Text 197, 174 rader
Skriven 2004-09-27 12:15:00 av Michael Ragland (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Does restriction to s
=================================



Hello, 
                What is the opinion of
the members of this group regarding this notion: 
                That sexual
reproduction, of the kind that Humans practice, may increase the rate at
which a species improves genetically as well as the rate at which it can
adapt to changes in its environment. 

Response:
I don't think so. "Unregulated" Human sexual reproduction of humans has
led to increasing environmental problems e.g. famine, crowding
pathologies, resource shortages, poverty, genocide, etc. I'm not saying
"unregulated" human sexual reproduction is responsible totally for these
events but it has contributed. Disturbingly, there are also those who
use the problem of human overpopulation as a platform to advocate the
removal of the "mentally weak" and physically weak". Of course this is
just eugenics in a different package and by the insistent tone of these
eugenics advocates they want to power to force these meaures on a
population.

So I don't think that sexual reproduction, of the kind that Humans
practice, may increase the rate at which a species improves genetically
as well as the rate at which it can adapt to changes in its environment.
Because of modern medicine and technology (at least in the
industrialized West) natural selection no longer works as effectively as
it did in the past. But "biologically" speaking humans are no different
than they were thousands of years ago. There is this conflict between
modern medicine and technolgy and our Darwinian nature. Even in the U.S.
which arguably has among the best healthcare in the world millions are
uninsured and insurance companies and hospitals compete ferociously in a
competive market over profit. 

Darwin and Malthus noted, "They realized that producing more offspring
than can survive establishes a competitive environment among siblings,
and that the variation among siblings would produce some individuals
with a slightly greater chance of survival. If this is correct than one
can surmise eventually human overpopulation will result in massive
natural selection and some individuals will have a slightly greater
chance of survival. No one can dispute the world is currently
overpopulated by humans and that the world is an extremely competitive
environment.

If Darwin were alive today I think he would be amazed at how many human
on earth there were and that natural selection hadn't culled many of
them. But advances in science, technology, medicine and cultural
evolution have weakened natural selection. This is extremely dangerous
because it puts the human species in a predicament where natural
selection is no longer as effective. The theoretical question is should
the human species continue to rely on natural selection which is often
brutal and has been described as "red in tooth and claw" or should it
draw its sights on future hopes of modifying natural selection through
biotechnology, gene therapy, genetic engineering, etc.

The problem is, however, even if one endorsed the latter we are no where
near to modifying natural selection. I'm not talking about modern
medicine, science and technology which allows a minority of individuals
to live who would have otherwise been culled by natural selection. Or
children inoculated against diseases which wouldn't have been culled by
natural selection. These are environmental agents acting against
possible natural selection. I'm referring to actually altering the
unferlying genetic mechanisms which are responsible for natural
selection. That is a tall order and I don't expect any headway made on
it anytime soon because so many traits are tied up with Darwinian
evolution e.g. natural selection, sexual selection, etc.   



                Two suggested reasons
for this effect are: 
1)     This kind of reproduction creates a collection of individuals
(almost) all of whom are genetically unique. This increases the range of
genetic diversity from which to draw upon as a resource when confronted
by an environmental challenge. 

Response:
Yes, that is what Malthus and Darwin basically stated. The problem is
natural selection has been partially stripped due to advances in
science, medicine and technology and the overpopulation of a species
which Malthus and Darwin envisioned was a part of natural selection and
not divorced from it. Today, human overpopulation has partially exceeded
any utility it has with natural selection. To advocates of eugenics, who
acknowlege natural selection is glacially slow to begin with, use this
as an excuse for their eugenic proposals. This is potentially dangerous
as it alludes to involuntary measures and infringing upon the civil
rights of disenfranchised groups. A more sensible approach would be for
worldwide governments (aside from those few who have very low
birthrates) to fund more measures to regulate human sexual reproduction
through contraceptives, surgical contraception, abortion, etc. And
pressure should be put on the Vatican to renounce its policy against
birth control. There needs to be an effort at outreach for funding and
education in areas which are traditionally hostile to birth control. 

Perhaps if there were a quarter of the people in the world there are
there wouldn't be the resource shortages, as many famines, crowding,
etc. as there is. Maybe there wouldn't be as much pollution of the
environment. There would still be fierce competition but it would be
limited. 

2)     Furthermore, male competition constitutes an additional stage
of refinement that pits genomes against one another in order to measure
the relative fitness of each. 

Response:
This is sexual selection. And it has existed in humans for thousands of
years.

                I am asking this
question because I am struck by the observation that Humans, although
not necessarily superior to other species, seem to have "traveled the
farthest distance" evolutionarily, of any species. At least insofar as
cognition and information processing are concerned. It seems that we
have gone "a greater distance" in this respect, from our starting point
(of, say, the anemone?), than other types of organisms.

Response:
Yes, in terms of cognition and information processing but what possible
ultimate good has it done us? The world is filled with terrorism,
nuclear weapons, pollution of oceans, mass extinction of species,
pollution of biosphere, famines, wars, consumerism, rampant competition,
crime, corruption, etc. 


 All things being equal, I might expect organisms capable of asexual
reproduction to be better equipped for survival since their line will
not die out simply because they are separated from an individual of the
opposite sex. 

Response:
Actually you may be right. Bacteria essentially reproduce asexually and
viruses are in a kingdom of their own. Bacteria has existed billions of
years before we have and if we kill ourselves off the planet they will
still be there. As Stephen Hawking states, "It's uncetain whether
intelligence has any longterm survival value. Bacteria do fine without
it."


                So, back to my question,
what is the current opinion of practitioners in this field of the idea
that restricting organisms to sexual reproduction may, in the long run,
increase the rate at which they evolve? 
Thank You,
John Leonard

Response:
I don't think restricting organisms to sexual reproduction in the long
run increases the rate at which they evolve. I'm speaking of humans here
although your question was obviously broader. Natural selection takes a
glacially long time to result in evolution or new species and of course
others would add other factors in evolution such as variation, sexual
recombination and genetic drift. At this juncture in human evolution we
can't wait up for Darwinian evolution to effect changes to bring us in
line and make us adaptive to our current environment. So sexual
reproduction based on natural selection will not increase the rate at
which we evolve e.g. become adaptive to our environment. What does stand
a chance of increasing the rate at which we evolve is genetic
engineering. But I advocate this very cautiously and am concerned about
any forced eugenics programs or misuse of this technology. I don't see
its possible "real" benefit for at least a couple hundred years.



"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well without it."
 Stephen Hawking
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/27/04 12:15:15 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)