|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 11/22/2005 : 21:16:57
|
Ok, for some reason I was thinking about this the other day and I was wondering what some of your takes on it might be.
We are all well aware (minus those who differ on religious grounds) that evolution doesn't have a "direction" or goal. It is a blind process. Humans are the way we are simply because our evolution followed the path that it did and not some other path. Mutations that occur in the population that aid our survival are preserved, and those that do not are selected out. We are an intelligent species because intelligence conferred a benefit to survival.
Now, the hypothetical scenario I was wondering about is this: Suppose there is a mutation that doubles the life-spans of people but cuts their IQ in half (or if that's too drastic, say by a quarter). Is that a beneficial mutation or not? Assuming these people could breed with the older stock and that the mutated gene was dominate, would this change quickly sweep over the entire population?
Perhaps a person of normal intelligence would never find a dim-witted Methuselah sexually attractive, but even if they mate only with one another, wouldn't the extended lives of their offspring ensure that they win the population game in the end? In this scenario, what measures, if any, should "normal" people take to make sure that the human race doesn't turn into a mob of drooling morons? Is there any way to ethical justify preserving high intelligence in our species at the expense of the lives of these new half-wit cousins? Would it be ethical to sterilize them? Or should we just let evolution do its thing?
Anyway, not super profound. I was just interesting in hearing any thoughts from you all.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 21:39:01 [Permalink]
|
| The super dumb ones would remove themselves from the gene pool, right? |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 21:41:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
The super dumb ones would remove themselves from the gene pool, right?
Well, let's say for the purposes of this argument not really. In fact, let's say that in addition to long lifespans, the mutated individuals also get sick less and have a higher survival rate when they do get infected. Cancer is nearly unheard of in them, etc.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/22/2005 21:43:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 21:59:07 [Permalink]
|
First off, whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on how it affects a species' survival compared to other species competing for the same resources. Humans are a remarkably "fit" species in this regard, and any comparisons of how a mutation would affect us is necessarily going to mean comparing what we've got now to a hypothetical outcome, and judging which is "better." Is a global human population of only one billion people, living to 140, "better" than six billion living to be only 70 or so? Tough call.
Anyway, looking at these tables, the difference between half and 75% would be quite drastic in terms of your hypothetical.
Assuming the worst case, wherein IQ is halved (the average becoming 50) and the vast majority of the population would be "trainably retarded" or worse, the extended lifespan would likely not matter as the medical and sanitary infrastructure we have now would crumble in time (as more and more people wouldn't understand it). This would basically turn the clock back a few centuries to the point where the average lifespan was about 30 due to accident and disease, and not because of any genetic flaw. Therefore, one would think, this would surely represent a detrimental mutation, since the benefits would be swamped by environmental factors, and you'd wind up with dumber people living shorter lives, period.
That is, of course, assuming that the stupid-but-long-lived gene (SBLLG) spread throughout the population. Given the ethical issues already present with "normal" people mating with those who likely can't give informed consent for sex, I think that'd be unlikely to happen with a 50% reduction in average IQ. While this sort of intellectual "rape" isn't absolutely prevented by our current moral taboos (wasn't it just a few years ago that a mentally deficient woman got knocked up by some scumbag?), it's about as close to an ethical sterilization program as you're likely to find.
With only a 25% reduction in IQ, there may be enough "smart" people to keep civilization running, though I bet it would stagnate in terms of scientific progress. If there's enough smarts left to keep building (and correctly using) dialysis machines and pacemakers and sewage treatment plants, and to keep the supply of life-saving drugs moving, then this tamer version of the SBLLG might actually succeed in overtaking the whole population. It again depends on where we draw the "don't boink the retarded" line, but it's likely that there are "slightly dim" people having sex with each other all the time today. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 22:02:12 [Permalink]
|
Well my first thought is that we are a technological society at this point, and in order to sustain our current numbers or increase them requires a certain amount of intelligence to be around. How much, I don't know. Then again there is no reqirement for us to sustain our numbers.
If it came down to us or them, they would lose. Which is why I always say, I hope that when true AI is developed, they look fondly upon their creators. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 22:05:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Well, let's say for the purposes of this argument not really. In fact, let's say that in addition to long lifespans, the mutated individuals also get sick less and have a higher survival rate when they do get infected. Cancer is nearly unheard of in them, etc.
Well hell, then. I suppose I should have assumed someone else was going to write much less than I, and re-checked the thread before posting my response. Sigh. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 22:13:17 [Permalink]
|
It's not clear to me that higher-intelligence (beyond a certain point perhaps) is advantageous to survival of the species "in the big picture" (although it might "accelerate" certain trends which otherwise would take longer.) If we argue that thus far it has enabled antibiotics, vaccines, sanitation planning, efficient food production etc. etc. one could conversely argue it resulted in continued destruction of the environment, technological wars, and at least once the world teeting on cataclysmic nuclear warfare (suppose it had happened... or perhaps it still will.)
Life might be harder with more continual death and suffering, but many generations of less-cognitively-endowed people could conceivably evolve culturally- with more time to learn from their errors- to a social state more conducive to long-term survival and controlled proliferation of the species.
On the other hand, the "problem" might lie less in Man's intellect than in Man's innate predatorial tendancies... in which case more "kindhearted" genes might be the survival solution, as opposed to "smarter" genes. Making Man smarter might just be adding more horsepower to an unsafe design- resulting only in a higher frequency of "crashes."
So I'd say whether it's advantageous to encourage a more-intelligent human is very unclear, depending upon what the specific objective is, in what timeframe. And, it could even be the ultimate form of bigotry... I don't think any universal agreement as to what an "ideal world" would be like is possible, so what people individually (or as groups) think isn't germain if we're to maintain any objectivity in the matter (quality of life vs. raw population numbers)... our history of folks who thought they were qualified (Hitler, Hirohito) doesn't make me very confident. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 22:55:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
With only a 25% reduction in IQ, there may be enough "smart" people to keep civilization running, though I bet it would stagnate in terms of scientific progress.
Ok, yeah, this was more the scenario I was envisioning. Assume no new scientific progress, but a population that can (sort of) maintain what we have for a bit, but then eventually revert to say pre-industrial revolution standards. Assume complicated machinery or computers are beyond them.
quote:
Well hell, then. I suppose I should have assumed someone else was going to write much less than I, and re-checked the thread before posting my response.
No, your analysis was appreciated. I just though it best (perhaps wrongly) to keep things simple. We can just say that people with the SBLLG are "hardier" and so aren't effected so much by the lack of medical advances. I'm less concerned about the actual mathematic probabilites that such a mutation could take over the population. Let's just assume it can.
The heart of the question to me was whether or not we would allow our civilizations to decline even if they were no longer required to ensure "human" survivability. Do we let the world revert to an agrarian state and give up modern advances? No satellites. No electric guitars. No radio telescopes to probe the mysteries of the cosmos. And not because we've decided as a species we want to live this way, but because it will be all anyone is capable of. Just generations of healthy, long-lived but mentally simple folk. Do we allow such a thing to happen?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/22/2005 23:05:17 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 23:00:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
It's not clear to me that higher-intelligence (beyond a certain point perhaps) is advantageous to survival of the species "in the big picture" (although it might "accelerate" certain trends which otherwise would take longer.) If we argue that thus far it has enabled antibiotics, vaccines, sanitation planning, efficient food production etc. etc. one could conversely argue it resulted in continued destruction of the environment, technological wars, and at least once the world teeting on cataclysmic nuclear warfare (suppose it had happened... or perhaps it still will.)
Very good points, and that would maybe be one argument for letting the people with SBLLG breed without controls. I mean that is essentially the heart of my question. Do we value intelligence as a trait and consider it our defining quality? Or would we be willing to trade it away for other survival advantages?
quote:
So I'd say whether it's advantageous to encourage a more-intelligent human is very unclear, depending upon what the specific objective is, in what timeframe. And, it could even be the ultimate form of bigotry... I don't think any universal agreement as to what an "ideal world" would be like is possible, so what people individually (or as groups) think isn't germain if we're to maintain any objectivity in the matter (quality of life vs. raw population numbers)... our history of folks who thought they were qualified (Hitler, Hirohito) doesn't make me very confident.
So does that mean your answer to my question is you would let evolution go on without interference even if it meant the complete loss of current human "progress," (although I do understand your point that it's a debateable term)?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/22/2005 23:19:35 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 01:19:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now, the hypothetical scenario I was wondering about is this: Suppose there is a mutation that doubles the life-spans of people but cuts their IQ in half (or if that's too drastic, say by a quarter). Is that a beneficial mutation or not? Assuming these people could breed with the older stock and that the mutated gene was dominate, would this change quickly sweep over the entire population?
I know this was not the gist of your question, but I want to give a quick comment any way. Considering that women are essentially infertile after ~50 years of age, adding another 80 years of non-reproducing life-span to them is unlikely to make this mutation "positive". Longevity as such is probably not likely to have a huge impact on fitness. On a side note: Worms (Caenorhabditic elegans) that have mutations in the daf-2 gene on average live almost twice as long as wild-type worms. daf-2 controls the expression of other genes - many of them seemingly directly involved in longevity. Unfortunately for these worms, they are also slower breeders - ie they tend to have fewer offspring. It has been postulated that this is due to the extra energy expense required for longevity is in one way or the other taken from the energy normally used to produce gametes. I.e., longer life could quite easily make you less evolutionarily fit. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 01:54:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
...evolution doesn't have a "direction" or goal. It is a blind process. Humans are the way we are simply because our evolution followed the path that it did and not some other path. Mutations that occur in the population that aid our survival are preserved, and those that do not are selected out...
What about the environment? It changes over time, and creates conditions that affect natural selection. There are aspects of it of which we seem unaware but could give a natural direction.
quote:
We are an intelligent species because intelligence conferred a benefit to survival.
Could be. I freely admit that I have a minority viewpoint on this assumption, which is, seen from the position of evolution; we actually don't know what intelligence is. Many assume it is combinations of civilization, cleverness, self awareness, consciousness, city states, art, progress and engineering. These can all be wonderful things, but on close examination, each one of them is not intelligence.
quote:
Now, the hypothetical scenario I was wondering about is this: Suppose there is a mutation that doubles the life-spans of people but cuts their IQ in half (or if that's too drastic, say by a quarter). Is that a beneficial mutation or not? Assuming these people could breed with the older stock and that the mutated gene was dominate, would this change quickly sweep over the entire population?
Probably not, because "IQ" is subjective. (In my opinion.) In reality, the population would still have individuals that were "brighter" than others.
quote:
Perhaps a person of normal intelligence would never find a dim-witted Methuselah sexually attractive, but even if they mate only with one another, wouldn't the extended lives of their offspring ensure that they win the population game in the end?
Even though we feel stable and civilized in our cities and homes, we're still living out in the wilderness. Only now we have pollution and busses. What I'm saying is, the environment of Earth still dictates the extended effects of evolution including what happens with this hypothetical mutation. It is a factor that we tend to ignore.
quote:
...In this scenario, what measures, if any, should "normal" people take to make sure that the human race doesn't turn into a mob of drooling morons?
Those still with "intelligence" could study what is causing the health and longevity in the "dumbed-down" people with an objective toward isolating that effect from the dumbing-down process.quote:
Is there any way to ethical justify preserving high intelligence in our species at the expense of the lives of these new half-wit cousins? Would it be ethical to sterilize them? Or should we just let evolution do its thing?
Are they actually so affected that they can't take care of themselves? If so, their good health isn't going to help them. If they can function in the environment without assistance, then we cannot say they are unintelligent, (since we actually don't know what intelligence is.)
quote:
I was just interested in hearing any thoughts from you all.
That's cool. These are interesting questions. I don't know the answers and am just speculating.
|
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 02:45:26 [Permalink]
|
HH I personally value it, as do likely you and others posting here, but the "line drawing" aspect is what makes me uncertain. Some would surely draw lines so as to delete me, and since their "wisdom" wasn't available 5 decades ago to do so, why not correct this unfortunate error after the fact? I'm sure some people feel certain they're qualified and justified to make such calls, but I'm not one of them. Interesting question, but for me, it's an "idunno."
Hawks Your point abour trade-offs and available energy is valid and pertinent- SciAm had an article years ago about how available energy through evolution determines reproductive factors and relates to the balances of our physical-makeups ("Why not have a huge set of indestructable arms?" and the like... from an evolution/available energy standpoint, there are reasons "things are the way they are" which make good sense.) Fascinating read!
Chippewa I'd venture to say a mushroom isn't intelligent : ) but seriously, I agree- intelligence is hard to put a handle on. That's one reason I'm ambivalent on this topic.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 02:57:58 [Permalink]
|
One thing more, since there are already some good comments here, one has to remember the time scale evolution occurs on. When it looks like the poverty stricken masses are reproducing at a rapid rate compared to someone that intelligence has provided a higher standard of living for, it may seem like lots of kids was a more selected trait. Until something like the HIV pandemic comes along. Now the better off person has the advantage. While we are all human and those in poverty are likely to be as intelligent on the whole, I think the analogy to intelligence as the selection factor applies.
In the short run the more offspring you could produce might give you an advantage. But in the long term, the fact that we currently dominate the planet and are the most intelligent indicates it's a pretty significant advantage. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 03:33:43 [Permalink]
|
| That reminds me of something. I've heard that in some countries population numbers are either stagnate or declining. Would it be, someday, that, oh, the Swedish become extinct or 'endangered' due to the very comfort that makes women not want to procreate and focus on whatever else, whereas Brazilians will simply continue breeding? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 08:10:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Do we allow such a thing to happen?
Well, it hasn't happened yet.
Seriously, I doubt it would happen. Those with the SBLLG would probably be xenophobically shunned by most of humanity, thus mostly ensuring inbreeding.
Now, what if it were a "stealth" gene? One which allows a person to grow up normally, but at age 23 (say), turns you stupid. That would allow for plenty of unintentional gene spreading around the world, and brings the ethical question to the forefront: once a test is developed which can detect the stealth SBLLG in infancy (or the womb, even), what's to be done with that knowledge? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 08:56:46 [Permalink]
|
Let us not forget that "harmfull" mutations are those that prevent a member of a species from reproducing.
Longevity is not a survival trait unless you are incapable of reproduction until you are much older.
In your scenario H.H. the mutation obviously doesn't prevent the passing on of genetic material. So it isn't really a harmfull mutation.
In order for such a mutation to effect even small segments of the general population we are also talking about some very long timespans. Tens of generations from the original individual with the mutation, assuming it is a dominant trait and it doesn't impede reprocuctive success. To effect large portions of the population would take a very very long time.
So long, in fact, that the more likely result is that it would cause a speciation event. Reproduction between the "smart" and "dumb" populations would probably not occur with any significant frequency.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
