"Jim Menegay"  wrote in message
news:bqtpe9$1sho$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> In response to my somewhat satiric tweaking of his
enthusiasm for the
> genetic engineering of humans as a solution to the world's
problems,
> (see the thread "Question for Mr. Tyler") Michael Ragland
asks in passing:
>
> > What is Gosplan? Since you use the term more than once
I'm assuming it
> > is not fatigue. More likely it has some facetious
quality.
>
> GOSPLAN was the Soviet central economic planning agency.
I used the term
> in order to raise the question as to whether the use of
genetic engineering
> services would be mandatory; not, as Michael
understandably assumed,
> to ask whether the services would be free and universally
available.
> Sorry for creating the confusion.
>
> To the extent that I had a point in suggesting that we try
to eliminate
> the "primary source of genetically caused aggression" -
the Y chromosome -
> the point was that people are likely to respond
emotionally to any attempt
> to change human nature.  And, emotionally is putting it
mildly.  Hell, I
> can't even buy genetically engineered tomatos!  My Y
chromosome example
> was chosen to cause Mr Ragland to feel some of that
emotion himself, so
> that he might come to understand a little of the
opposition he is likely
> to face.  It obviously didn't work.

If the anti-scientists and Luddites have their way, perhaps
even natural crop breeding techniques will be prohibited
someday. :) Hopefully, someday perhaps, pro-science folks
will have their predominance and the world can make some
real progress. In several centuries I am sure that, along
with our ultimate final push to conquer and colonize space,
GNP (genetically modified people) will be common amongst the
population--moreover, "gengineering" will begin to bring the
onset of human sub-species, as such will be needed to
colonize and develop semi-hostile- environment planets and
other unusual alien (and Earth-like) eco-systems.

It will be realized that gene tinkerings (as well as medical
and biomechanical tinkering) are not equivalent to
historically proposed eugenic programs, but rather, will be
a new means of human diversification--just as the natural
development of myriad species themselves was a general means
of diversification of primordial life itself.

> The idea of eliminating males seems almost genoci
dal, but when you look at
> it rationally it is really a good deal for us guys.  We
would get to
> donate 23 full size chromosomes to all of our offspring
instead of
> having to settle for 22 + epsilon half the time, as is now
the case.

I agree! To carry it further, chromosone redesign and/or
supplementation to any degree would be a good thing for
everyone too, when such capabilities become available in
future, of course. Elimination of certain diseases and human
limitations may only be possible through adding _new_,
"designer" chromosomes to the genome.

> But, somehow, we still tend to react emotionally and
negatively to ideas
> like this.  Mr. Ragland needs to realize that many people
LIKE being
> aggressive and they want their children to be just like
themselves.
>
> Furthermore, talking about improving the world by genetic
engineering
> sounds too much like previous talk about saving the world
thru eugenics.
> I hope I don't need to explain why that was a bad idea.

Actually, it's cloning which sounds like it's the only real
thing
applicable to the old ideas of eugenics--cloning might
possibly be a poor idea for the species except as an initial
means of generating proto-typical desired sub-species. I
don't think _any_ form of gengineering should be limited or
proscribed by law however!

> Although I wrote satirically, and somewhat uncharitably, I
now realize
> that Mr. Ragland is sincere and unhumorous in his hopes
for genetic
> engineering and not completely naive about the prospects.
He writes:
>
> > Obviously, writing about genetic engineering of
aggression is useless in
> > dealing with the sociological problems which now face
us. My hope is
> > there are enough intelligent, decent, and courageous
folks in the world
> > who can help keep the ship from entirely burning up
until genetic
> > science does signifigantly genetically engineer human
beings.
>
> I share his hope for a breathing space, but I see a far
better chance of
> salvation in the possibility that social science discovers
a better social
> structure to accomodate our coexistence and collective
decision making.
> Our problems are social, not biological.

I definitely agree that social advances are also necessary
with all of the scientific ones. Presumably, this will also
occur with time, albeit slowly.

> How hopeful am I of such a breakthru and its successful
implementation?
> Not very.
>
> But, just so I don't end on such a pessimistic note, and
to get back to
> sci.bio.evolution, let me say that there are some
interesting
> questions for evolutionary theorists in both of my two
main flights of
> fancy - "genetic marketing" and "Y-extinction".
>
> My guess is that freely available partial control over the
genetics of
> our offspring would NOT be a new era in evolution.
Instead, it would be
> a lot like the sexual selection that takes place in many
species today.

Like that which obtains every night at the local bars? :)

> That is, some "phenotypic fad" would catch on, and
everyone else would
> have to go along, or their children would be at a
reproductive disadvantage.
> Although, there is also the possibility of sympatric
speciation here, due
> to the competition among fads.  In fact, I think
speciation would be
> inevitable.

Yes! I think that that once the fads reach their peak, the
myriad modifications will be pared back by natural
evolution, as well as sociological acceptance.

> Y-extinction is even more interesting.  Removing Y does
nothing to remove
> all those genes for aggression that Mike Ragland is
worried about.  It just
> removes the trigger for the epigenetic cascade that leads
to their expression.
> So those genes would still be there in the genome,
silently waiting, like a
> ticking time bomb. (How is that for an oxymoronic mixed
metaphor ;-)
>
> Eventually, some mutation will lead to the enhanced
expression of that
> formerly silent gene.  But would selection then favor the
new aggressive
> phenotype?  I suspect not - selection does not favor the
expression of
> aggression in the female sex now, and I don't see any
reason why that will
> have changed.  So, I am guessing that the root
evolutionary cause of the
> bad stuff in our genome, that Mike Ragland wants to get
rid of, is sexual
> selection.  So, maybe Y-extinction WOULD be a permanent
fix to the problem.

I think that, eventuallly, one sex is definitely the way to
go. First of all, it makes everything so much simpler.   :)
.....tonyC

>      Jim
>
---
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 12/7/03 8:36:53 PM