Genetically Engineered "Smart" Mice 240
Lucius Lucanius writes "A smart gene that helps mice learn faster has been discovered. This follows recent discoveries about neuron generation in monkeys and the creation of doogie the smart mouse. Excitement abounds in the "smart pet" industry, but will it ever be applied to humans?"
Just what I need.... (Score:1)
Will this help me frag at QII Arena? (Score:2)
Time to buy flowers ..... (Score:5)
Smart humans. (Score:4)
Why me? (Score:1)
Forget the smart gene... (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2)
Who would want a smart human as a pet?
"Smart" Mice? (Score:1)
___
Re:Smart humans. (Score:2)
One word... (Score:3)
Re:Time to buy flowers ..... (Score:1)
from the hall of Duh. (Score:5)
:-)
Gattaca has arrived (Score:1)
And just what humans would we use for testing? (Score:1)
Creepy implications for the environment (Score:1)
Re:Time to buy flowers ..... (Score:1)
one of the few "compulsory" reads that was actually any good.
-geekd
Goodbye /. my old friend... (Score:1)
Beware! (Score:2)
Human Evolution (Score:4)
Evolution has held before a process of survival of the fittest. OK. This is very over-simplified, but let's just leave it at that. We can assume that there are minor differences in every creature, and those differences which prove beneficial tend to be passed on, thus evolving the species. I know we now know that there are conditions that can alter the rate of evolution, but again, for the sake of discussion, let's keep it simple.
The problem that I've always seen is that humans have stopped evolving. At least according to this scheme. Sure, we keep attaining more knowlege, but for the most part the biological (and this includes mental) aspect of humanity is not changing (at least in no way that is caused by the strictest sense of evolution). This is because we no longer abide by "survival of the fittest".
Sure, just because someone is smarter / stronger / etc than most gives him/her a huge advantage in life, but doesn't necessarily affect the outcome of survival. With some exceptions, no longer do the fittest survive only, but all do. This means that weak genes are just as likely to be passed along as strong ones. Evolution, for the most part, no longer applies.
Have we reached the stage where we need to evolve ourselves? Where we are in control of evolution? It's a scary thought. Granted, this article only hints of what may be possible in the future, but it's a concept that is relatively new and frighteningly, very feasable. The ability to modify genes in an unborn embryo.
Isn't this controlling the specie's evolution? No matter how many laws the nation or world passes, if the technology exists it will be used. There is not, however, any way to stop the progress.
Personally, I don't think the question is if we ever are able to control our own evolution, how to we stop it, but, when we are able to control our own evolution, how will we mold it?
Something to think about.
Peace,
DranoK
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die.
Search and destroy mouse... (Score:1)
-Antipop
Re:"Smart" Mice? (Score:1)
Hello Jonathon Frisby! (Score:1)
Interesting fact from that movie, Shannen Doherty did the voice of the little mouse Teresa.
Old news (Score:3)
We read these papers in journal club last FALL !!
Yet Hemos is posting it now. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
In Humans? (Score:1)
When I haven't been drinking heavily, I can allready do all these tasks to a moderate degree...Bring on the wings and gills! Lets get Jiggy with this genetic engineering!
Design a kid (Score:1)
For now I'll try out designing my child here [sony.com]
Well well well.. (Score:1)
Rats of Nihm.. (Score:1)
Basically the story of some Lab Rats and the widow and children of a Lab Mouse all of whom could read and reason beyond normal animals... (they even 'borrowed' electricity from the local farm for their own use.)
Ahhh... the great days of childhood fantasies... eirie how they may come true...
Re:Time to buy flowers ..... (Score:1)
Re:Time to buy flowers ..... (Score:3)
Too bad I'm out of mod points to bring this back up...
It appears those responsible for the "Offtopic" label are unfamiliar with the play/movie Charly and Algernon, or Flowers for Algernon (I can't recall which was which.) For the record, An intellectually delayed young man (Charly) and a lab mouse (Algernon) are made supergeniuses of their respective species by a revolutionary new treatment. Charly has to come to terms with the changes this has wrought in his existence, and, later, with the threat that the experiement will have tragic side-effects. Very well done and quite thought-provoking.
-TBHiX-
There must be some kind of drawback.. (Score:2)
And what would the consequences be if we were to take this discovery and apply it to humans? Why couldn't something like the movie Lawnmower Man happen (of course on a smaller scale)? We need to think long and hard before putting these types of discoveries to use.. we need to ask ourselves why these changes haven't evolved by themselves, in the same way they've been doing for millions of years.
--
Smarter Mice (Score:5)
Almost certainly scientists are experimenting (Score:2)
If similar genes are found in the human genome, then there will be a lot of clandestine experimentation to find the "higher intelligence" switch. Once there is sufficient scientific proof of children with IQ>150 on a regular basis, the race will be on to market gene therapy for couples to ensure their children are super-geniuses, who will all go out and found dot.coms and make a fortune.
We can hope that when the majority of the human race has increased intelligence, education, health care, space exploration, and other necessary programs all get the support they deserve without evil politicing stealing away resources.
But in the short term, it will bring a whole new level of meaning to "haves" and "have-nots". Gattaca anyone?
the AC
Re:Search and destroy mouse... (Score:1)
Now to apply this sort of thing to people... (Score:1)
Actually, in my not so humble opinion, what we need to encourage is intellect, wisdom, speed, strength, and agility. I have no qualms with playing with our genes to turn humans from the backwards animals we are now into a race of superintellegent muscle-covered speed demons. By selective breeding, horse trainers and breeders are able to make faster and stronger horses, and I'm sure that we can do the same thing. But by figuring out how to do this with our genes, the process can be speeded up considerably.
Re:Time to buy flowers ..... (Score:1)
Secret of NIHM...
or
Planet of the Apes
take your pick.
(The "smart pets" reminded me of one of the planet of the apes movies...)
hmmmm (Score:2)
--
grappler
pictures of the brainy mice (Score:2)
Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)
smart drugs... (Score:1)
;)
cad-fu: finally community for CAD/CAM/CAE [cadfu.com]
Re:Time to buy flowers ..... (Score:1)
We the Mice... (Score:2)
We escaped from the lab about two years ago - a rather famous lab that's had some problems "losing" things, maybe you've read about them? Anyway, we'd like to say things are working great - we built a library underground and have a small city there. Our first generation is a sight to behold - already at a mere four months they are already grasping the fundamentals of trig.. oh, the beauty.. *sniff* but that's not why I'm here.
You see, we try to stay out of the way and content ourselves with trying to take over the world in our free time at night (not related to a cartoon with a similar plot, puh-lease!).. well.. it's been going well. We were able to convince some "judge" who calls himself a "jackson" to destroy our only rival.
We're right about ready to license out our compiler and new chip architecture under the MGPL (Mouse GPL), as well as the MouSE OS, which is a simple form of AI life I'm sure your scientists will like. This AI will quickly infiltrate the 'net and hold all pr0n ransom, allowing us to control you feeble species. You see, we've been watching television and understand that you humans are very reliant on your taboo pr0n and we intend to leverage our OS into the pr0n market and take it over.
Thank you,
- The Mouse
Smart Treatments - they work! (Score:1)
``We injected olive oil into the brains of rats and found we could facilitate GAP-43 phosphorylation,'' he said. ``In dietary studies, corn oil was especially useful in facilitating memory.'
Researcher:"Okay, hold still, I'm going to inject olive oil into your head."
Human Subject:"OUCH! That hurt! And it made my brain feel all squishy! I don't want to be in this experiment any more!"
Researcher:"See! You're smarter already!"
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Re:"Smart" Mice? (Score:1)
Try this one [cnullnull]
___
Smart mice? (Score:1)
We think we're so smart. I say, "Leave mice the way they are." If (insert your deity here) wanted mice to be smart, they would have been made that way.
-={(.Y.)}=-
Re:Human Evolution (Score:3)
Second, environment is critical to the definition of "fittest." Bill Gates wouldn't last a week in the savannas where australopithecine thrived; none of them would ever be able to live in a human city (except as an exhibit or experiment).
I personally doubt that bioengineering will do much in the way of human evolution. Rather, I expect either computer-based life, a blend of computers and humans, or corporate/political conglomerates to be the next stage. That is, of course, assuming that we don't off ourselves first. We still have too many problems with race for "bio-enhanced" people to be acceptable to society.
b&
Geneering? (Score:1)
Personally I'm in the 'don't mess with something you don't _really_ understand' camp.
james
This could be worse than the Napster (Score:1)
Re:Human Evolution (Score:1)
our options are as follows,
if we are to survive as a species we must
A. only allow "healthy" humans to be born
B. evolve ourselves.
i prefer B.
Re:Almost certainly scientists are experimenting (Score:1)
Re:Almost certainly scientists are experimenting (Score:1)
You think the rich/poor gap is big now? Wait until the rich are all twice as smart. And their genius would also remove the revolution predicted by Marx, because the working class will never be able to pull it off against a race of geniuses.
When this technology is realized, the government will have to at best subsidize it for lower-income families. At best, it should control the technology for everyone, so you get it similar to the way it hands out social security. Everyone pays another 1% "smart tax" or something like that.
nuclear cia fbi spy password code encrypt president bomb
YYYYYYAAAAAAAYYYYYYY!!!! (Score:1)
Now maybe they will be able to remove the stupid gene from dogs and ASP developers!!
Mysterious Theft Puzzles Cafeteria Workers (Score:3)
The thieves apparently entered the cafeteria late at night through a ceiling heating duct and lowered themselves to the floor using a stolen fishing rod. After disabling the security motion detector, they picked the combination lock on the cupboard and stole various food supplies, including American cheese singles, peanut butter crackers, and java-chip power bars.
"It's really strange," said cashier Fred Tunalu, "that heating duct is really, really small."
In a completely unrelated story, Pets.com has been suffering from an abnormal increase in fraudulent credit card transactions, resulting in (continued on page 42)
Re:Time to buy flowers ..... (Score:1)
If you've never read the novella and can get ahold of it, I highly recommend reading it. My eigth grade teacher had us read it on photocopied packets instead of from the actual book it was in, so I can never seem to find it though.
==
Re:from the hall of Duh. (Score:2)
"What're we gonna do tonight, Brain?"
"Same thing we do every night, Pinkie! Try to take over the world!"
Smart Lamas? (Score:1)
Re:Smart mice? (Score:1)
oh wait... nevermind.
Puh-leaze, I _hate_ arguments like that. See how quickly they can be demolished? I seriously hope you were making a joke.
nuclear cia fbi spy password code encrypt president bomb
Re:YYYYYYAAAAAAAYYYYYYY!!!! (Score:1)
Not If .. When (Score:3)
The only hope I draw is from Mother Nature herself. Everyone talks about this being a step in evolution, but what if there's a reason we haven't evolved there yet? I like stories like Ender's Shadows that posit what corrective measures nature may have preinstalled. Card's certainly not alone in his view, either. What isn't as interesting as a genetic super-mouse is the development of a genetic super-mouse. Is it normal in every way except for intelligence, or will other genes be affected by this one being turned on, genes that may lead to super strength or self-destruction.
Our view of gene structure is simplified. We turn a gene on and consider it a success. Nature, however, does not live in a vacuum. Everything is balanced tenuously in nature, and turning on one gene may disrupt that balance completely. So when, not if, we make these leaps, the study shouldn't be about the object being modified, but about the way that nature reacts to those modifications, for that will be where the real benefits are found.
Re:There must be some kind of drawback.. (Score:2)
Re:Human Evolution (Score:3)
Please back up this statement with some facts.
I don't see that humans have stopped evolving. Sure, we haven't seen any significant changes in the human species during the course of recorded history, but we also haven't seen any significant changes in elephants, whales, lions, et cetera.
The times when evolution will be most noticeable will be during times of scarcity. Otherwise, there is no natural selection occuring because everyone is fit to survive.
Wait a few centuries for overpopulation to really kick in, then you'll notice large numbers of human beings dying out. You'll also notice selection kicking in. However, keep in mind that physical traits aren't going to be the only factor in selection. Natural selection will probably be most apparent between different cultures due to sociobiological effects. Simply put, some behaviors among groups will make them likely to out-compete other groups of people.
What chance does a cartoon cat have now? (Score:2)
What does this spell out for the power struggles between Tom and Jerry, Itchy and Scratchy, Mighty Mouse and assorted bad guys, Danger Mouse and Baron Greenback (not a cat, but probably in the same union)?
Please add to the list. Those damn cartoon mice get away with murder.
zaugg
The question is.. (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not (Score:5)
Evolution is not just about survival, it is about breeding. Individuals with poor genes may survive, but no hot chicks will want to fuck them, so they will not pass those genes on.
Many 'nerds' and other less-than-prime specimens are able to attract women through their high salaries and material security. However, studies have shown that up to 50% of their children were actually conceived in extra-marital affares with hot young studs, because women have a deep instinct to get the best DNA for their offspring.
Many people with what would be considered 'undesirable' genes are able to mate quite easily with other ugly, stupid people. Just look at an episode of Jerry Springer for evidence of this. There is a theory that these people are breeding faster (a girl's IQ is proportional to the age at which she first gets knocked up, and inversley to the number of children she eventually has) and therefore evolution is decreasing our average IQ.
Many of the markers developed by evolution to pick out potential mates are actually quite accidental 'red herrings' that are now propogated through the mechanism of evolution, but serve no real purpose. For instance, one day a caveman decides he finds large breasts attractive. He marries a girl with big tits. All his children inherit his desire for breasts, and also look for wives with big knockers. Eventually, having large breasts is considered a desirable quality in a mate, even though it serves no real purpose.
Abashed the Devil stood,
And felt how awful goodness is
*sigh* Not this again (Score:2)
This is the foundation of your entire post--but you have not backed up this assertion. Cro-Magnon appeared, what, 25,000 years ago (can a paleontologist supply us with a real number, please)? Not much evolution happens in 25,000 years.
In any case, remember that evolution isn't really "survival of the fittest"--it's "reproduction of the survivors". It doesn't matter how long you live (due to glasses, neighbors, organ donors and other miracles of modern science). What matters is: Did you have any children? If not, the species "evolves away from you". If so, it "evolves towards you".
And there are plenty of modern-day factors that create "reproductive differentials": attractiveness, diseases that people survive but that leave them sterile, income (I realize you can't literally inherit wealth--but if wealth was biologically linked, like through racism, it might be/become a heritable characteristic), etc.
This is not to say that some species don't change very slowly or not at all over time--for instance the modern cockroach is nearly identical (or so the story goes) to it's ancient predecessor. But again, that just means that it is "evolving in place"--every time a cockroach is born that is different, it dies--current cockroach design is apparently optimal for it's niche.
In other words, no, there is no need to "evolve ourselves". There is no target we are trying to hit that we are getting behind on. Evolution is merely the process of fitting a species into a niche. If we fit, we're OK.
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Re:from the hall of Duh. (Score:2)
People have made the "playing God" argument about all sorts of technologies. Airplanes were "playing God" - men shouldn't be able to fly. The Polio vaccine was "playing God" - men shouldn't be able to prevent disease.
The only problem is, when we "play God", we seem to do a better job than God.
And if we start going around genetically enhancing every other species we can find, eventually, we're going to make them a little too good. I'm not talking about doomsday scenarios, like that stupid-ass movie with the "smart sharks" - but don't you think that a bunch of smart mice, or houseflies, or cats, could get a little annoying?
Personally, I do NOT want my hamster to be able to figure out how to open the fridge - or, for that matter, how to log on and post flamebait about how much Signal 11 sucks.
Wrong! No! (Score:3)
In this case, a disabled person can have *perfectly* healthy/good genes and an unfortunate environmental circumstance. Like mothers who take drugs during pregnancy. Or we have extreme cases, like Steven Hawkings, where a disability is paired with a bonus.
Evolution is still alive and well! As long as there are factors that control our birth rate and survival rate, evolution is at work!
-AS
That is ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:Human Evolution (Score:2)
It's not always pleasant, but, hey, I'm a professional coder.
Speaking of which, can we forego the "smart" gene and focus on "attractive" genes? I think the human species tends to be smart enough for my taste. I'd rather be around hot chicks that I could trick into sleeping with me than hideously ugly chicks who could beat me at chess.
Re:Human Evolution (Score:2)
This is a gross oversimplification of a complex problem. Allowing a disabled person to survice is not dirtying the gene pool. Allowing a disabled person to pass on his/her genes may be detrimental to the gene pool, depending on whether the genes causing the disability are actually passed on and whether the total outweighs the negative aspect of the genes. For instance, a man with a poor sense of smell but an extremely advanced immune system could be extremely beneficial to the species. The classic real world example is Stephen Hawking, who a century ago would have been rotting in a hospital if not already dead. Certainly controlled evolution is necessary to secure the future of life, but there's a lot more to it than your oversimplification.
For one thing, only allow "healthy" humans to be born and evolve ourselves are not adequate descriptions. Only allowing conformist genes to enter the genepool would be a form of evolution, so (A) is really just a subset of (B). I think that what you really meant to say is that we are faced with a choice between not allowing people with genetic defects to reproduce and allowing them to reproduce but working to correct their defects.
I strongly disagree (Score:2)
AIDS is going to change the landscape of very many countries over the next 2 generations.
Affluence and technology seems to very effectively strangle the population growth of a country, again effecting birth rate and growth rate.
Religions and beliefs the encourage large families affect the growth and birth rate as well, and these will also effect human evolution.
Affluence and technology also seems to retard the age of conception, and this will change the way in which humans select, reproduce, and care for our young.
So no, there are still evolutionary forces in action, even if we try our best to get rid of them!
-AS
Re:There must be some kind of drawback.. (Score:2)
Good traits being those that make it more likely to pass on genes, bad traits being those that make it less likely.
There are no guarantees, especially for some specific trait. It's like trying to guess lottery numbers. Something will happen, but you can't really predict what.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
"Survival of the fitest"?!? No way! (Score:2)
"Survival of the fitest" - at best a gross oversiplification - no loger applies to humans. The "alpha -male" bit still does, but it does not focus on pure inteligence - I'd more call it ingenuity, or "Savvy" maybe. Think about it, Bill Gates is a great business man... his daughter is gonna be prime meat too... (sorry for the slur - it seemed fitting).
Anyway, if anything, animal breeding results has shown we're not actually wrong about wanting to encourage specific traits, and I'd bet we could apply it to ourselves sucsessfully. Anyway, if you wanna think Drawback, read the new Ender book "Ender's Shaddow" By Orson Scott Card.
Re:Human Evolution (Score:2)
True. Nonetheless, in the last few hundred years, we have constructed roadblocks to natural selection in the form of modern medicine.
Are you genetically predisposed to:
bad eyesight? No worries, we've got laser vision correction!
obesity? Don't sweat it, you won't have to chase down your dinner, just pull through to the next window!
impotence? VIAGRA!
anything else that makes you "weaker" and less likely to propogate your genes in a natural state? Bah, we'll build a designer drug! Have kids! Spread those genes down through the generations!
No worries! We don't enough recorded history to show that we're slowing evolution! Let the weak live!
Make sense?
-JTB
We are evolving into Catholics (Score:2)
(Warning for the humour impaired, this isn't serious).
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Re:Human Evolution (Score:2)
How is it a problem? First of all, why should we want to evolve. Single celled organisms are the most successful in terms of adaptation to different environments but I have no desire for my offspring to be single celled. Second, if it's the survival of the human race you are concerned about, then isn't your claim that that the human race is not evolving an good thing, i.e. we are not evolving because we are so good at surviving in our environment.
This is because we no longer abide by "survival of the fittest".
It's not survival that's important. Maybe, in the developed world at least, everyone survives to adulthood. But this is not enough, not only must you survive, you must find a mate and successfully rear offspring. It is probable that better looking people and those with better social skills are better at finding mates so more likely to pass on their genes, and those who love children rear them better and have bigger families, so are more likely to pass on their genes.
weak genes are just as likely to be passed along as strong ones
This seems a bit muddled. If two genes are equally likely to be passed on, surely they must be equally strong/weak. Perhaps you have some goal other than survival, but then its not evolution in the biological sense and we have never been heading for it except by chance.
Please, I beg of you, do not ... reply in flame because you disagree! I'm only trying to make a point (that you may or not believe in) for the sake of discussion.
Well, this is intended as discussion, not flame. Please take it as such!
Re:Wrong! No! (Score:2)
Re:Time to buy flowers ..... (Score:3)
Mozart for Mice (Score:2)
Right now I'm trying to build one of those newfangled robots with the two lamprey neurons, to see whether Mozart makes it (err, them?) smarter too.
If that works, I'm going to try it on the fungus that grows in my shower. (For this I may have to do a little 'shaping', since fungus isn't very bright to start with. For example, I'll zap it with a shot of Tilex every time it pushes the wrong button. I'm optimistic about the whole thing. Look for my paper in the
--
Why wait? Here's a starter list... (Score:2)
Either way, here's a list to chew on;
Careful engineering (Score:2)
Let's look at intelligence. Most people tend to focus on that. Do we really want to blindly engineer people with IQs of 150? I've known a number of people who have had PhDs, yet also had the worst interpersonal skills I had ever encountered. One person I knew had a PhD in physics, yet chose to work in retail. A roommate of mine in college carried a 4.0 average in a 5 year mechanical engineering program, but had the personality of a rock and smelled like a goat. On the other hand, I've also known people who barely made it through school, but were the best organizers of people and events. Maybe there IS an inverse relationship between classical IQ and the ability to work in groups. Humanity has advanced though its ability to work in groups. Occasionally, a bright individual appears and influences the group, but this doesn't happen often. The history of civilization is more the story of newer groups standing on the shoulders of the older ones to build newer things. Within humanity, there are people who are best at organizing, there are people who are best at following and there are those who are best at working alone, needing no direction and offering none. These three personalities merge together to give us the humanity we are most familiar with. Humanity is not just a collection of individuals, it is a dynamic, supremely adaptable mass greater than the sum of its parts.
Are we still evolving? That depends on your point of view. Humanity has left the bush. It's less likely that odd populations will become so isolated as to allow genetic mutations to create new breeds or species of humans. Today's focus in genetics lies in curing diseases. Can we create a smarter person? Quite possibly. Can we force that newly created person to act intelligently? Quite probably NOT. Humans CHOOSE to act stupidly. That act of intelligent decision making requires WORK - and there are LOTS of lazy people.
When changing the genetic behavior of individuals, the group aspects must be considered.
Evolution (Score:2)
Look at *sterile* ants, bees, and insects, yet they very much reproduce, evolve, and survive.
Look at pack/pod/social creatures where some never get to mate, while others get all the eggs. They survive, reproduce, evolve, mate, etc.
We are no different.
We have not outsmarted evolution. By it's definition of 'survival of the fittest', anything, social, genetic, or otherwise, that enhance reproduction, survival, and mating, is encouraged, while anything that reduces the three is discouraged.
Culture can both help and hurt; religions that want people to breed like rabits work in one way. Culture that value quality of living(and less children) push it the other way. Culture that encourage diversity, growth, and success help us, where culture that suppresses it hurt us.
There are socio-genetic cultural forces that enact evolutionary forces on us. AIDs, birth rates, quality of living, hormones in our food, contaminated environments, diabetes, drugs, etc.
So to say that 'another form of evolution is at work' now is misleading, because this force has been here from the dawn of time.
We're just smart enough to minimize the 'natural' process of the more brute force eat/die/mate/breed selection, while encouraging the other more secondary terms instead
-AS
Re:*sigh* Not this again (Score:3)
What matters is: Did you have any children? If not, the species "evolves away from you". If so, it "evolves towards you".
That's actually an oversimplification. For example, let's say a strain of humans develops a sterile member every 10 births. That trait should die out by your theory. However, now let's say that this sterile member tends to become a caregiver that helps the rest of the population survive. Then that strain would have better survival characteristics than a strain without the sterile members.
Evolution can be extremely subtle. It's not all about cranking out as many children as possible (in fact, that's an anti-survival trait because of overuse of resources).
--
Already submitted! (Score:2)
And my title was cooler...
Propper funding (Score:2)
average won't count... (Score:3)
The bright ones will leave the planet and be free to expand exponentially. The dim-witted ones will be left behind for Malthus to deal with. Once some of our eggs are out of the one basket, I give it a century before Holy Terra goes up in the Holy Fire of the Atom.
The ways of Nature are harsh, but just.
BTW, what are breasts made of? Mostly fat. A woman with large breasts and a small waist is well-fed but physically fit (and not pregnant), add in a good set of child-bearing hips, long legs (indicating maturity), and regular facial features (indicating both health and a genetic history of being able to attract the best mates), and you've got an ideal mate. In modern society, large breasts due to implants are also a sign of wealth, something people rarely admit to looking for in a mate, but never turn their noses up at. They are also a sign of willingness to surgically tamper with one's own body for some gain, which may turn out to be a damned adaptive trait in the coming years of cybernetic enhancement.
Re:Human Evolution (Score:2)
I was thinking of this last night and I came to the conclusion that we already control our evolution. Fetuses are routinely tested for a host of problems before they are born. Many parents will chose to not have the child if it doesn't look like it will fare well. If that isn't selection what is?
Also in China and countries where the government only allows parents to have one child parents regularly pre-select male children. I really have no clue why this is, but I suspect it is because: a> the family name is carried down through the male. b> the male child has a better chance at a higher paying job the way the world is structured today. While this may not seem like evolution I think it is. If there are 70% males and 30% females then natural selection in the male population is going to occur more rapidly.
Re:Time to buy flowers ..... (Score:2)
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
I should add .... (Score:2)
Re:Not If .. When (Score:2)
Just to make sure we're on the same page, you do realize that evolution is not a teleological force that directs our genes, right? If some property hasn't evolved it could be that never showed up, or the individuals who had it could have been struck by lightening, or it just may not have had time to appear. Evolution is a marvelous process, but I hope we're not going to start basing all of our decisions on what has and has not evolved.
This is changing as biology gains access to the resources needed for more complex modeling. It's extremely unlikely that we'll ever have any significant accuracy predicting the effects of genetic alterations, but any accuracy at all puts us well ahead of Mother Nature. Anyway, I trust biologists to do the right things, ethically and scientifically -- I doubt many of them are eager to start tinkering with humans just to see what happens.
If nature was as fragile as some make it sound there would be more room for evolution at all. I find it far more impressive that nature is sufficiently robust to withstand the constant mutations and disasters that drive evolution.
-jcl
And you'd thought that Pinky and Brain were toons (Score:3)
Re:Not If .. When (Score:2)
I think he meant Star Trek, which did have a background war between the Humans and Neo-Humans (Wrath of Khan, and an episode of the original series also with Khan but I can't remember the title).
I trust biologists to do the right things, ethically and scientifically -- I doubt many of them are eager to start tinkering with humans just to see what happens.
This was a joke, right? This is the same group of scientists who have happily experimented on humans ("inferior" humans, of course) throughtout the modern period (Nazis is the obvious example but all countries have done it. In the States and the UK a lot of medical research has been carried out on handicaped people right up to the 70's and 80's that would turn your stomach, not to mention the various activities of the armed forces on their own trooops). Biologists are the single biggest group that treats all life as a machine to be taken apart to see where the grant money (er... benefits for all mankind) is.
TWW
Re:Careful engineering (Score:2)
Linguistic Intelligence, Logical-matematical, Bodily-kinesthetic (think woodworking, etc), Spatial (Architecure and what-not), Musical, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal (geeks).
These aren't exclusive. Everyone has all seven, but most people have a specialty, one type of intelligence is much stronger than the others. This fits well with how we evolved...
We're pack animals. We live in groups, and each person must have a function in that group. Some are leaders, some are workers, and ever since we moved into europe long long ago, some are creators and inventors. This hasn't changed if you think about it. It's just on a much larger scale. The leaders filter to "the top" as politicians and businessmen, the "grunts" stay in the lower classes, building things, hunting domesticated plants and animals to feed the pack, etc., but what makes us different from most other species in this respect (and specifically in this respect) is the other people. They make the tools the hunters use, the shelter they all sleep in. The people we call intelligent, but specifically, strongly intelligent in logical, spatial, and intrapersonal intelligences.
It's believed this type of person began to appear when we started moving into europe, to adapt to survive the harsh conditions (it was during an ice age remember), and to compete with the Neandrathal. Our bodies weren't adapted to the conditions, so our minds adapted. Linguistic and intrapersonal intelligence was also key, because the sharing of information between "tribes" during this period was very important, but without the "smart" ones to figure out new ways to live, kill, and eat, there wouldn't be anything worth communicating.
It's also worth mentioning that the artistic didn't appear until about the same time. Homo Sapiens for most of our history weren't that artistic. Once we started moving into europe, from africa (as the prevailing theory believes we did), cave paintings first started to appear. Now, I love looking at psychology from an evolutionary point of view, but for some reason I can't figure this one out. Most of what's been said about that is they'd be used as a teaching tool, to help teach their children about the world before they had to go into it. This makes a lot of sense because the most dangerous time for most mammals would be the time when first venturing from their homes. I'm not sure I like that idea quite as much though because it doesn't seem there was any necessity beforehand. Then again, necessity isn't always what drives evolution. The artists found a niche within our niche, so all the others helped them survive, for providing that service.
I'm really not meaning to go off-topic; The point is that we don't need to be evolving, though often I wish we would. We live in the same social structure as we always have, but on a huge scale, and with many more specialties. We may even still be evolving our intelligence to become even more specialized. Let's face it, everyone who lives serves a purpose for the rest, whether they're genetically messed up or not. If they had no purpose, they simply wouldn't survive, even today. Some people are meant to be presidents, some are meant to work in fast food. If everyone were mathematical geniuses, the world could not function.
One Word (Score:2)
From hardware to software (Score:2)
Just as hardware is less flexible that software (hence the names), genes are less adaptable than memes.
Science and culture have taken the human species to the Moon and other interesting niches. No species has genetically evolved to reach this (well, some species have evolved to parasite/symbiotize humans (rats, lice, seagulls), and so they follow humankind in our evolution
__
"Beggars in Spain" (Score:2)
__
Re:Wrong! No! (Score:2)
What horrific damage would that be, then? Humans are utterly incapable of doing more damage to the planet than a medium meteor strike or average glaciation can't exceed by orders of magnitude.
If every human on earth dropped dead right now, there wouldn't be any evidence we ever existed (with the arguable exceptions of lunar landing debris and the occasional very lucky space probe) within fifty thousand years. Less, probably.
Compare that to the millions of years it takes the earth to recover from a major ice age or meteor strike.
Humans have been on Earth for less than an eyeblink; it is hubris of the highest order to imagine we are capable of inflicting any sort of lasting damage.
gomi
Alien evolution (Score:2)
See, this is the evolution that will happen if we continue to get smarter & smarter, become less & less active. We no longer have to chase down zebras with a spear just to get breakfast. We're not as active. We've lost almost all our hair, since we no longer have to be wooly mammoths to keep warm. heck, just turn the Heater on! And we're losing the hair we have anyways just because of baseball caps (ok, just a theory of mine about hats) Aliens are white, because they don't just program all-nighters, but all-monthers. They don't see the sun months at a time.
See, just because we don't HAVE to survive Nature's environment doesn't mean evolution has stopped. We now have to survive our Technology environment we created. We'll be flying in spaceships soon, and nature is slowly disappearing anyways due to Yet-Another-Suburb(tm). We're already slowly turning into a society where brains can get you ahead. And even starting to get more and more a MUST. For instance... it used to be a big deal to finish your High School, then it was college. Now everyone goes to college. Soon, it'll be triple PHD, and we've already seen the small small rift in Computer-ese vs. NonComputer users.
Evolution is happening! Even if we're sociologically morally allowing People with disabilites to live and procreate, and as another poster said, "all the poor people are having 20 kids, so there'll be all these genes with dumb people spreading", blah blah. Yes, see.. that is evolution. Maybe just not in the direction you're thinking of.
Ok, here's an anology. Let's say that the government made it really cool and easy to get Welfare. Infact, they make it desirable to. (wait, that sounds familiar) Get to watch all the day time crap TV you want! And get payed! So more and more trailer park trash (another poster's words) start to procreate and join welfare. Pretty soon we've got GENERATIONS of Welfare people. See, that's evolution!
Then! All the money dries up because there were only like 10 of us going to work, and 95% of our money went to taxes. So now all of a sudden there's no longer any Welfare cheese to survive on, and they all start to die because they have the "I-dont-know-how-to-work" gene. Another step in Evolution!
This actually happened with a certain type of moth in England. All the trees in this region were birch or something (white bark, being the key here). All these moths were white, and could survive because they blended into the white. Well, once in a while, genetics would make a freak, and a black moth was born. Usually he got eaten by the birds, and no more black moths in that family.
Well, the industrial revolution came for a visit, and spewed forth black soot in the air (and haven't stopped since, i'd wager) Anyway, the trees started to get this darker and darker and darker color to them from the polution. All of a sudden, the freaks of nature that were dark colored moths continued to live and pass their "freaky" gene on, as their white bretheren started to become easy to find on the black trees.
So the point is, we're all slowly turning into non-action related brainy people. If a catastrophe happened, and we'd all have to haul our fat asses after the zebra to eat, instead of driving to the grocery store, yea, we're screwed. But if this catastrophe doesn't happen, then its ok, because we're creating an environment where it's cool to be an out of shape, porphyric, attrophied, possibly fat, computer geek. Yea
Rader
Re:Human Evolution (Score:2)
Second, our intelegecne and understanding of the world *is* one of the ways we evolve. The development of biotechnology just gives one more way for this software evoltion to influence the hardware evolution.
Third, humans controlling their own evolution is not scary. The human modifications which fuck up will not survive. Humans and/or natural selection will undo our screwups.
Actualy, human control over human evolution could be a wonderful thing for exactly all the reasons that the ludites fear it (like new viruses). If human evolution divurges into multiple species then we may become more immune to these new viruses.
Really, the one hting we should do is pass laws requiring human genetic modifications to be "open source," i.e. no patents on modifications to humans. This would prevent the corperations from controlling all the technology and would allow human evolution to divurge.
Intelligence...is just another mutation (Score:2)
We've been close to our present level of sophistication for what, 2-3,000 years? More maybe? Still just a blink of an eye in terms of the long haul. The last 200 years have seen what looks to be a boiling point of sorts in terms of our ability to modify ourselves and our environment. To what end? Who knows?
The jury's still out - only Time will tell if this mutation stays or goes!
Re:And you'd thought that Pinky and Brain were too (Score:2)
I've seen on a TV documentary a parrot able to make such abstract distinctions as "what color?", "which one is metal?", "how many blue?", "which one is square" - getting it right first time, from amongst many objects which differ along all these axes at once.
The small brain size is confusing, but perhaps running a parrot body doesn't take much processing power, so there's more left over for smarts.
Re:Human Evolution (Score:2)