Who should your daughter marry?

[christibe]

Selective breeding is directly counter to Darwin's Evolutionary Theory of natural selection, or, 'Evolution.'

We have been breeding animals and plants for centuries because we wanted to create them into something specific, selectively choosing ourselves the most desirable traits we wanted to see in the future generations. We were therefore 'playing God', because we wanted 'better meat' or a 'better fighting dog', or what have you. Since Darwin proposed his theories regarding evolution, it can be explained that by doing so we have been acting on behalf of evolution by selectively breeding a species. Selective breeding does not allow for evolution, I think, as it demonstrates that we do not trust in Evolution whatsoever because we would presume to know better than it, and shape the course of the species development.



An aside, there are usually unfortunate consequence to breeding, and the natural eventual in-breeding that will occur regardless of size of the original population. When there are less variables given to the organism regarding 'genes available', the effect seems to be that both positive and negative traits, over time, will strengthen. So, with that great hunting nose of your dogs, you'll also get worse degenerative bone disease, or mental handicaps, and so on. So, selective breeding of humans should follow this same trend, and eventually we may all be strong and intelligent, but maybe that gene carries with it a passive trait where a hole develops in your heart, or more dramatically, the body is unable to produce dopamine, or something, and yeah we're buff and smart but we'll die by the time we're 35 and be horrendously depressed our entire short, but mad physically attractive, lives.

So, I feel that your stance is actually counter to Darwinist Evolutionary theory.

Also, I agree with Muckraker that evolution was pretty nice to us and through the good luck we've had, we've come to the point where the inevitable burdens of being biological creatures, i.e. disease, physical weakness, essential needs of food and shelter, etc. do not seem to carry the same weight with us as they do to every other species. Somehow we have figured out over our short evolutionary life to harness the earth, seas and sky, creating our own permanent shelter and food supply, so on. We have learned about ourselves so much that we live for a pretty astounding period of time relative to our ancestors. We have learned to make ourselves not sick by discovering medicine so with that longer life comes a pretty good quality, relatively speaking. And, we learned how to be like god in that we have shaped the courses of other species development. We do not have to fear the leader of the pack will decide to get rid of us for being slow, or weak, or just too strong enough to be a threat, and we don't need to reproduce as much as possible because most of our young will die. Somehow, evolution got us to a place where we aren't playing to that same set of rules anymore.

So, what then is the new desirable trait to propagate? Health and strength no longer matter because they can be provided for us through our unique gift of possessing the sort of reasoning minds that can affect the external world. This is where the similarity between your thought and Hitler and the KKK was alluded- that in the absence of true need for survival, what trait would be worthy enough to focus upon in our future generations? It is a choice based on desire alone. Hitler's was to cleanse the human race of all 'non-Aryan' genes. Which is valid in this construct, So, it is valid to cleanse the gene pool of all traits that do not create 'blonde-blue eyed Aryans' (apparently?!? wtf anyway) as it is to want say 'artistic' or 'athletic' ones (again, wtf?!? anyway... its just silly)

Many dystopias have been created in science fiction on this topic. It's just a dangerous idea, is all. But I feel that your intention was positive.

christina-

[Technosoul]

Quote by: christibe Selective breeding is directly counter to Darwin's Evolutionary Theory of natural selection, or, 'Evolution.' We have been breeding animals and plants for centuries because we wanted to create them into something specific, selectively choosing ourselves the most desirable traits we wanted to see in the future generations. We were therefore 'playing God', because we wanted 'better meat' or a 'better fighting dog', or what have you. Since Darwin proposed his theories regarding evolution, it can be explained that by doing so we have been acting on behalf of evolution by selectively breeding a species. Selective breeding does not allow for evolution, I think, as it demonstrates that we do not trust in Evolution whatsoever because we would presume to know better than it, and shape the course of the species development. You state that we breed animals, using our knowledge about evolution to create speical breeds, such as a turkey that has more white meat but cannot stand upright - so they prop it up until it is old enough to kill. I do not favor such tampering my self. But if the objective is to have the most healthy kids possible ( assuming the daughter is also healthy) then that does not 'destroy' anything. And it would be done willingly and not as a enforced pairing off by the government or by religion. An aside, there are usually unfortunate consequence to breeding, and the natural eventual in-breeding that will occur regardless of size of the original population. When there are less variables given to the organism regarding 'genes available', the effect seems to be that both positive and negative traits, over time, will strengthen. So, with that great hunting nose of your dogs, you'll also get worse degenerative bone disease, or mental handicaps, and so on. So, selective breeding of humans should follow this same trend, and eventually we may all be strong and intelligent, but maybe that gene carries with it a passive trait where a hole develops in your heart, or more dramatically, the body is unable to produce dopamine, or something, and yeah we're buff and smart but we'll die by the time we're 35 and be horrendously depressed our entire short, but mad physically attractive, lives. So, I feel that your stance is actually counter to Darwinist Evolutionary theory. Also, I agree with Muckraker that evolution was pretty nice to us and through the good luck we've had, we've come to the point where the inevitable burdens of being biological creatures, i.e. disease, physical weakness, essential needs of food and shelter, etc. do not seem to carry the same weight with us as they do to every other species. Somehow we have figured out over our short evolutionary life to harness the earth, seas and sky, creating our own permanent shelter and food supply, so on. We have learned about ourselves so much that we live for a pretty astounding period of time relative to our ancestors. We have learned to make ourselves not sick by discovering medicine so with that longer life comes a pretty good quality, relatively speaking. And, we learned how to be like god in that we have shaped the courses of other species development. We do not have to fear the leader of the pack will decide to get rid of us for being slow, or weak, or just too strong enough to be a threat, and we don't need to reproduce as much as possible because most of our young will die. Somehow, evolution got us to a place where we aren't playing to that same set of rules anymore. So, what then is the new desirable trait to propagate? Health and strength no longer matter because they can be provided for us through our unique gift of possessing the sort of reasoning minds that can affect the external world. This is where the similarity between your thought and Hitler and the KKK was alluded- that in the absence of true need for survival, what trait would be worthy enough to focus upon in our future generations? It is a choice based on desire alone. Hitler's was to cleanse the human race of all 'non-Aryan' genes. Which is valid in this construct, So, it is valid to cleanse the gene pool of all traits that do not create 'blonde-blue eyed Aryans' (apparently?!? wtf anyway) as it is to want say 'artistic' or 'athletic' ones (again, wtf?!? anyway... its just silly) Many dystopias have been created in science fiction on this topic. It's just a dangerous idea, is all. But I feel that your intention was positive. christina-

I. - And so you state that evoution is smarter then humans. I did not know that evolution was an intelligence. Or that evolution is a kind of intelligence smarter then human intelligence, as you suggested. Or else you believe that randomness is smarter then intelligent planning. Is that scientific or a religious viewpoint?

2 - Now if they breed a turkey to have more white meat then that is not an intelligent way to help the turkey survive better in the wild, as that breed of turkey must be proped up as it becomes top heavey when mature. But humans give thanks for more white meat. I think that such use of our knowledge is bad for the turkey and for nature in general.
But wanting healthy grandchildren is a totally different matter. (and being this is all about free will choice the daughter will no doubt not follow the advice anyway - none the less "daddy" will give his best advice anyway in most homes).

3 - The theory used by Hitler an the KKK are based on race and not health. As we know by watching sporting events African Americans are more fit and can jump higher due to better physical abilities. So telling your daughter to marry someone of the same race is hardly a intelligent way to insure healthy grandchildren and might come closer to in-breeding problems so mentioned. Breeding for the purposes of having only one race (white people) is contraproductive to breeding for the purposes of having more healthy people in the future, which works best via a diversity in the gene pool. To compare "health" with "race" is a missleading argument.

4 - The idea that it is no longer important to have naturally healthy grandchildren because they now can go in and get cancer treatments and live longer due to prescription drugs is dangerious if you want my opinon. Assuming her potential mate (or she is) wealthy enough to take advantage of expensive health care. What about the future of humans if suddenly a massive event destroyed the drug companies and hospitals and they had to live "off of nature' for a long time before society could be re-built. Then what? I will answer my question. Those who got sick would all die because we did not see the wisdom of being prepared.
So by reducing the chances that illnesses that are passed down genetically is wise and via "designer marrages" we can make sure they are not passed down, is the most intelligent choice. Which we now have knowledge about due to the theory of evolution and the spin-off projects in biology an genetic research.

Keep in mind that people of any race can be healthy and have a faimly tree (for the past few generations) that does not have a history of serious health related illnesses like cancer or heart attacks. Alhough the number of 'natrually' healthy people are vanishing due to random mixing it is still a chance to save the furture. Even if "a good man is hard to find nowasdays".

[christibe]

I. - And so you state that evoution is smarter then humans. I did not know that evolution was an intelligence. Or that evolution is a kind of intelligence smarter then human intelligence, as you suggested. Or else you believe that randomness is smarter then intelligent planning. Is that scientific or a religious viewpoint?

No, that is not what I state, nor is there the possibility that I would state thusly.

I suggested that if we decide the course of future generations of a species then evolution cannot take place because evolution requires random selection and the adaptation of the species because of natural selection, where the weaker and less desirable traits are gradually weeded out through individual adaptability found through the ability to attract mates for reproduction. Unless humans can become evolution, which cannot since it is a theory formed by a human's empirical observation of the world regarding the most likely manner that species formation takes, then humans deciding the adaptation of a species cannot be evolution. Selective breeding uses knowledge found through understanding evolution, to a degree, and the knowledge found through the direct study of biology. I only state that selective breeding is not evolutionary because it is contra to the theory. We have a desired goal in mind when we breed a species and will work to meet that goal. It is thus not evolution. The 'intelligence' measuring, or giving value or validation to, both 'approaches', I suppose, was never required by my statement, as my statement only questioned your premise. I did share that there can be unexpected and unwelcome consequence to breeding.

2 - Now if they breed a turkey to have more white meat then that is not an intelligent way to help the turkey survive better in the wild, as that breed of turkey must be proped up as it becomes top heavey when mature. But humans give thanks for more white meat. I think that such use of our knowledge is bad for the turkey and for nature in general. But wanting healthy grandchildren is a totally different matter. (and being this is all about free will choice the daughter will no doubt not follow the advice anyway - none the less "daddy" will give his best advice anyway in most homes).

It doesn't intend to help the turkey survive, instead it is just meeting a predetermined goal. Thus, it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Wanting healthy grandchildren is a natural desire as we want our species to be strong and healthy. It is the way we define 'strong and healthy' that has become something different from ability to survive. We do not have to define it anymore as being the one who can produce offspring that can be better and stronger than the current leader of the pack. We simply do not live in that set of rules anymore. So, we simply just have the ability to extend our definition, and rules of attractiveness.

3 - The theory used by Hitler an the KKK are based on race and not health. As we know by watching sporting events African Americans are more fit and can jump higher due to better physical abilities. So telling your daughter to marry someone of the same race is hardly a intelligent way to insure healthy grandchildren and might come closer to in-breeding problems so mentioned. Breeding for the purposes of having only one race (white people) is contraproductive to breeding for the purposes of having more healthy people in the future, which works best via a diversity in the gene pool. To compare "health" with "race" is a missleading argument.

I think that you are rejecting Hitler's supposition based on prejudice, which is fine given the atrocious nature in which he was willing to produce his desired goals. I also think that you feel I must require you to follow the exact thought behind these two theories of selective breeding. The reason behind Hitler's focusing on race is that he believed that the Aryan race is the superior race, that this race is defined by having the most attractive traits. Because the Aryan race holds the best and only desirable traits, then it is the race to continue the species with. Apply the same thought to the KKK replacing 'Aryan' with 'white people', who are actually most generally descended of English ancestors, under the cultural experience of this group as it formed originally.

These forms of selective breeding would choose traits they define as existing only in the construct of race, thus they would have the goal of adapting that race. I didn't equate traits' level of attractiveness with race, Hitler and the KKK have. I only used their example to help define the process of selective breeding as it relates to the human species. Your form of selective breeding would choose to eliminate traits shown to produce illness in the species, thereby promoting the scientifically observed 'healthiest' genes as the desired traits to propagate. But, it is still contra to evolutionary theory because it does not allow for the free will of choosing one's mate based on their own idea of attractiveness as being the ideal for the experiment. Your stance holds that you, Technosoul, can decide what is the best idea of attractiveness for all of the individuals in the human species. Evolution then has no part in it.

4 - The idea that it is no longer important to have naturally healthy grandchildren because they now can go in and get cancer treatments and live longer due to prescription drugs is dangerious if you want my opinon. Assuming her potential mate (or she is) wealthy enough to take advantage of expensive health care. What about the future of humans if suddenly a massive event destroyed the drug companies and hospitals and they had to live "off of nature' for a long time before society could be re-built. Then what? I will answer my question. Those who got sick would all die because we did not see the wisdom of being prepared. So by reducing the chances that illnesses that are passed down genetically is wise and via "designer marrages" we can make sure they are not passed down, is the most intelligent choice. Which we now have knowledge about due to the theory of evolution and the spin-off projects in biology an genetic research.

You are correct, it isn't attractive to need modern science to keep us healthy. It is ideal to have health. We adapted as such, as evolutionary theory holds that we are now more healthy and strong than our species has ever been, and that the next generation will surpass our current level of health, because of random selection based on the level of attractiveness of choosing our mate as we individually define. Also, we have adapted to adapt outside those parameters of attractiveness that all other species still adapt within. I do not want for people to need to use the tools gained from our ability to reason in a way that can shape the world. But I also do not hold that the members of my species who do need that need to be weeded out through natural selection based on that fact alone. This is what I mean by we have risen as a species to adapt beyond natural selection as defined by the adaptation of all other species. I argued nothing beyond that, and I apologize for repeating myself. It's just that there is no other way to respond.

Keep in mind that people of any race can be healthy and have a faimly tree (for the past few generations) that does not have a history of serious health related illnesses like cancer or heart attacks. Alhough the number of 'natrually' healthy people are vanishing due to random mixing it is still a chance to save the furture. Even if "a good man is hard to find nowasdays".

I know! - to the first sentence.
I do not understand your second sentence, it contradicts itself and what Evolutionary theory and biology and genetics teach in that it is through random mixing, which you pose as a negative, that health in a species is gained, and that genes are strengthened.

And yep, I know it! is my response to the third.

But, to answer your original question. If I were to have a daughter and I wanted to offer her advice regarding choosing a mate, and I also wanted it to demonstrate respect for Evolutionary theory, then I would suggest she find the person that matches most closely with the characteristics she finds most attractive. Funny how that also matches the advice I would give if I didn't happen to have evolutionary theory in mind.

christina-