bell.
 
2012-05-07 03:57:06 PM
Puppeteer: "When we ask for any member of the Brandt family, every phone in South America rings."

Brant, Brent, Bryant, Bryand, Brandt, Brennt, Bryandt ... let's call the whole thing off!

The thing about breeding for luck is, as one of the characters realises in one of the last of the Ring World novels, is that the people that are lucky don't have to suffer. Nothing really bad ever happens to them. They develop as shallow, narcissitic, aloof individuals who can't empthathize with fallible, unlucky mankind. They become rich sociopathic douchebags even.

Unless they make it to the next level, where luck enrolls you into the School of Hard Knocks and gives you that little touch of humanity, compassion, that gods and demigods so sorely lack.

That's one of the lessons that Star Trek teaches again and again, especially when Khan is involved. His crew of smart asses are sociopaths and pointy-haired bosses (I know that is redundant). They're born back-stabbers and ruthless climbers over the heads of other people.

A society entirely made up of Hawks is doomed to mediocrity because nobody survives long enough to do anything really great. A society entirely made up of Doves will be walked over and destroyed. You need a mixture of Hawks and Doves and the various other types of gameplayers to maximize social value.

If one type prevails, the other type becomes more valuable.

My ancestor in the paternal line and his descendants produced more daughters than sons as a rule. In a society where males are overvalued, daughters can be a clever work-around because they have scarcity value. It's probably no accident that this ancestor was descended from Norsemen and came from a region which produced many lawyers, soldiers and priests. When you upset the natural balance and equilibrium between different values or genetic advantages, the winners can become losers and the losers winners.

Too many priests will destroy a family line, or else give rise to survivors who are largely atheists or businessmen or engineers and scientists--people unconcerned with religion.

Too many soldiers leave all the women at home with the lovers, not the fighters.

And so it goes, and so it goes.

Breeding for luck would enhance the value of certain kinds of lucklessness, namely foolhardiness, courage, experimentalism, and the wisdom that comes from suffering. The logical conclusion would be to produce a Buddha or high stakes gamblers to counter the mediocrity of luck produced by everybody being lucky.

The puppeteers who manipulated the human race, the Hindmost leaders of the Puppeteer Race, were themselves freaks, namely puppeteers who needed a bit of excitement and who could deal with aliens and other risks. They rose to the top by virtue of being insane in Puppeteer terms.

In a similar way, Nietzsche observes that humans value the "virtues" (and "vices) that are most difficult for them. A saint is a person who does something that is hard for everybody else: putting others ahead of himself, eschewing wealth, power, glory, fame, praise, etc., for a dirty, humble and difficult life.

Breeding for any trait is bound to go too far. You get the Boxers with their weak legs, the Collies with their narrow skulls and moronic crushed little brains, and many other unintended consequences, usually what the Greeks would consider "excess".

Indeed, Greeks were great preachers, not of perfection, but perfectability and moderation. As Aristole points out, what is a moderate steak for an athlete in training is not a moderate steak for a philosopher whose only exercise is mild calestentics in the gym and walking in the Agora or Stoia.

For me, a moderate steak is under a pound, even half a pound, and very tender. For you, perhaps a steak four times the size would be just right.

People worrry about idiots outbreeding the intelligent, clever and superior. It'll never happen. The more idiots you get, the more advantage there is to being cleverl, intelligent, and superior. The problem of natural selection tends to be self-correcting. The more stupid people breed, the more stupid people there are for the smart people to govern, rob or care for. The more the value of being one of the smart minority. If you forced really smart people to breed, you know what you'd get? My guess is you are getting it: asthmatic, fat, autistic children. The children of brilliant parents would naturally regress toward the mean, since it is highly unlikely they will be in the small minority of off-spring who combine the best traits of their parents, but they might even be dumber than expected, regressing a lot further than the mean because their fricking parents are both geeks or nerds.

As Albert Einstein is aid to have replied to Marilyn Monroe when she joked about marrying him, "But what if the children got my looks and your brains?"

I expect that is apocryphal. I don't think Norma Jean was as dumb as she looked. For one thing, she wasn't as blonde as she looked.
 
2012-05-07 04:02:30 PM

ladyfortuna: Khellendros: ladyfortuna:
Couples want to adopt a child they can nurture and raise as their own. Most of them don't want to provide a temporary home to a detached child who will bounce in and out of therapy until age 18. Thus the disconnect. The "damaged" children are pretty easy to place, if someone wants them. There are parents who will happily take a newborn/infant. But these two groups don't meet in the middle. Convincing Betsy Sue to give up her baby at birth won't happen, and convincing Preston and Dakota to adopt a 6 year old with ADD and attachment disorder won't happen. So you have couples without children, and children without parents.

I don't particularly want kids myself and can't have one anyway, but at least minor challenges [for most cases] like ADD (which I have myself) are something I would work around if I actually wanted a kid in my life. That's an incredibly lame reason not to adopt.


That's the most minor of problems. Most of them are far more difficult to deal with. The plain fact is if they come from a terrible background, as most non-infant foster/orphans do, you're pretty well broken by about age 4. It's uphill for the next 20 years. Couples wanting to adopt learn the numbers and educate themselves on the stories. The complications, cost and arduous process demand you know what you're getting into. And they learn quickly that if it's at all possible, even if it means waiting another 5 years, adopt an infant.

In my family, we've had the experience of both. Our cases were typical of what you can expect from both sides, and of the case studies you read. Challenging would be an understatement.
 
2012-05-07 04:06:13 PM
What sort of site was this? It was sort of an article and sort of not...
 
2012-05-07 04:12:48 PM
I have no problem with this, so I guess I'm basically Hitler.
 
2012-05-07 04:31:56 PM

here to help: You've got six months to make up your mind


That is so arbitrary

Is a human massively more sentient if you compare the day before birth vs the day after ?
Are they more reactive three months before ?

I am pro choice, Im just not sure the person who says "it is my body" is being very pro choice to the other person who gets.... ya know..... killed.

// pretty sure it is not my choice, so anyone like me who thinks it is is not on my side.
 
2012-05-07 04:31:57 PM

here to help: OH MY GOD!! HE JUST GAVE THE CODE TO BOMB LONDON!!!


I AM CONSTANT AS THE NORTHERN STAR!
 
2012-05-07 04:37:15 PM
Only after reading the article did I come back and reread the FARK headline a second time.  The first go around I read it as "I'm sorry Mr. Santorum. All 500 of your embryos eyebrows are gay".  That was confusing!
 
2012-05-07 04:47:01 PM

Samwise Gamgee: What sort of site was this? It was sort of an article and sort of not...


It was a satire site. If you noticed, all the articles had the slight ring of Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal."

Truly, I think we're going to end up going for designer babies by defining more and more genes as "defects." It's not going to be so much a matter of what traits you want your baby to have as what traits you want your baby not to have.

Anybody who has really strong "must have" traits on their wish list for their baby is either going to have those traits themselves, or they're going to look for those traits in their prospective mate to start with.

So, "Darling, I want our baby to have hair just like yours!" Well, if your spouse is a ginger, there ya go.

But as far as not wanting to risk your daughter to getting sick with bipolar? Yep, there'll be an app for that.
 
2012-05-07 04:52:01 PM

This text is now purple: Wayne 985: ladyfortuna: My dad and brother in law were both adopted. Frankly it really bothers me that people go with in-vitro at all, when there are thousands of kids in foster care at any time and many times that in orphanages outside the country. My family members were lucky, they both had really good homes. I'm sure many of us have known adoptees that didn't.

I can understand that. I don't think it bothers me, but I certainly wonder why people don't simply adopt when they're struggling to have kids. HAVING to have your children biological seems kind of narcissistic.

Life is narcissistic.

In most animals, dominant males murder tribe offspring that aren't theirs. Be grateful humans don't practice the natural solution to orphans.


Well, I'm glad we hold ourselves above lions and feral dogs.
 
2012-05-07 04:57:57 PM

Slartibartfaster: That is so arbitrary

Is a human massively more sentient if you compare the day before birth vs the day after ?
Are they more reactive three months before ?

I am pro choice, Im just not sure the person who says "it is my body" is being very pro choice to the other person who gets.... ya know..... killed.

// pretty sure it is not my choice, so anyone like me who thinks it is is not on my side.


There has to be a cut off point somewhere. 6 months isn't exactly arbitrary either. After that the baby has a pretty good chance of surviving outside the womb and be healthy so I'd say it's actually a baby. Also, and IANAD, but I'd imagine it is a little more capable of feeling pain at that point. There is no reason a woman can't have made her decision at that juncture and even if she hasn't she can put it up for adoption.

As for the argument that you are killing a human by aborting a fetus, well it's not a human. It has no memories of life. It has not made any significant impact on the world. It has no one depending on it. It's essentially a glorified tumor/parasite.

I am AGAINST abortion as I find the whole matter unsavory and I've gone to great lengths to avoid letting one of my little dudes get past the goalie (condoms... they work, b*tches). In fact if I did knock some chick up I'd prefer her to consider giving it up for adoption instead of aborting... well, I would if it wasn't for my genetic disorder which will likely be passed on to my offspring. However it should be the woman's right (for the first six months and only after that in extreme cases where the mother may die or perhaps she was unable to get an abortion because she was chained up in a basement or some sh*t). I would just prefer to see those women use a little compassion, intelligence, responsibility and common sense when it comes to their reproductive health.

yanno?
 
2012-05-07 05:01:11 PM

angrymacface: here to help: OH MY GOD!! HE JUST GAVE THE CODE TO BOMB LONDON!!!

I AM CONSTANT AS THE NORTHERN STAR!


I'm aborting our gay butt baby.
 
2012-05-07 05:27:34 PM

here to help: I'm aborting our gay butt baby.


I didn't even know I was butt-pregnant.
 
2012-05-07 05:45:08 PM

angrymacface: here to help: I'm aborting our gay butt baby.

I didn't even know I was butt-pregnant.


You irresponsible hussy!
 
2012-05-07 05:49:48 PM
Surprised no one has mentioned this book yet. It's a good 'un.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-07 06:05:45 PM

Mugato: Hitler really put the kibosh on the whole eugenics thing (as well as that mustache style, kneeboots with breeches, combing your bangs to one side, and being named "Adolf")


FTFY

/however, being a psychotic totalitarian warlord never seems to lose its appeal
 
2012-05-07 06:19:00 PM

Gunny Walker: Donnchadha: Gattaca! Gattaca! Gattaca!

[i61.photobucket.com image 550x430]


Al sort of looks like Paul Mccartney there
 
2012-05-07 06:25:15 PM
More books about eugenics please.
 
2012-05-07 06:26:25 PM

cosmiquemuffin: Surprised no one has mentioned this book yet. It's a good 'un.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 430x648]


It's a personal rule of mine to not read books with Angelina Jolie on the cover. Unless, of course, that book is Playboy.
 
2012-05-07 06:52:02 PM

Wayne 985: chaoswolf: psunbird92: Cannot wait until the "gay" trait/gene is discovered. Watch as scores of left leaning individuals turn pro life faster than you can say furious.

I'm pro-abortion. If religious zealots want to abort their fetuses because they are found to have a gene for homosexuality, they should have every right to do so.

ANY woman should at ANY time have the right to abort a fetus growing within her body for ANY reason.

I have to reluctantly agree. If a woman wants to abort a fetus because it's gay or has the wrong hair color or because it's female (which is happening at massive levels in China), she should have that right. It's disgusting, shallow, and the woman should be publicly shamed for choosing that reason, but yes, technically it should remain her right.


Substitute "stoned to death" for "publicly shamed", and we may come to agreement here.
 
2012-05-07 07:29:22 PM

Karma Crusade: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html



Well that was depressing.... but about what I expected considering the topic at hand.


/good story though
 
2012-05-07 07:30:40 PM

Mouser: Wayne 985: chaoswolf: psunbird92: Cannot wait until the "gay" trait/gene is discovered. Watch as scores of left leaning individuals turn pro life faster than you can say furious.

I'm pro-abortion. If religious zealots want to abort their fetuses because they are found to have a gene for homosexuality, they should have every right to do so.

ANY woman should at ANY time have the right to abort a fetus growing within her body for ANY reason.

I have to reluctantly agree. If a woman wants to abort a fetus because it's gay or has the wrong hair color or because it's female (which is happening at massive levels in China), she should have that right. It's disgusting, shallow, and the woman should be publicly shamed for choosing that reason, but yes, technically it should remain her right.

Substitute "stoned to death" for "publicly shamed", and we may come to agreement here.


Dear god, do you realize how much weed it takes to get an overdose? Our nation couldn't afford it.
 
2012-05-07 07:55:50 PM
I recommend Huxley's Brave New World for a read on a society based on genetic conformity.
 
2012-05-07 08:08:56 PM

cosmiquemuffin: Surprised no one has mentioned this book yet. It's a good 'un.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 430x648]


it's a novel? I remember seeing it as a short story
 
2012-05-07 08:18:48 PM
Considering we don't evolve due to environment anymore (we change our environment, the environment no longer changes us) this is probably how we can keep improving our race.
 
2012-05-07 08:29:11 PM
oh for fark's sake.

People are not selecting embryos these days in any accredited ivf center except for:

1) Embryos without genes or variations that cause a fatal disorder and/or
2) Embryos with all 24 chromosomes
3) Sex (yes, sometimes someone wants a girl instead of a boy, or vice versa)

That's it. That's all there is to embryo selection.

Most of the women who cycle don't have enough viable embryos to 'select' on -- they pick the healthiest regardless of sex and hope for the best.

/works in this area
 
2012-05-07 08:33:36 PM
I will also mention that all those 'bioinformatic' studies that identify genes that do this or that, yada yada...nobody believes them enough to select embryos based on them. Doctors around here would freak a bit if it was even suggested seriously.

The trend is to select against harmful problems like when both parents are carriers....mutations like Huntingtons, MELAS, Cystic Fibrosis, Fragile X, or something else equally nasty. The trend is for embryo selection against those mutations.

As for eugenics, doubtful. Those are for the extreme and expensive cases where both parents can't propogate without help. There will always be carriers out there.
 
2012-05-07 08:42:01 PM
keli_kitty: FTA: Careful administration of follicle stimulating hormone can stimulate ovaries to produce as many as 70 mature eggs at once.

I thought women are born with a fixed amount of eggs (400?) and they take their turns to come out. Can a woman "produce" more eggs, or is it a poor choice of word on the author's part?


Leeds: You are correct. The hormone does not "produce" the eggs. It's more like the hormones "weaponize them" and get them suited up for deployment.




In saying the homones cause the ovaries to produce the eggs, the writer may mean "produce" not in the generative sense but in the sense of presenting/providing, like "upon being asked for his license and registration, the motorist produced them" (where the word is obviously not referring to roadside manufacturing of documents).

As far as generating eggs goes, however, I seem to recall there being a study recently that called into question the long-accepted view that human ovaries completely stop generating any eggs, postnatally. Ah yes, here it is.

/but yes, what fertility specialists presently use the hormones for is the release extra eggs, not the creation of new ones.
 
2012-05-07 08:55:35 PM

Mugato: Hitler really put the kibosh on the whole eugenics thing (as well as that mustache style) and turned everyone off to it but as a function of making our species better and speeding up what natural selection is going to do anyway.....there's little argument against it.


I'd say a significant argument against it would be the government forcibly taking away your biological autonomy. Another would be that it was often applied to traits that were not actually bad, like being of mixed heritage.

If you want to chlorinate the gene pool a little, I think the best approach would be to make it voluntary and self-selecting. Perhaps offer free government vasectomies along with a lifetime supply of Lotto tickets. It's a win-win.
 
2012-05-07 10:44:39 PM

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: oh for fark's sake.

People are not selecting embryos these days in any accredited ivf center except for:

1) Embryos without genes or variations that cause a fatal disorder and/or
2) Embryos with all 24 chromosomes
3) Sex (yes, sometimes someone wants a girl instead of a boy, or vice versa)

That's it. That's all there is to embryo selection.

Most of the women who cycle don't have enough viable embryos to 'select' on -- they pick the healthiest regardless of sex and hope for the best.

/works in this area


I'm okay with the first two. And unless the couple already has a two daughters I'm iffy on the third.

I hope that most people are okay with weeding out genetic diseases. Other than that it should remain a lottery. Anyhow, if your parents could afford IVF then you are probably going to have a rockin' good childhood.
 
2012-05-07 11:40:54 PM

Khellendros: The problem is that the couples want infants, and the orphanages are filled with children that are 4+ years old. Many have tons of mental issues, emotional issues, and physical problems.


My cousin adopted a little girl she fostered at five, and the girl is...well, she's kind of messed up. And my cousin knew--knew that kids who are screwed up when they're very young are probably not going to be fixed, since she was a long-time foster parent. And sure, the kid had counseling, and lives in a solid, two-parent household, has brothers and sisters, etc. but she's just never going to be right.

When I was there, she cut the whiskers off the cat and blamed it on her sister, she's super-clingy and won't leave an adult alone unless you tell her to go away repeatedly, she lies constantly and needs constant attention. She went to school and told the teacher that her parents and her siblings hated her and were mean to her, so of course my cousin got a phone call from the school. Apparently she does this every year with each new teacher.

Everyone thinks that if you love kids enough, give them some therapy, a loving home, they'll recover. But some damage is for good, and it's done while the child is still very young. Attachment disorders--the parents didn't pay enough attention to the kid, usually from the time they were born. And they never forget it.
 
2012-05-08 12:06:07 AM

Cythraul: Mugato: Hitler really put the kibosh on the whole eugenics thing (as well as that mustache style) and turned everyone off to it but as a function of making our species better and speeding up what natural selection is going to do anyway.....there's little argument against it.

Little argument against it? Seems to me like there would be a lot of argument against it. As far as 'speeding up what natural selection is doing anyway,' the problem with trait selection within embryos is when you start getting into the specifics of what qualifies as 'inevitable evolutionary characteristics,' and what makes our species 'better.'

Some may believe that getting rid of all diseases is a reasonable thing to choose to select for, while others may want a certain hair or skin color, and even others may desire higher intelligence.

As if we didn't have enough of a problem as it is with discrimination. Or even worse, as my question above half-jokingly addresses an issue, what happens in a truly homogeneous society?


It should also be pointed out that genes linked to diseases may actually be linked to positive traits as well. Carrying one copy of the sickle cell gene protects you against malaria, which is probably why that gene evolved in the first place. If a particular gene has negative effects but is widespread, you have to wonder why it persisted in the population all these years...

IMO, eugenics at this point in time is like doing brain surgery with a medieval anatomy book and a kitchen knife.
 
2012-05-08 09:19:36 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: Wouldn't it be funny if Santorum's youngest daughter came out as gay? The one that he refused to have aborted?


I wonder if the likes of Santorum would still be so vehemently anti-abortion toward fetuses that were shown to be gay?
 
2012-05-08 12:28:28 PM
the problem with eugenics is that humans aren't as smart as they think they are.

It would likely lead to the same kind of problems that we have with our food supply, plants bred to bear more just don't not taste as good, they are bred for superficially good things but it's done in a way that eliminates genetic diversity and in the long run endanger the food source because we are not really capable as a whole of deciding what traits will be most important a hundred years or a millennium from now.

Don't put all of your fertilized embryos in one basket, I hope my grand kids are smart enough to stay "heirloom", after all, Einstein was obviously genetically flawed in just about every way except the way that ended up changing mankind.
 
2012-05-08 12:36:37 PM
So the grays are just humans from the future trying to stop themselves from making a mistake?
 
2012-05-08 02:21:11 PM

Cythraul: clyph: In any event, genetic diversity is a pro-survival trait; monocultures are inherently prone to extinction (EG the Irish Potato Famine). We cannot know what population pressures will emerge in the future.

I'm not sure what that has to do with genetic stagnation. Seems to me what you used as an example has more to do with the near complete loss of a staple food source.


If all the potatoes are genetically identical and get wiped out by some unforeseen event that genetically diverse potatoes could have survived, we done goofed.
 
2012-05-08 03:15:58 PM

NateAsbestos: Cythraul: clyph: In any event, genetic diversity is a pro-survival trait; monocultures are inherently prone to extinction (EG the Irish Potato Famine). We cannot know what population pressures will emerge in the future.

I'm not sure what that has to do with genetic stagnation. Seems to me what you used as an example has more to do with the near complete loss of a staple food source.

If all the potatoes are genetically identical and get wiped out by some unforeseen event that genetically diverse potatoes could have survived, we done goofed.


That is correct. However, if we allow genetically weak and vulnerable potatoes to be bred and survive when they would usually get wiped out without assistance - making them a sizable percentage of the population, we have also goofed.
 
Displayed 45 of 145 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report