Tim Tyler wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:

Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding, and in
fact rejection, of evolutionary theory.

Um, not according to the dictionary, it isn't:

Well, yes, it is. Look below, and see two uses of
"presumed". The presumptions of eugenics enforcers
typically have had little if anything to do with
"fitness" (whatever the might mean once a severe
case of civilization has set in) and everything to
do with "social (un)desirability".

John's objection is spot on, which is why eugenics,
based on its sins of the past, is in such disrepute
today.

Sterilizing someone whose mental deficiency
is due to being choked by the umbilical cord at
birth, or partially suffocated by carbon monoxide in
a home accident during childhood, makes neither
genetic nor evolutionary sense, yet it sure is
"eugenics", boy, howdy.

Tim Tyler <seemysig@cyberspace.org> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:

Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding,
and in fact rejection, of evolutionary theory.

Um, not according to the dictionary, it isn't:

``Eugenics:

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the
qualities of the human species or a human population, esp.
by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons
having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable
undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging
reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable
desirable traits (positive eugenics).''

- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Eugenics

With respect, that definition, while accurate enough, is not based on
evolutionary theory. But as early as the mid-30s, Dobzhansky noted that
evolution occurred on species with genetic loads no better than ours,
which did not go extinct.

Eugenics is based on animal husbandry, and has been since the Spartans.

John Wilkins wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemysig@cyberspace.org> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:

Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding,
and in fact rejection, of evolutionary theory.

Um, not according to the dictionary, it isn't:

``Eugenics:

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the
qualities of the human species or a human population, esp.
by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons
having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable
undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging
reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable
desirable traits (positive eugenics).''

- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Eugenics

With respect, that definition, while accurate enough, is not based on
evolutionary theory. But as early as the mid-30s, Dobzhansky noted
that
evolution occurred on species with genetic loads no better than ours,
which did not go extinct.

Eugenics is based on animal husbandry, and has been since the
Spartans.

Right...

So do you also think that animal husbandry is based
on a "misunderstanding, and in fact rejection, of
evolutionary theory"?

Your original statement still seems ridiculous

You subsequent comment suggests that perhaps
you are thinking that eugenic ideas are motivated
solely by the desire to prevent extinction via
a mutational meltdown.

If so, I can assure you that that is not the case.

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:

Yes, genes will be managed. What will happen is this:

http://alife.co.uk/essays/engineered_future/

Not a prayer. That is far too simplistic to be given
credence.

Do we want to breed humans tailored so specifically
for difficult environments [deep ocean, Mars, Titan,
....] that they become separate species, or do we
want to eliminate human racial differences in hopes
that some magic in everyone looking alike and being
equally capable will somehow reduce human conflict?

The notion of 'separate species' started to lose its
meaning back when it became possible to transfer
genes between species.

Yes, our descendants will become specialised so that
they can occupy more niches - but that doesn't imply
that they won't be able to exchange genes. Now
the species barrier has been breached, gene trade
will escalate rapidly.

By contrast, eliminating human racial differences
is unlikely to happen because it is a silly goal.
For one thing, skin pigmentation differences exist
for a good adaptive reason, to allow humans to
occupy a wider range of niches.

--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

John Wilkins wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemysig@cyberspace.org> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:

Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding,
and in fact rejection, of evolutionary theory.

Um, not according to the dictionary, it isn't:

``Eugenics:

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the
qualities of the human species or a human population, esp.
by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons
having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable
undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging
reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable
desirable traits (positive eugenics).''

- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Eugenics

With respect, that definition, while accurate enough, is not based on
evolutionary theory. But as early as the mid-30s, Dobzhansky noted that
evolution occurred on species with genetic loads no better than ours,
which did not go extinct.

Eugenics is based on animal husbandry, and has been since the Spartans.

Right...

So do you also think that animal husbandry is based
on a "misunderstanding, and in fact rejection, of
evolutionary theory"?

Your original statement still seems ridiculous :-(

You subsequent comment suggests that perhaps
you are thinking that eugenic ideas are motivated
solely by the desire to prevent extinction via
a mutational meltdown.

If so, I can assure you that that is not the case.

How bad is our gene pool in the west where the weak have as many
children as the strong? I look at the British royal family for example.
They are quite ugly and not that bright.

Does low intelligence, ugliness, bad teeth, etc become prevalent very
quickly.

When you look at animals, sometimes 80 percent die off in a
bad winter leaving only those with good genes.

At some point, wont we
have to start doing managing genetics.

Was Hitler right on this point? Churchill , as well?

Animal husbandry uses selection to breed animals that are useful for
humans. The basic idea behind eugenics is to breed humans that are like
the ruling class, on the assumption that being like the ruling class will
make the bred humans useful.

Tim Tyler <seemysig@cyberspace.org> wrote in news:enea7c$1uks$1
John Wilkins wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemysig@cyberspace.org> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:

Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding,
and in fact rejection, of evolutionary theory.

Um, not according to the dictionary, it isn't:

``Eugenics:

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the
qualities of the human species or a human population, esp.
by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons
having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable
undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging
reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable
desirable traits (positive eugenics).''

- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Eugenics
With respect, that definition, while accurate enough, is not based on
evolutionary theory. But as early as the mid-30s, Dobzhansky noted
that evolution occurred on species with genetic loads no better
than ours,
which did not go extinct.

Eugenics is based on animal husbandry, and has been since the
Spartans.

Right...

So do you also think that animal husbandry is based
on a "misunderstanding, and in fact rejection, of
evolutionary theory"?

Animal husbandry uses selection to breed animals that are
useful for humans. The basic idea behind eugenics is to
breed humans that are like the ruling class, on the
assumption that being like the ruling class will make the
bred humans useful.

Your original statement still seems ridiculous :-(

His original statement, to amplify, is that eugenics
assumes that existing selective forces are not producing
humans that are adapted to their environment [...]

[...] and that the eugenicists have a better
idea of what is selective than natural selection.
Seems spot on to me.

You subsequent comment suggests that perhaps
you are thinking that eugenic ideas are motivated
solely by the desire to prevent extinction via
a mutational meltdown.

If so, I can assure you that that is not the case.

Right. Eugenic ideas are motivated by the same thinking
that gave us the Third Reich, the Soviet Union under Lenin,
and the invasion of Iraq by the US - the thought that I
know what is best for you, even if you disagree. As my
parents taught me, the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.

Tim Tyler <seemysig@cyberspace.org> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemysig@cyberspace.org> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:

Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding,
and in fact rejection, of evolutionary theory.

Um, not according to the dictionary, it isn't:

``Eugenics:

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the
qualities of the human species or a human population, esp.
by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons
having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable
undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging
reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable
desirable traits (positive eugenics).''

- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Eugenics

Eugenics is based on animal husbandry, and has been
since the Spartans.

Right...

So do you also think that animal husbandry is based
on a "misunderstanding, and in fact rejection, of
evolutionary theory"?

Your original statement still seems ridiculous :-(

You subsequent comment suggests that perhaps
you are thinking that eugenic ideas are motivated
solely by the desire to prevent extinction via
a mutational meltdown.

If so, I can assure you that that is not the case.

The justification for eugenics has always been "racial
health" or something similar, and the standard view since
Galton has been that modern medicine or social conditions
permit the survival of unfit variants, which needs
correction via (positive or negantive, depending on the
politics) eugenics.

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, says that any
variant that spreads in the environments in which it finds
itself, just *is* fit, by definition. So if, to take a
17thC example, the Irish are outbreeding the much fitter
English aristocracy, then they happen to be fitter in
evolutionary terms, no matter how the English happen to
view themselves.

It doesn't matter from an evolutionary perspective that the
environment in question is that of modern medicine, and
more than it matters that a robust beak finch morphology on
the Galapagos Islands is fitter in a short term drought. In
that context, alleles that spread are, definitionally,
fitter.

Animal husbandry selects not for environmental fitness, but
for the purposes of breeders (farmers, meat wholsalers,
etc.). One might argue that this then becomes part of the
fitness landscape of cows and sheep, and I would argue
that, but there is no absolute metric for fitness in either
case, which is the error of eugencis.

Some eugencis might in fact be quite reasonable.
[...]

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, says that any variant that
spreads in the environments in which it finds itself, just *is* fit, by
definition.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 13:46:59 -0500 (EST),
John Wilkins <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote:

[snip]

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, says that any variant that
spreads in the environments in which it finds itself, just *is* fit, by
definition.

Hmmmmmmm .....

Never mind. Carry on. You're incorrigible.

wiseman wrote:

How bad is our gene pool in the west where the
weak have as many children as the strong? I look
at the British royal family for example. They
are quite ugly and not that bright.

What an interesting example that is!

The British royal family is probably one of the
most highly engineered human families in
existence. For most of its history, new partners
were carefully selected and only the most well
connected and "best" families were allowed to
breed their sons and daughters into it.

If they turn out to be dumb and ugly, that doesn't
speak well for our ability to select folks for
breeding does it?

William Morse wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemysig@cyberspace.org> wrote in news:enea7c$1uks$1
John Wilkins wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemysig@cyberspace.org> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:

It is *obvious* that humans are maladapted. They
live in a rapidly-changing environment, and
evolution via natural selection is an /extremely/
slow process.

I can only agree with you about that we (the human species) are maladapted

It is *obvious* that humans are maladapted. They
live in a rapidly-changing environment, and
evolution via natural selection is an /extremely/
slow process.

Tim Tyler wrote:

It is *obvious* that humans are maladapted. They
live in a rapidly-changing environment, and
evolution via natural selection is an /extremely/
slow process.

That's nonsense, Tim. In the sense you use it, _any_
species is "obviously maladapted", since no species
ever has had sufficient time perfectly to adapt to
its always changing environment. Used that way,
"maladapted" becomes a meaningless tautology.

The "environment" to which humans adapt today is
almost entirely human culture, and adaptation to
human culture occurs in meme-space, not in
gene-space. "Natural selection" in meme-space is
incredibly rapid, because it is the memes that are
being evolved, not the meat-package, idea replacing
superseded idea handfuls to thousands of times in
the same individual's one lifetime. The result, in
meat-package reproductive success, is moreover a
sampling of the particular curve through meme-space
the individul occupies during the reproductive
interval, and does not have much relation to either
the initial or the final meme-space location of the
individual.

You really can't figure this stuff out if you stay
stuck in the old conceptualizations.

Stuck as with your views on eugenics, which looks
like a feasible idea right up until you have to ask
yourself "who will guard the guardians" and realize
that eugenics can never possibly work, because there
is no one safely to be trusted with that much power.