ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 16th November 2019, 10:33 AM   #161
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,014
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I find that extremely unlikely.


If you have 20 fertilized eggs and their genes sequenced, and you have a good understanding of how those genes function, you can imagine a ranking of those 20 eggs along both the "smart" and "physically attractive" dimensions. Whichever egg ranks highest on one dimension is very unlikely to rank highest on the other. Assuming that different genes are in play for each set of characteristics, there won't be any correlation between ranking high on one and ranking high on the other, so I think the chances that the highest ranking egg of one would also be the highest ranking egg in the other would be 1/20.

ETA: And I don't think our interventions will be limited to choosing among fertilized eggs. Though this actually opens the possibility for interventions that wouldn't have to choose between intelligence and aesthetics or other valued traits, except where the tradeoffs are demanded by the way the system (the human body) is designed and it's physical constraints.

Our technology today is much more advanced than was the technology used to breed dogs in past.
Except that our definition of "attractive" may have been established for it's commonality to other traits. Large bosoms with have been a display of nursing, meaning she is fertile. And so maybe other looks are associated with intelligence?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 10:57 AM   #162
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,085
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Except that our definition of "attractive" may have been established for it's commonality to other traits. Large bosoms with have been a display of nursing, meaning she is fertile. And so maybe other looks are associated with intelligence?
Don't think that really any longer applies, or perhaps only has a very small influence. Looking at beast size over the last century the mainstream "fashion" has gone from flat to very rounded several times. Tanned and non tanned have swapped several times and so on. Whilst there may be some truth in humans selecting each other for reproductive fitness judged by appearance it is is very apparent that this is" over ridden " by other factors that create what is currently considered attractive in a given society and culture.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 11:00 AM   #163
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,259
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
you only need a few, and then clone the rest from them
Again, reality disagrees with you.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 12:06 PM   #164
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,014
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Don't think that really any longer applies, or perhaps only has a very small influence. Looking at beast size over the last century the mainstream "fashion" has gone from flat to very rounded several times. Tanned and non tanned have swapped several times and so on. Whilst there may be some truth in humans selecting each other for reproductive fitness judged by appearance it is is very apparent that this is" over ridden " by other factors that create what is currently considered attractive in a given society and culture.
Yup. Beer helps.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 01:20 PM   #165
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,259
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
They'd need to eat by photosynthesis, and emit no greenhouse gases. 20/20 vision in multiple eyes. Opposable thumbs are handy, they should have two per hand. Hands are even more handy, they should have at least six. Breathe underwater with gills, obviously. Immune to snake venom because they'll need to fight serpents constantly. Perhaps internal bladders that can be filled at will with lighter-than-air gases for hovering? Yes, these neohumans will be useful indeed!
Stanisław Lem did something like this in one of his Tichy stories.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 03:19 PM   #166
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,548
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I find that extremely unlikely.
Why?

Quote:
If you have 20 fertilized eggs and their genes sequenced, and you have a good understanding of how those genes function, you can imagine a ranking of those 20 eggs along both the "smart" and "physically attractive" dimensions. Whichever egg ranks highest on one dimension is very unlikely to rank highest on the other. Assuming that different genes are in play for each set of characteristics, there won't be any correlation between ranking high on one and ranking high on the other, so I think the chances that the highest ranking egg of one would also be the highest ranking egg in the other would be 1/20.
Because there's going to be more traits than just smart and pretty to choose from, and different degrees of certainty about the gene test working for the trait.

Specific diseases, various artistic talents/potentials, things like "highly altruism exhibiting", eye color, hair color, personality type, hair type, etc. If they find the high functioning autism(s?) genes (there are probably many distinct type of genetic autisms) some people might select for some types and some will want to avoid it. There are a lot of genes to play with once the science starts figuring thing out.

And there's going to be a big element of it really just being just a bit better than a wild guess for a long time, won't it? How these genes interact with each other is still mysterious. I don't think they've made this work in an animal model yet, even. They can do animal GMOs, but that's a totally different type of technology. Capitalism will churn out bogus or borderline bogus genetic tests till they're replaced by better ones very slowly over time, I forsee. The mostly bogus tests will bankroll R&D for ever better ones.

Quote:
ETA: And I don't think our interventions will be limited to choosing among fertilized eggs.
I'm not so sure...
What are you thinking of specifically as likely in the near future?

Quote:
Though this actually opens the possibility for interventions that wouldn't have to choose between intelligence and aesthetics or other valued traits, except where the tradeoffs are demanded by the way the system (the human body) is designed and it's physical constraints.

Our technology today is much more advanced than was the technology used to breed dogs in past.
It's not that advanced in genetically testing for traits, though, I don't think. I am 99% sure that stuff is still in not just the dark ages, but ancient Mesopotamia. (probably because of funding problems.)

We're here, right now: (I suggest reading this whole thing, I'm taking one snippet as an example)
https://archives.nih.gov/asites/repo...sid=91&key=G#G

Quote:
Using large-scale approaches like genome wide association (GWA) and other statistical tools scientists are beginning to identify the genetic variations associated with some diseases.

The information contained in gene sequences is far more complex than anyone imagined. For example, scientists learned that genes contain large regions of non-coding DNA that regulate gene activity. They also discovered that the body can read the same DNA sequence in different ways to produce different proteins.
We learned a few things really fast with DNA, and now we've hit this weird place where we realize it's mindbogglingly complex from here on out, it seems.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 16th November 2019 at 03:31 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.