Eugenics, for or Against?

orion · January 15, 2011, 7:55pm

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
We do NOT know the true number of misscarriages, you even say so yourself. Might be higher, might be lower. In reality the number is irreverent.

World of difference between a decision to abort a pregnancy and a miscarriage. Do you disagree??

[quote]orion wrote:
Numbers of abortions per year in the US 2005: 820000

There are 4,4 million pragnancies in the US each year, there are around 1000000 pregnancy losses and on top of it another 500000 miscarriages that we know of , because in most cases the woman never even guesses that she is pregnant.

So at the very least we have a ratio of 2:1 when it comes to miscarriages vs abortions and since most miscarriages take place before anyone knows there is even a pregnancy the number is likely to be much higher because all those pregnancies fall under miscarriages.

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

Furthermore, 30-50% of all fertilized ova fail before or during implantation which means we are somewhere in the ballpark of 6:1, 8:1, maybe higher.

[/quote]
[/quote]

Of course it is different but your first statement is just nonsense.

We know of the miscarriages but we also know that the majority of miscarriages are not counted because every single one of them happens before the womman even notices?

SO how could it possibly be lower ? That would mean that there are pregnancies out there that are carried out without the women themselves noticing.

[/quote]

we know once they make a tv show about it.
http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/i-didnt-know-i-was-pregnant/about-the-show.html[/quote]

I am assuming that once it pops out the mother kind of notices, but in this day and age I am seriously considering that I might be wrong.

I swear that the internet has taken my respect for mankind and replaced it with a sense of awe that we made it that far.

MattyG35 · January 15, 2011, 7:48pm

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Reading comprehension FAIL!! I refuse to provide counterpoints to anything you bring to the table because a third grader grasps concepts easier.[/quote]

What concept did you explain?

That vaccinations are useless?
They aren’t. I provided proof of that(polio, small pox) which you won’t even acknowledge.
HISTORY COMPREHENSION FAIL
That b/c you grew up around 2nd hand smoke(and were “often sick” as you put it) and haven’t been affected as far as you can tell(at the moment)?
You’ve only posted your deranged opinion here, You haven’t provided any sources. I’ll stop what I know is coming next, I sourced wiki, but you know what, wiki is sourced too, and that’s more than you’ve brought to the table.

I think I see a troll.

swoleupinya · January 15, 2011, 9:36pm

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
We do NOT know the true number of misscarriages, you even say so yourself. Might be higher, might be lower. In reality the number is irreverent.

World of difference between a decision to abort a pregnancy and a miscarriage. Do you disagree??

[quote]orion wrote:
Numbers of abortions per year in the US 2005: 820000

There are 4,4 million pragnancies in the US each year, there are around 1000000 pregnancy losses and on top of it another 500000 miscarriages that we know of , because in most cases the woman never even guesses that she is pregnant.

So at the very least we have a ratio of 2:1 when it comes to miscarriages vs abortions and since most miscarriages take place before anyone knows there is even a pregnancy the number is likely to be much higher because all those pregnancies fall under miscarriages.

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

Furthermore, 30-50% of all fertilized ova fail before or during implantation which means we are somewhere in the ballpark of 6:1, 8:1, maybe higher.

[/quote]
[/quote]

Of course it is different but your first statement is just nonsense.

We know of the miscarriages but we also know that the majority of miscarriages are not counted because every single one of them happens before the womman even notices?

SO how could it possibly be lower ? That would mean that there are pregnancies out there that are carried out without the women themselves noticing.

[/quote]

we know once they make a tv show about it.
http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/i-didnt-know-i-was-pregnant/about-the-show.html[/quote]

I am assuming that once it pops out the mother kind of notices, but in this day and age I am seriously considering that I might be wrong.

I swear that the internet has taken my respect for mankind and replaced it with a sense of awe that we made it that far.
[/quote]

You know, sometimes, when you hear something like this that seems astounding in its stupidity, it could be a result of your ignorance on the topic.

It is not uncommon for women to miss one or two periods, then have a miscarriage within the first trimester that is mistaken for a heavy flow. It happens quite regularly. Of course, this makes more sense when you understand the scale of the embryo at this point and the physiology of a miscarriage… how it breaks down, etc…

orion · January 15, 2011, 9:44pm

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
We do NOT know the true number of misscarriages, you even say so yourself. Might be higher, might be lower. In reality the number is irreverent.

World of difference between a decision to abort a pregnancy and a miscarriage. Do you disagree??

[quote]orion wrote:
Numbers of abortions per year in the US 2005: 820000

There are 4,4 million pragnancies in the US each year, there are around 1000000 pregnancy losses and on top of it another 500000 miscarriages that we know of , because in most cases the woman never even guesses that she is pregnant.

So at the very least we have a ratio of 2:1 when it comes to miscarriages vs abortions and since most miscarriages take place before anyone knows there is even a pregnancy the number is likely to be much higher because all those pregnancies fall under miscarriages.

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

Furthermore, 30-50% of all fertilized ova fail before or during implantation which means we are somewhere in the ballpark of 6:1, 8:1, maybe higher.

[/quote]
[/quote]

Of course it is different but your first statement is just nonsense.

We know of the miscarriages but we also know that the majority of miscarriages are not counted because every single one of them happens before the womman even notices?

SO how could it possibly be lower ? That would mean that there are pregnancies out there that are carried out without the women themselves noticing.

[/quote]

we know once they make a tv show about it.
http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/i-didnt-know-i-was-pregnant/about-the-show.html[/quote]

I am assuming that once it pops out the mother kind of notices, but in this day and age I am seriously considering that I might be wrong.

I swear that the internet has taken my respect for mankind and replaced it with a sense of awe that we made it that far.
[/quote]

You know, sometimes, when you hear something like this that seems astounding in its stupidity, it could be a result of your ignorance on the topic.

It is not uncommon for women to miss one or two periods, then have a miscarriage within the first trimester that is mistaken for a heavy flow. It happens quite regularly. Of course, this makes more sense when you understand the scale of the embryo at this point and the physiology of a miscarriage… how it breaks down, etc…

[/quote]

Na, that would be just one of the miscarriages I included above.

For his scenario to happen the child would have literally to pop out alive without the mother noticing.

swoleupinya · January 15, 2011, 9:49pm

I must have missed something… I did just wake up from a nap.

RyuuKyuzo · January 16, 2011, 3:14am

Science is quickly making eugenics obsolete. The bodies we end up with now is more or less just an accident, but when it becomes a choice, our bodies won’t matter so much.

I see no problem with this.

MattyG35 · January 16, 2011, 3:24am

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Science is quickly making eugenics obsolete. The bodies we end up with now is more or less just an accident, but when it becomes a choice, our bodies won’t matter so much.

I see no problem with this.[/quote]

Would you expand on this more? I’m curious about the breakthroughs(?) that you are referring to. I read before about people wanting to have themselves ‘put into a computer’(I don’t know how to describe this very well) so that they could live forever(hypothetically).

kilpaba · January 17, 2011, 5:05pm

I would also like to point out from a breeding standpoint that evolution is a zero sum game. Part of the issue with the eugenics movement is the assumption that all traits can be maximized at one time. This is not a knock against intentional breeding or eugenics, but it is a point that is often overlooked. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

For example, in animal husbandry you generally run into the following problem (hideously over simplified)- increased yield (size and carcass yield) the lower the hardiness of the animal. In effect the animal puts all of its energy into growing bigger and faster and as a result becomes more susceptible to illness and parasites. They also generally require much more/better quality feed than other “hardier” breeds. Compare the Boer goat to the Kiko goat as an example of what I mean.

My point is two fold: There is no such thing as a free lunch (i.e. to increase one trait another MUST be diminished since there are limited resources) and the law of unintended consequences.

By making someone have super human strength you might also greatly increase their risk of injury due to the volatility such physical power brings with it. Perhaps a trade off someone can live with but a trade off nonetheless. Just something to think about when talk of “super humans” gets thrown around.

MattyG35 · January 17, 2011, 5:11pm

Good point kilpaba.
Sort of like in a video game where you give your player different stats for different characteristics, ie strength intelligence, perception etc(<3 Fallout)
So just like strength training and fitness, it’s about optimization (for long term success), and perhaps maximization (for short-term success?)

Something that comes to mind directly would be a bbing show. Although I’ve never taken part, I’ve met some people that have, and they told me they were like zombies at the weigh-in. So while they maximized themselves in the short term, in the long run it isn’t sustainable.

kilpaba · January 17, 2011, 9:23pm

It is definitely similar. The traits which are diminished are not always “visible” traits. For example, take humans with inhibited myostatin production (a human analog to the belgian blue). While extraordinarily strong and muscular with zero work, they have monstrously fast metabolisms that make it nearly impossible to eat enough food to prevent brain and nerve damage (fat is necessary for mental and nervous system functions by dent of the myelin sheath). Super human muscle growth = lifetime struggle to prevent neurological wasting.

Here is a fun video game analogy. Think of Protos and Zerg within Star Craft. While Protos units are superior in most every visible way they are diminished in effect by their high mineral costs. Zerg, individually SEEM to be weaker, but long term and aggregate they are quite powerful because they do not require as much maintenance as the Protos.

Brother_Chris · January 18, 2011, 3:39am

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
How does this by any means define how YOU can choose who dies and which child lives?? Plus I KNOW far more abortions kill children in this country than miscarriages ever would. Even at 6’7" I know that is a stretch!!

[/quote]

That is not true.

Much more fertilized ova fail to attach to the placenta or are spontaneously rejected by the mothers body than there are abortions.

It is not even close.
[/quote]

Are you including Abortifacient birth control into that number? Think about the 100’s possibly even 1000’s of aborted fertilized ova that each women in America, Europe, Africa, &c. have from this kind of contraception. We have no clue how many, it is an impossible amount to count.

Brother_Chris · January 18, 2011, 3:41am

[quote]orion wrote:
Numbers of abortions per year in the US 2005: 820000

There are 4,4 million pragnancies in the US each year, there are around 1000000 pregnancy losses and on top of it another 500000 miscarriages that we know of , because in most cases the woman never even guesses that she is pregnant.

So at the very least we have a ratio of 2:1 when it comes to miscarriages vs abortions and since most miscarriages take place before anyone knows there is even a pregnancy the number is likely to be much higher because all those pregnancies fall under miscarriages.

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

Furthermore, 30-50% of all fertilized ova fail before or during implantation which means we are somewhere in the ballpark of 6:1, 8:1, maybe higher.

[/quote]

You forgot the abortifacient birth control that, I’d probably guess that, the majority of fertile women are on in America.

MassiveGuns · January 18, 2011, 6:25pm

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
It is definitely similar. The traits which are diminished are not always “visible” traits. For example, take humans with inhibited myostatin production (a human analog to the belgian blue). While extraordinarily strong and muscular with zero work, they have monstrously fast metabolisms that make it nearly impossible to eat enough food to prevent brain and nerve damage (fat is necessary for mental and nervous system functions by dent of the myelin sheath). Super human muscle growth = lifetime struggle to prevent neurological wasting.

Here is a fun video game analogy. Think of Protos and Zerg within Star Craft. While Protos units are superior in most every visible way they are diminished in effect by their high mineral costs. Zerg, individually SEEM to be weaker, but long term and aggregate they are quite powerful because they do not require as much maintenance as the Protos.[/quote]

Finally, some intelligent and on topic commentary. I guess you are right, there are always trade offs to be made when it comes to biological traits. The more specifically adapted an organism is to it’s environment, the less adaptable to change and more vulnerable the species becomes as a whole.

I do think though that some traits can be gained with relatively little evolutionary compromise. Gorillas are 4x stronger pound for pound than humans. This is because of greatly increased muscle fibre density. If such traits were developed in humans, along with intelligence levels of the top 0.1 percentile, we would have effectively superhuman offspring with relatively few trade offs I think. This would of course depend on how far you tried to push the boundaries though.

MattyG35 · January 18, 2011, 6:31pm

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
It is definitely similar. The traits which are diminished are not always “visible” traits. For example, take humans with inhibited myostatin production (a human analog to the belgian blue). While extraordinarily strong and muscular with zero work, they have monstrously fast metabolisms that make it nearly impossible to eat enough food to prevent brain and nerve damage (fat is necessary for mental and nervous system functions by dent of the myelin sheath). Super human muscle growth = lifetime struggle to prevent neurological wasting.

Here is a fun video game analogy. Think of Protos and Zerg within Star Craft. While Protos units are superior in most every visible way they are diminished in effect by their high mineral costs. Zerg, individually SEEM to be weaker, but long term and aggregate they are quite powerful because they do not require as much maintenance as the Protos.[/quote]

Finally, some intelligent and on topic commentary. I guess you are right, there are always trade offs to be made when it comes to biological traits. The more specifically adapted an organism is to it’s environment, the less adaptable to change and more vulnerable the species becomes as a whole.

I do think though that some traits can be gained with relatively little evolutionary compromise. Gorillas are 4x stronger pound for pound than humans. This is because of greatly increased muscle fibre density. If such traits were developed in humans, along with intelligence levels of the top 0.1 percentile, we would have effectively superhuman offspring with relatively few trade offs I think. This would of course depend on how far you tried to push the boundaries though.
[/quote]

Could that be where humans and gorillas separated in history? They went on to became hulk-like, while our brains increased in size?

Fletch1986 · January 18, 2011, 6:44pm

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
It is definitely similar. The traits which are diminished are not always “visible” traits. For example, take humans with inhibited myostatin production (a human analog to the belgian blue). While extraordinarily strong and muscular with zero work, they have monstrously fast metabolisms that make it nearly impossible to eat enough food to prevent brain and nerve damage (fat is necessary for mental and nervous system functions by dent of the myelin sheath). Super human muscle growth = lifetime struggle to prevent neurological wasting.

Here is a fun video game analogy. Think of Protos and Zerg within Star Craft. While Protos units are superior in most every visible way they are diminished in effect by their high mineral costs. Zerg, individually SEEM to be weaker, but long term and aggregate they are quite powerful because they do not require as much maintenance as the Protos.[/quote]

Finally, some intelligent and on topic commentary. I guess you are right, there are always trade offs to be made when it comes to biological traits. The more specifically adapted an organism is to it’s environment, the less adaptable to change and more vulnerable the species becomes as a whole.

I do think though that some traits can be gained with relatively little evolutionary compromise. Gorillas are 4x stronger pound for pound than humans. This is because of greatly increased muscle fibre density. If such traits were developed in humans, along with intelligence levels of the top 0.1 percentile, we would have effectively superhuman offspring with relatively few trade offs I think. This would of course depend on how far you tried to push the boundaries though.

[/quote]

This person would never get to use their superhuman strength or intelligence because they would be eating all the time. Muscle and brains takes a huge amount of energy. Not to mention trying to pass a muscle bound big headed infant through a vajayjay would pose difficulties.

Fletch1986 · January 18, 2011, 6:47pm

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
It is definitely similar. The traits which are diminished are not always “visible” traits. For example, take humans with inhibited myostatin production (a human analog to the belgian blue). While extraordinarily strong and muscular with zero work, they have monstrously fast metabolisms that make it nearly impossible to eat enough food to prevent brain and nerve damage (fat is necessary for mental and nervous system functions by dent of the myelin sheath). Super human muscle growth = lifetime struggle to prevent neurological wasting.

Here is a fun video game analogy. Think of Protos and Zerg within Star Craft. While Protos units are superior in most every visible way they are diminished in effect by their high mineral costs. Zerg, individually SEEM to be weaker, but long term and aggregate they are quite powerful because they do not require as much maintenance as the Protos.[/quote]

Finally, some intelligent and on topic commentary. I guess you are right, there are always trade offs to be made when it comes to biological traits. The more specifically adapted an organism is to it’s environment, the less adaptable to change and more vulnerable the species becomes as a whole.

I do think though that some traits can be gained with relatively little evolutionary compromise. Gorillas are 4x stronger pound for pound than humans. This is because of greatly increased muscle fibre density. If such traits were developed in humans, along with intelligence levels of the top 0.1 percentile, we would have effectively superhuman offspring with relatively few trade offs I think. This would of course depend on how far you tried to push the boundaries though.
[/quote]

Could that be where humans and gorillas separated in history? They went on to became hulk-like, while our brains increased in size?[/quote]

It happened on more than one occasion actually. I forget the name, but the lucy ancestor split into a larger more herbivorous specie that went extinct, and Neanderthal too. Some think Neanderthal went extinct simply because it had too high of a calorie expenditure relative to us.

MattyG35 · January 18, 2011, 6:58pm

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Could that be where humans and gorillas separated in history? They went on to became hulk-like, while our brains increased in size?[/quote]

It happened on more than one occasion actually. I forget the name, but the lucy ancestor split into a larger more herbivorous specie that went extinct, and Neanderthal too. Some think Neanderthal went extinct simply because it had too high of a calorie expenditure relative to us.
[/quote]

I recall something similar. I think it had to do with Neanderthals, and how the had some advantages over us, a larger brain, muscle mass. The deciding factor(if I’m remembering correctly) was that the Neanderthals remained nomadic while we didnt. That would explain your high kcal expenditure.

kilpaba · January 18, 2011, 7:41pm

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
It is definitely similar. The traits which are diminished are not always “visible” traits. For example, take humans with inhibited myostatin production (a human analog to the belgian blue). While extraordinarily strong and muscular with zero work, they have monstrously fast metabolisms that make it nearly impossible to eat enough food to prevent brain and nerve damage (fat is necessary for mental and nervous system functions by dent of the myelin sheath). Super human muscle growth = lifetime struggle to prevent neurological wasting.

Here is a fun video game analogy. Think of Protos and Zerg within Star Craft. While Protos units are superior in most every visible way they are diminished in effect by their high mineral costs. Zerg, individually SEEM to be weaker, but long term and aggregate they are quite powerful because they do not require as much maintenance as the Protos.[/quote]

Finally, some intelligent and on topic commentary. I guess you are right, there are always trade offs to be made when it comes to biological traits. The more specifically adapted an organism is to it’s environment, the less adaptable to change and more vulnerable the species becomes as a whole.

I do think though that some traits can be gained with relatively little evolutionary compromise. Gorillas are 4x stronger pound for pound than humans. This is because of greatly increased muscle fibre density. If such traits were developed in humans, along with intelligence levels of the top 0.1 percentile, we would have effectively superhuman offspring with relatively few trade offs I think. This would of course depend on how far you tried to push the boundaries though.
[/quote]

Could that be where humans and gorillas separated in history? They went on to became hulk-like, while our brains increased in size?[/quote]

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
It is definitely similar. The traits which are diminished are not always “visible” traits. For example, take humans with inhibited myostatin production (a human analog to the belgian blue). While extraordinarily strong and muscular with zero work, they have monstrously fast metabolisms that make it nearly impossible to eat enough food to prevent brain and nerve damage (fat is necessary for mental and nervous system functions by dent of the myelin sheath). Super human muscle growth = lifetime struggle to prevent neurological wasting.

Here is a fun video game analogy. Think of Protos and Zerg within Star Craft. While Protos units are superior in most every visible way they are diminished in effect by their high mineral costs. Zerg, individually SEEM to be weaker, but long term and aggregate they are quite powerful because they do not require as much maintenance as the Protos.[/quote]

Finally, some intelligent and on topic commentary. I guess you are right, there are always trade offs to be made when it comes to biological traits. The more specifically adapted an organism is to it’s environment, the less adaptable to change and more vulnerable the species becomes as a whole.

I do think though that some traits can be gained with relatively little evolutionary compromise. Gorillas are 4x stronger pound for pound than humans. This is because of greatly increased muscle fibre density. If such traits were developed in humans, along with intelligence levels of the top 0.1 percentile, we would have effectively superhuman offspring with relatively few trade offs I think. This would of course depend on how far you tried to push the boundaries though.
[/quote]

Could that be where humans and gorillas separated in history? They went on to became hulk-like, while our brains increased in size?[/quote]

A major reason humans (at least theoretically) began developing larger brains was often because they had gracile (e.g. weak and fragile) physical bodies compared to other primates and thus had to compete with something else if they were to survive. This is in part why as our physical bodies diminished our mental capabilities grew in lock step (again to the best of our knowledge).

Given the huge metabolic demands brains require it is also highly likely that given the food gathering capabilities at the time that humans simply could not afford to have both a big brain and a large and powerful physical body.

Agreed that many strength advantages could be gained on the cheap via shifting tendon insertion points, but who knows what effects this would have on other capabilities (perhaps it would decrease flexibility, throwing or sprinting in some way or something to that effect).

Still the benefit of eugenics, as in typical breeding protocols, would be that if you knew of just a couple of traits that were important to you above all others you could easily select for those and just live with the side effects. Some folks might genuinely not care if their child required 15,000 calories a day to live if they were a sporting phenom.

Fletch1986 · January 18, 2011, 7:47pm

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Could that be where humans and gorillas separated in history? They went on to became hulk-like, while our brains increased in size?[/quote]

It happened on more than one occasion actually. I forget the name, but the lucy ancestor split into a larger more herbivorous specie that went extinct, and Neanderthal too. Some think Neanderthal went extinct simply because it had too high of a calorie expenditure relative to us.
[/quote]

I recall something similar. I think it had to do with Neanderthals, and how the had some advantages over us, a larger brain, muscle mass. The deciding factor(if I’m remembering correctly) was that the Neanderthals remained nomadic while we didnt. That would explain your high kcal expenditure.
[/quote]

Their slightly larger brain than ours was probably just because they were larger. Larger animals need more brain mass to control that extra mass. An extreme example is an elephant. Their brain is way bigger than ours, but they aren’t way smarter.

Fletch1986 · January 18, 2011, 7:48pm

[quote]kilpaba wrote: