The future

[Burrhus]

The terms eugenic and dysgenic both presume that one can know the future. As environmental conditions change over time, natural selection operates on variations within a gene pool, selecting those which are better able to acquire resources and reproduce under those NEW conditions.

Since we cannot know in the present what those conditions will be, it is misguided to presume to know which genes in the present should be selected by us to meet those future contingencies of natural selection.

However, one can never transcend the evolutionary process and view it as if from the outside. One is always embedded within it. All decisions that we make are themselves the products of the evolutionary process. Those decisions about the eugenic or dysgenic properties of genes as they relate to those future contingencies of natural selection are themselves merely determined (not free), human participation in the evolutionary process.

Therein lies an enormous paradox.

While we cannot know the future course of evolution, some humans believe either that the future will be sufficiently similar to the present or that they can predict what the future contingencies of natural selection will be in an altered environment, both of which are doubtful.

On the other hand, the course of evolution up to the present has led these people to hold these beliefs. Either the evolutionary process is capable of anticipating itself, which strikes me as a bit anthropomorphic as well as being teleologically mystical or the evolutionary process has produced a behavior possibly detrimental to homo sapiens.

I believe that the resolution of the paradox is this: Tread lightly when presuming to predict the future. You cannot be certain that Trisomy-21 will not be genetically favored under some future environmental conditions.

The evolutionary process is best studied with vigilant curiosity and more than a little humility. I mean, you're not doing something simple and safe like splitting the atom.

[Zubenelgenubi]

You cannot be certain that Trisomy-21 will not be genetically favored under some future environmental conditions.

Chances are slim. Trisomy-21 nearly always causes infertility.

[Burrhus]

Originally Posted by Burrhus
You cannot be certain that Trisomy-21 will not be genetically favored under some future environmental conditions.

Chances are slim. Trisomy-21 nearly always causes infertility.

"Nearly always" is an insignificant impediment given the time-frame and 'patience' of evolution.

I agree that Trisomy-21 is an unlikely candidate for future success but that wasn't the point. The point was that the level of certainty exhibited by present-day eugenicists and dysgenicists about the future utilty of today's genes in future environmental conditions is unwarranted given their lack of knowledge about the future.

As Delos mentions, sickle-cell is a better candidate. Other genes currently considered dysgenic could have future utility while some considered eugenic today could be failures under altered conditions.

As I said, "The evolutionary process is best studied with vigilant curiosity and more than a little humility. I mean, you're not doing something simple and safe like splitting the atom."

[Burrhus]

The terms eugenic and dysgenic both presume that one can know the future. As environmental conditions change over time, natural selection operates on variations within a gene pool, selecting those which are better able to acquire resources and reproduce under those NEW conditions.

Since we cannot know in the present what those conditions will be, it is misguided to presume to know which genes in the present should be selected by us to meet those future contingencies of natural selection.

However, one can never transcend the evolutionary process and view it as if from the outside. One is always embedded within it. All decisions that we make are themselves the products of the evolutionary process. Those decisions about the eugenic or dysgenic properties of genes as they relate to those future contingencies of natural selection are themselves merely determined (not free), human participation in the evolutionary process.

Therein lies an enormous paradox.

While we cannot know the future course of evolution, some humans believe either that the future will be sufficiently similar to the present or that they can predict what the future contingencies of natural selection will be in an altered environment, both of which are doubtful.

On the other hand, the course of evolution up to the present has led these people to hold these beliefs. Either the evolutionary process is capable of anticipating itself, which strikes me as a bit anthropomorphic as well as being teleologically mystical or the evolutionary process has produced a behavior possibly detrimental to homo sapiens.

I believe that the resolution of the paradox is this: Tread lightly when presuming to predict the future. You cannot be certain that Trisomy-21 will not be genetically favored under some future environmental conditions.

The evolutionary process is best studied with vigilant curiosity and more than a little humility. I mean, you're not doing something simple and safe like splitting the atom.

The response from the eugenicists is underwhelming. I will be optimistic and assume that they are giving my post deep thought.

[Burrhus]

I agree that we don't know enough about the gene-protein pathways to start selecting on a genetic level. What we can do at the moment is use the phenotype to select people who look and act the best and when we are able to select on a genetic level then we would have a pool of people that we want to keep because they are phenotypically superior. There is no point in selecting for people who have resistance to diseases that are so butt ugly that a normal human being wouldn't breed with them.

The phenotype tells us nothing more than the genotype about the utility of any current traits in the altered environmental conditions of the future.

[Burrhus]

Yes, but just because you know the phenotype, doesn't mean you know the genotype. The genotype has dominant and recessive alleles which means that if you remove an unwanted dominant allele you may create a situation of a worse recessive allele being expressed.

All the more reason to continue with sceptical curiosity and more than a little bit of humility.

[Burrhus]

Positive eugenics could do this.

The adjective positive presumes that a eugenic program which will preserve and eliminate particular genes now has some knowledge as to the properties of the future environment wherein the genes retained will provide selective reproductive advantage and those discarded will not.

That knowledge is simply not available to us. We could eliminate the gene for sickle cell anemia on the assumption that the future environment will be malaria-free but if we err, the consequences would be maladaptive.

Or we could select now for genes that produce phenotypes that are more 'intelligent' (as we now define 'intelligence') rather than large, muscular, less 'intelligent' phenotypes. But a worldwide collapse of modern civilization as an environment where 'intelligence' as we define it is an advantage could result in an environment where that 'intelligence' is no longer an advantage. In such a de-civilized environment strength could be more reproductively advantageous (as it once was).

That is not an argument against eugenics per se given that any assertions about what is or is not 'eugenic' are themselves products of the evolutionary process. One cannot argue with evolution but one can argue within evolution. The former presumes that we argue somehow from outside that process, the latter recognizes that we do not.

Ignorance of the future does not preclude speculation (as is obvious from observation) but it should give us pause to be sceptical and cautious in acting on those speculations. We have only had 150 years of awareness of the process of evolution and 100 years of genetics. Even today in a quasi-literate nation like America, many people do not accept the theory of evolution and few understand genetics and, worse, many who believe that they understand both are in serious error.

Any large scale eugenics program would have to be a matter of public policy and the public is grossly ignorant on the issue. The probablity of disastrous decisions would be so much more likely than beneficial ones that any public consideration, let alone application, that would be worthy of the name rational is centuries away.

[Burrhus]

I would envision a points system that would put equal measure in strength as it does in intelligence. It would be a mistake to select for only one thing.

What we can do is look at things that are most desirable and select for them. The CCR∆32 gene provides European resistance against all Hepatitis virii and HIV, it would be advantageous to select these people to pass on their genes to the whole European gene pool - somehow.

You are not getting my point, Delos. We have no way of knowing what genes will be 'desirable', ie. provide their bearers with a reproductive advantage, in the FUTURE. Speculating on which genes to promote or discourage NOW without any knowledge of the future environment in which they will operate seems ill advised to me.

While it is difficult for us to imagine such future environments where genes which seem disadvantageous to us now may be advantageous, it is that very inability to imagine the future with any degree of certainty that must make us step back and be cautious in our judgements today.

All of the scientific fields involved in making eugenic decisions--evolution, genetics, cytology, ecology, even geology--are so new and in such early stages of development that we are not, in my opinion, anywhere near ready to apply them to our decision making process with regard to such a vital area as the future of the human genome.

Mistaken decisions in politics, economics and other areas of human activity are usually quite limited in the extent and duration of their negative effects and are generally correctable. Altering the human genome does not seem to me to be in that class of human actions. At least not at this time.

[Basil Fawlty]

You are not getting my point, Delos. We have no way of knowing what genes will be 'desirable', ie. provide their bearers with a reproductive advantage, in the FUTURE. Speculating on which genes to promote or discourage NOW without any knowledge of the future environment in which they will operate seems ill advised to me.This point needs to be emphasised.
Mistaken decisions in politics, economics and other areas of human activity are usually quite limited in the extent and duration of their negative effects and are generally correctable. Altering the human genome does not seem to me to be in that class of human actions. At least not at this time.It sounds like the ultimate hubris. But I've no doubt that if the merchants of folly could start manipulating things in this way, they would start tomorrow. Could you imagine the results of something like Monsanto branching out into human genetic modification? All too often people are blinded by the technical possibilties and forget the networks of power that use and abuse such discoveries

[Burrhus]

Are you saying you are anti-eugenics?

Burrhus: That is not an argument against eugenics per se
given that any assertions about what is or is not 'eugenic' are themselves products of the evolutionary process. One cannot argue with evolution but one can argue within evolution. The former presumes that we argue somehow from outside that process, the latter recognizes that we do not.

No, I am not anti-eugenics as you can see above, nor am I pro-eugenics (eugenics taken as action rather than mere judgement). My concern is with the prefix "eu" which means good: eu-genics, good-genes. What I have been trying to say is that we cannot know NOW with sufficient certainty what WILL BE good genes in the FUTURE environment within which they will be operating. What we may now believe to be good genes MAY NOT be good genes in that future environment.

We simply do not know enough now about either genetics or possible future environments to be in a position to make judgements and act on those judgements concerning which genes should be preserved or eliminated. We may or may not ever know enough about genetics but we will almost certainly never know enough about the future--how CAN we ever know (not speculate) about the future?--to make and act on those judgements about what are or are not 'good' genes.

Humans speculate about the future often. A farmer who plants a crop in the spring is speculating that the future envirnment will provide the correct mix of sun and rain to make his effort in planting worthwhile. But he does not know that. His crop may fail. But what choice does he have? To not plant has the same result as an environmental failure to provide the sun and rain needed. No crop. He may as well just plant and hope for the best. That works often enough to be the correct decision.

But speculating on the human genome is not in the same category of decisons as the farmer's. If he plants and the crop fails, he simply has no crop to harvest. That may be a local disaster for him but not for homo sapiens. If eugenicists 'seed' the future with what they believe to be 'good' genes and the future environment, which they believe will produce a 'harvest' of humans adapted to that environment, fails to do so, then the existence of homo sapiens could be put at risk.

That is simply not a risk that we are in a position to, nor ought we to, take. Not now and probably never. My advice to those who disagree with me and might have the means to proceed is still: sceptical caution and humility.

[Burrhus]

This point needs to be emphasised. (I have tried, Basil)

It sounds like the ultimate hubris. But I've no doubt that if the merchants of folly could start manipulating things in this way, they would start tomorrow. Could you imagine the results of something like Monsanto branching out into human genetic modification? All too often people are blinded by the technical possibilties and forget the networks of power that use and abuse such discoveries

What I have written about gene selection applies equally to gene modification.

And the problems with both are, as you say, subject to the abuse of power and that possibility (probability?) adds a further note of caution to my comments. But even if the eugenicist is sincere and not self-interested, the problem remains as I have said. We cannot know the future and therefore we ought not to proceed with any eugenics program now and probably never.