Reply to: A Weakening of the gene pool

[EternalOptimist]

Despite it's modern meaning of metabolic efficiency, it's misleading to think of the word "fit" there as just relating to physical health and capability.

It would be clearer if the phrase "survival of the fittest" was replaced by "survival of the most suitable (in the circumstances)", in other words "fit" as in "fit for purpose", which was what people like Darwin understood by the word.

Yes, physical health was the main prerequisite when medicine was primitive. But there are many other ways of being "suitable", even if one is physically frail or has an ailment that would have been fatal in times past.

er...I know that.

a square peg in a square hole. a round peg in a round hole.

a good fit. thats what he's on about.

so a three-toed sloth is fit for his environment.

[OwlHoot]

what I meant was this.
In the olden days, a person who was less 'fit' would not survive, when the pressures of survival were brought to bear...

Despite it's modern meaning of metabolic efficiency, it's misleading to think of the word "fit" there as just relating to physical health and capability.

It would be clearer if the phrase "survival of the fittest" was replaced by "survival of the most suitable (in the circumstances)", in other words "fit" as in "fit for purpose", which was what people like Darwin understood by the word.

Yes, physical health was the main prerequisite when medicine was primitive. But there are many other ways of being "suitable", even if one is physically frail or has an ailment that would have been fatal in times past.

[expat]

ok.
So you have the situation where the poor immune system gene is allowed to propogate through the population, which is propped up by technology.
The prop gets kicked away.
A population CAN become too tiny.

goto OP

Only if the population is too tiny can the presence of "poor" genes (those whose set of potential favourable environments is small) prevent the other genes from propagating. With any reasonable size of population, when the prop is kicked away then the genes that depended on it will now be selected against, and the other genes will survive. It takes "artificial" props plus tiny population (and I might argue that technological props are only likely to be deployed by a population that, like ours, is far from tiny but rather excessive).

But thanks for the questions, I enjoyed the discussion.

[expat]

Not necessarily.

I have a genetic weakness (MS) and fortunately I have not, and will not add to the gene pool.

Deliberately having children when you have a known malady which can be genetic is at the least, irresponsible, and at the worst, cruel by condemning your offspring to your own disease.

Sometimes there is no neutral ground, and IMHO this is one of those times. As you say, it might be irresponsible or cruel knowingly to pass it on; but OTOH deliberately not to do so is an act of principle and courage.

[Board Game Geek]

person who had a genetic disposition to a weak immune system. Therefore the genetic weakness is not passed on and , so the theory goes, will eventually disappear.
Nowadays, that person is kept alive.
Does this represent a weakening of the gene pool ?

Not necessarily.

I have a genetic weakness (MS) and fortunately I have not, and will not add to the gene pool.

Deliberately having children when you have a known malady which can be genetic is at the least, irresponsible, and at the worst, cruel by condemning your offspring to your own disease.

[EternalOptimist]

and can rise again from the ashes of a disaster.

tell it to the dinosaurs

[KentPhilip]

ok.
So you have the situation where the poor immune system gene is allowed to propogate through the population, which is propped up by technology.
The prop gets kicked away.
A population CAN become too tiny.

goto OP

Ah but the prop can never fully be kicked away. It might be kicked away for most people, but there will always be some resources left to support the variety.
Then when conditions change (again) to become favourable to one of those varieties they will procreate like rabbits and generate lots of props for everyone else.

Or in other words the variety does not result in a dominant society, but it does result in a society that is resiliant to adversity and changing circumstances, and can rise again from the ashes of a disaster.

[Andy2]

Clever women are having less children because of careers and other stuff.

But the four-kids-by-different-fathers chavette has adapted to survival pretty well.

I think its a Nu labor plan to remove intelligent people from the gene pool
because they don't vote labour.
Survival of the dumbest

[snaw]

Only 40% of female graduates will ever have a baby.

Link please.

[cailin maith]

Only 40% of female graduates will ever have a baby.

Crikey - thats quite an interesting statistic. Dinker did you make that up or is it real?

[dinker]

Only 40% of female graduates will ever have a baby.

[BlackenedBiker]

what I meant was this.
In the olden days, a person who was less 'fit' would not survive, when the pressures of survival were brought to bear.
for the sake of argument - a person who had a genetic disposition to a weak immune system. Therefore the genetic weakness is not passed on and , so the theory goes, will eventually disappear.
Nowadays, that person is kept alive.
Does this represent a weakening of the gene pool ?

Are Homo sapiens altruistic (I mean apart from on this board). As such the species is pre-disposed to keep members of the group alive. Now and 100,000 years ago

[Doggy Styles]

Clever women are having less children because of careers and other stuff.

But the four-kids-by-different-fathers chavette has adapted to survival pretty well.

[EternalOptimist]

Ah. Aaaaah. That's a good question.

Could I say that you might strengthen the gene pool while eliminating the species? No, I suppose not.

Next year, the screwfly population may be tiny, but it will not contain the sterility gene (obviously). So that has selected itself right out in one generation. That actually doesn't differ from what I'm saying. A characteristic is selected for or against, or it is not. If it is not selected either way then it is irrelevant (for the moment: it may turn out to be important later in a different environment). If it is selected against, it disappears: like the screwfly sterility, and like the immune system weakness in previous times, but unlike that weakness now. There is no inconsistency there: there is only the personal opinion that it might be a bad thing that it is no longer selected against. But like I said, changes in environment happen, and changes in selection with it.

ok.
So you have the situation where the poor immune system gene is allowed to propogate through the population, which is propped up by technology.
The prop gets kicked away.
A population CAN become too tiny.

goto OP

[expat]

...
Now according to expat, we have stregnthened the screwfly genepool by introducing more variety and spreading it through the population?????

its obviously not doing the screwfly any favours, so why is it a good thing.

Ah. Aaaaah. That's a good question.

Could I say that you might strengthen the gene pool while eliminating the species? No, I suppose not.

Next year, the screwfly population may be tiny, but it will not contain the sterility gene (obviously). So that has selected itself right out in one generation. That actually doesn't differ from what I'm saying. A characteristic is selected for or against, or it is not. If it is not selected either way then it is irrelevant (for the moment: it may turn out to be important later in a different environment). If it is selected against, it disappears: like the screwfly sterility, and like the immune system weakness in previous times, but unlike that weakness now. There is no inconsistency there: there is only the personal opinion that it might be a bad thing that it is no longer selected against. But like I said, changes in environment happen, and changes in selection with it.