Michael Ragland:
> I think it would be unwise to allow human overpopulation to reach the
> point it is generally unsustainable. I think 'value judgments' in this
> area are very much needed. However, as I pointed out according to
> Darwin/Malthus the overpopulation problem will not be solved with
> brains..but..being the animals we are...by disease, famine, and war. In
> the past this may have been a 'natural selection' but with the means of
> mass destruction the slaughter will be indiscriminate.
>

RKS:
Our brief freedom from infection is drawing to a close.  I haven't heard of
any advance on Vancomycin, prions could contain an unknown and lethal
potential, some of the genetically engineered diseases developed in the USA
and the former USSR might infect the general population and there are
numerous unknowns.

The rate of population increase in developed countries is small, negative
without immigration.  This must lead to a luxury sterilisation eventually,
in impotence through wealth.  It takes much longer to achieve the basic
level or standard in the richer countries.   When the average age of
'competency, perhaps marked by an ability to purchase a home and a
reasonable prospect that a family can be supported by just one wage earner,
at least for some period of months, exceeds the age of greatest fertility
for females, then the birth rate will decline.

If the age at which females are wanting to have their first baby is in the
16~20 year age group, then fertility is highest.  The proportion of women
needing medical intervention to conceive above age thirty (for first child)
is quite high.  I don't have the figures, but I think the age  at which the
average female is able to consider having the first child is a reasonable
index of fertility in a particular country.

It is interesting to note that when the age rises above thirty, females rely
heavily on the non-genetically derived apparatus for conception.  I readily
include science under the umbrella of culture (where culture is the
non-genetically derived inheritance) and so one can see that humans are
evolving way past their genetic predisposition ie the non-genetically
evolved vector, parallel with the genetic, not only takes over the role of
expression of behaviour (both have a prominent environmental component) but
is taking over some purely biological functions as  well.

Micheal:
> I still haven't figured out why you are opposed to the idea of
> genetically engineering humans. It's certainly not going to affect you
> and we'll both be dead by the time it is possibly done and any
> signifigant results appear. Maybe that is why people don't have much of
> an interest in it. It is too far removed.
>
RKS:
Because I don't think there is anyone on the planet that could judge the
goodness or fitness of any individual over any other.  At the turn of the
nineteenth century, the most fit individuals had excellent memory for facts
and figures, legible handwriting, and a firm constitution able to withstand
the many diseases and infection then untreatable.

The average computer nurd would have been weeded out half a century before
they came into their own and proved that one can go from the least fit to
the most fit in just a few short decades.

The parallel between aggression and ambition is far too close to call.
Ambition can almost be thought of as an intellectual aggression.  Aggression
in defence is not seen as bad, but stems from the same sentiment that
attacks.

When, in the past, I was faced with a computer, mathematical or electronics
problem it was aggression that saw me get hold of that problem and, as I
would have said back then, "ring its neck".  Aggression, pure and simple,
left me sitting before the computer for many hours into and sometimes
through the night.

How are we to remove aggression and not take out ambition and drive as well?
I am reminded of those people who have "Near Death Experiences".  I'm not
here concerned with the experience as reported but of the psychological
impact on these people.  Their aggression often leaves suddenly and
completely and they feel a great peace with the world.  They also lose all
their ambition and just float about feeling "nice".

I don't think we would even be having this discussion if it weren't for at
least some aggression.  We defend our territory, make a lunge with a
penetrating piece of logic, lose a few points, regroup, gather more
intelligence and then try again.

Nature has endowed us with many gifts, some of which we abuse and misuse.  I
don't think intervention at the genetic level can possibly be contemplated
by a people who are yet to properly understand their genetic inheritance.
If we are as aggressive as you say, then those people genetically deprived
of their aggression will almost certainly end up as the servants of those
who retain it.

--
Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/1/03 1:41:21 PM