| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 3/24/2008 7:51:34 PM | Eugenics and various brands of social Darwinism would have you believe that humans are "hurting" their gene pool through technology that allows people with various genetic disorders to survive and reproduce. But is this necessarily true?
Consider how evolution functions. It is a blind process, and it can only build off of what is available. Thus, through a series of fortunate accidents and selection pressures, human beings were able to evolve an opposable thumb, given that we've built off of the body plan of ancestors that thankfully allowed for this development. But notice that this beneficial outcome relies on the foundation of fingers being developed, and hands, and limbs. Had neither of these things evolved, there would have been no "canvas" for evolution to paint on. Evolution can only work with what it has, it can't "create" a new canvas from scratch.
With that said, we can begin to see why keeping "bad" genes in our gene pool may not be such a bad idea. We can all realize that keeping these genes around, though they are currently harmful, nevertheless broaden the canvas or deepen the pool, giving evolution more variety to work with. Look at a disease like sickle cell anemia. It is decidedly "bad" if you take it out of a region marred by malaria. And yet it confers an obvious survival advantage in these regions, despite its negative consequences.
Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose a bad gene exists which causes someone's face to become slightly deformed so that his nostrils become closed up and his nose moves near the top of his head. These people have a hard time breathing and often die at an early age. Now, this is a decidedly "bad" mutation. But let's say medical science allows us to keep these people alive long enough to reproduce and pass it on to others. Now we've got the bad gene spreading through the pool. Let's further say that the world is slowly flooding because of global warming, creating a world full of marshes, vast oceans, and so on. At some point, one of these "bad" genes is hit with another mutation, that causes the nostrils to reopen, and improves breathing just a bit, although the nose is still strangely placed near the top of the head. However, this "bad" mutation, which gave the canvas space to produce the "good" mutation which reopened the nostrils with the noses in a new position paves the way for the people with this endowment to do very well in an aquatic environment, as their nostrils are near the top of their head like a whale's blowhole. Thus, a good trait came about only because we preserved that initial bad gene that gave us the creative space for evolution to work its magic.
This is why it is not so bad to keep "bad" genes in the gene pool. Any variation is good, as it provides a greater working area for the evolutionary process to create endless forms so beautiful. | |
|
9P9R9
|
Joined: 3/19/2008
Msg: 2 | |
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 3/24/2008 8:10:58 PM | It is always survival of the most adaptable. Not survival of the fittest as most believe.
There have been some fantasticly evolved creatures who suddenly died out because the enviroment changed.
Further more, mother nature does not exclusively favor us, she only favors the propagation of life - whatever that life may be.
Good genes, bad genes, that's subjective at best. Some of the most intelligent, strongest, fittest, longest lived, etc in the world are not necessarily all that good looking.
huh, either way were in trouble. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 3/25/2008 2:38:20 AM | There has been a recent medical procedure, wherein a small amount of skin is grafted from the nasal cavity on the end of the male penis.
It is now possible for men to not have to shake after urinating. The penis will now simply sniff!!
  | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 3/25/2008 3:23:29 AM | I think trying to eradicate all 'bad' genes is doomed to failure. First, the judgement of what is 'bad' and 'good' in an ethical sense or some teleological sense involves imposing qualities we decide on a cultural basis to be 'good' or 'bad' upon nature itself. The second as you say, is that genes are constantly mutating and even if one heritable disease or flaw was removed from the human genome by genetic manipulation, new diseases would arise in time due to the very nature of human sexual reproduction (which involves a lot of shuffling of genes and gene mutations).
The best we can do is try to manage our genetic inheritances so the beneficial genes or mutations are maximised for each generation, while negative mutations are minimised or eliminated as far as possible. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 3/25/2008 6:59:51 AM | A favorite quote:
"...based on Darwin's principle of natural selection. The idea is that in any population of self-reproducing organisms, there will be variations in the genetic material and upbringing that different individuals have. These differences will mean that some individuals are better able than others to draw the right conclusions about the world around them and to act accordingly. These individuals will be more likely than others to survive and reproduce and so their pattern of behavior and thought will come to dominate. It has certainly been true in the past that what we call intelligence and scientific discovery has conveyed a survival advantage. It is not so clear that this is still the case: our scientific discoveries may well destroy us all..."
~Stephen W. Hawking, from his book 'A Brief History of Time, from the Big Bang to Black Holes' | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 3/27/2008 8:14:19 AM | Good point, saintgasonline. There is a good example of this: sickle cell anaemia. From what I've read online, in areas where malaria is endemic, people with the sickle cell trait but not full blown sickle cell anaemia, that is people who inherited the sickle cell gene from one parent but not both, have a good chance of living to old age. People who inherited the sickle cell gene from both parents develop sickle cell anaemia and die young. People who didn't inherit the sickle cell gene from either parent, and don't have the sickle cell trait at all, develop malaria and die young. So it appears that the "bad gene" of sickle cell ensures the survival of the species in areas where malaria is endemic.
This is very important, because even if we eliminated malaria from every human being, unless we killed every one of the protozoan Plasmodium parasites, of which there are easily more than trillions, there would still be malaria parasites somewhere in the world, and hundreds of years in the future, it could happen that malaria could spread again in an area, and then the sickle cell gene would be needed again.
Also, consider the genes for blue eyes. Great for absorbtion of vitamin D, which is something you don't get a lot of in a cold country. Bad for protection from high levels of UV radiation, which is something you get a lot of in a hot country.
Also, consider height. It makes people seem more confident and strong. But I've seen a study that found that the taller you are, the shorter you live.
So we need "bad" genes just as much as good ones. The "good" genes are just the ones that are good for people in our country, in this time. In a different place or time, things could be very different indeed. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 3/29/2008 10:25:31 AM | | as we get better at genetic manipulation we will get rid of all the genes that cause genetic screw ups. and that way we dont have to go the nazi method we could just tweak it right in the womb and presto no kids with bad eyes hearing diabetes or other genetic diseases like this | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 3/29/2008 3:04:27 PM | Good Post Op.
Eugenics was popular in the early 20th century. There were awful things dones to people in the name if eugenics, including enforced sterelisation. Interestingly eugenics was the platform from which Adolf Hitler gace rise to his genocide.
But you raise a good point, genetically there isnt a 'bad' gene, its only bad if it affects us in a negative or harmful way. Your example of sickle cell is very apt. Additionally some genes are responsible for more than one function. if you remove the 'bad' gene you create a potential for other side affects to happen. Plus what we as scientists learn from gene mutations are invaluable. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 3/29/2008 9:04:18 PM | It's a very complex debate indeed as to whether many "bad genes" are really bad? It's been said/written before (perhaps as a result of the Human Genome Project) that most human malaise is not caused by bad genes, but by environmental agents, germs, and lastly - hereditary factors.
A gene that reduces survival and reproduction would normally eliminate itself over a number of generations. But how quickly can evolution respond? Nevertheless, I'd venture to say that there are some genetic mutations that wouldn't seem to have any beneficial result to the person receiving them. Consider Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy, autism, cleft palate, hemophilia, spina bifida, or cystic fibrosis as examples of mult-gene mutations that make life difficult in their most benign forms, or outright nasty, brutish, and short.
The sickle-cell gene is an awkward defense that evolved, and it only helps carriers survive malaria if they have one copy of the gene only. Children who inherit two sickle-cell copies, tend to die young, unless they get modern medical care. Too much of a "good" thing I guess...........I personally don't see sickle-cell as a bad gene "solution" to malaria - far better I think to treat or avoid the malaria or other blood-born diseases altogether. Sickle-cell is hardly benign, even if in some cases it prevents malaria. It still causes blockages in the blood vessels and prevents body tissues from receiving oxygen.
Be well....... | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 3/30/2008 12:04:46 AM | Some years ago I read a book the characterized "survival of the fittest" as a misnomer that should really be "survival of the just barely fit". Any genetic variation that can "find a way" to persist in the gene pool can ultimately give rise to a mutation that helps the species survive a potentially catastrophic change in environment.
If your goal is to just "thrive" as much as possible in the current environment, then elmininating "bad" genes might be a good idea. If, however, you want to survive the next few environmental changes without your species becoming extinct, then keeping as much variation and adaptability in the gene pool as possible is probably the better way to go.
Unfortunately, I can't remember what book that was. It may have been by Stephen J. Gould or Edward O. Wilson, or it may have been someone else entirely (perhaps even Carl Sagan?) | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 3/30/2008 1:57:07 PM | It has been said that humankind will mature when everyone is about the same skin colour and stay within an average height norm. We are a long way from that.
Humans adapt to their surroundings...but quick change is detrimental to us. We can live almost anywhere with the proper technology. Perhaps that is the species saving variable that has been missing since the creation of the earth. There is finally an animal that can adapt, OR use technology to keep them going. Great things in store for us in the future...and we DO have a future, no matter what the doom sayers say. | |
|
| |
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 4/1/2008 8:32:02 PM | I think it is "reproduction of the just barley fit in a given environment". Being adaptable only helps when there is change, there are many unadaptable species that have evolved to fill a small niche in an unchanging environment vary well. also, living a long time is not necessarily included in evolution, its just about living long enough to reproduce (and provide for offspring until they become self sufficient or reproduce themselves)
evolution might be able to be over thrown as the dominate influence on earth's life by some of the work being done in genomics. I was watching a lecture on ted.com (excellent site by the way) about a guy who is trying to design and create life in a lab. the potential of the concept of being able to design life is nothing short of world changing, as in the ability to huma-form earth = O (changing the climate to make earth even more human friendly)
check it out http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/227
In regards to removal of bad genes though, I think there is only one way to tell for curtain and that is for parents to choose what genes they want to edit out of their children. The parents who choose to edit out a predisposition to alcoholism and obesity will have great success until fat alcoholics become the hot ticket...although in that situation, parents could just start flipping their children back to fat alcoholics so i think the point is moot. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 4/12/2008 9:32:25 AM | Bottom line is, diversity is good - what you inherit form your parents that really matters is your inherited immunities, because those are largely why you're here now - you can't second guess evolution. Social Darwinists cause more damage tothe gene pool with mass starvation and environmental degradation, heavy metal poisoning, etc., which can lead to heritable mental problems including psychopathy.
The economic rape of Africa is causing more damage to the gene pool than anything else on the planet at the moment - Africans being the most genetically diverse population on the planet.
In short, if anybody needs to be culled, it's social Darwinists. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 4/12/2008 11:38:40 AM |
Bottom line is, diversity is good -
YES! By far. Diversity will allow humans to exist longer than if there is less diversity. And Mating with someone "diverse" allows your offspring a better chance of survival as well.
Look at dogs. Simple example. Fewer genetic problems in "mutts" than in purebreds. Even with careful breeding programs, genetic problems arise easily...
This is gonna sound stupid but I have a friend w/alopecia. I thought it was genetic at the time. She is french and italian maybe?? Her husband is dark skinned. They had a baby. I remember thinking "Probably doesn't hurt that her husband's genetic ancestry is obviously quite different from hers, to ensure she doesn't pass on the alopecia". It's stupid b/c, well, I think I've learned more recently that alopecia isn't genetic. ANd obviously she didn't fall in love w/him b/c of his hair or ancestry.
BUt the point remains - marry someone very different from you if you want to reduce the likilihood of 2 recessive genes. can't hurt.
For more on this whole dang subject, I am reading a most excellent book about Parasites and Diseases and our coexistence with them. If you want the title, respond or message me...I dont' see the book from here and so not exactly where in this mess it is! But I'll hunt it down if you want it. I thing I bought it from Amazon.com's bargain book bin. The malaria/sickle cell thing is in there. As well as talking about flu epidemics and what makes for a "successful" new virus. And unique, if somewhat gross ways of treating chrohn' s disease - with worms!
Kaylie | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 4/12/2008 6:25:22 PM | i think the answer is obvious.
the bad gene dont get to multiply. they die.
note: some times, what seems to be bad gene maybe good gene: horse jockey, they are short. however, they always get the hottest women and pass their gene. so i guess, being short,small can also meant a key to survival if you take advantage. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 4/13/2008 11:13:02 AM | From the point of view of natural selection it can be argued that there is no such thing as "good" genes and bad "genes". There are recessive and dominate genes which have gained there positions in the gene pool over millions of years of evolution.
From our personal human perspective some genes may have obvious negative consequences on a person. But part of the function of any populations gene pool is to provide a large reservoir of variety and traits in the genome. What might be a negative trait in our current context may someday be considered and advantage or desirable trait as environment and conditions change for the population.
This is one reason that we may find that reaching the "utopia" many dream about... no disease, no defects, etc etc may not turn out to be viable or even advisable.
Life is messy. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 4/13/2008 11:32:36 AM | Exactly - genes are always in transition, evolution in progress - sickle cell anemia is considered detrimental with the availability of quinine, but it's an adaptation to malaria.
Stressors change, traits which are detrimental now may become adaptive under different conditions - see the DRD4-7R allele. Genetic "defects" are often just indicative of processes under flux - we're all mutants in the strictest sense, thanks to sexual reproduction.
All species that go extinct do so for the exact same reason: overspecialization, be it physiological or social. The Dinosaurs could not predict and avert meteor strike, or adapt to the subsequent conditions. We, on the other hand, will probobly just drown in our own waste. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 4/13/2008 11:37:15 AM | Re the OP and posthuman reference:
Hurrah, I awake from yesterday
Alive, but the war is here to stay
So my love, Catherina and me,
decide to take our last walk through the noise to the sea
Not to die but to reborn,
away from lands so battered and torn
Forever, forever
Oh say, can you see it's really such a mess
Every inch of Earth is a fighting nest
Giant pencil and lipstick tube shaped things,
Continue to rain and cause screaming pain
And the arctic stains from silver blue to bloody red
as our feet find the sand,
and the sea is straight ahead, straight up ahead
Well it's too bad that our friends, can't be with us today
Well it's too bad
The machine, that we built,
would never save us', that's what they say
(That's why they ain't coming with us today)
And they also said it's impossible for a man to live and breathe under
water, forever,
was their main complaint
And they also threw this in my face, they said:
Anyway, you know good and well it would be beyond the will of God,
and the grace of the King (grace of the King)
So my darling and I make love in the sand,
to salute the last moment ever on dry land
Our machine, it has done its work, played its part well
Without a scratch on our bodies and we bid it farewell
Starfish and giant foams greet us with a smile
Before our heads go under we take a last look at the killing noise
Of the out of style, the out of style, out of style...
-J. Hendrix.
I love that song. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 4/14/2008 6:58:33 PM | this is such a great topic:) i wrote my thesis on this based on the fact that both genetic and evironmental factors pre-dispose individuals to chronic diseases (making them more susceptible)
So lets stir up the shit.
New born babies
Those that are sick are quickly treated at birth and survive to pass on their defects and "bad genes" to society. These illness can later own manifest in cancers, diabetes, infertility..blah blah blah (and i addressed all these in my research)..imagine what the world would look like if only the fittest survived regardless of human intervention?
I frankly think there would be more good looking people with less crooked teeth (sorry that was mean i'm joking)
Same with those people who got braces and naturally had really poor dental and oral achritecture! This one kills me. You meet your future spouse who has straight beautiful teeth, pop some kids and wonder why you're spending thousands to get their teeth fixed...LOL and they later confess they've and the rest of their family all had braces 3 times | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 4/14/2008 8:39:32 PM | Doesn't really matter.
Those who throw out the wrong genes won't survive.
Those who keep the wrong genes won't survive.
The survivors will have done the right thing and we don't have a clue what that is. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 4/18/2008 6:03:44 PM | OP Read Survival of the Sickest. Many diseases we consider detrimental today had an extremely beneficial effect on an associated selection pressure.
Examples:
Sickle Cell Anemia protects against Malaria.
Hemochromatosis saved people from the Plague.
Diabetes became prevalent after the ice age bottleneck because you are less likely to freeze if you have high blood sugar.
This concept could also be applied to psychology. If we all thought exactly the same innovation would stagnate. Our economy is based on specialization and some genotypes are better at certain tasks. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 4/18/2008 7:36:46 PM | | Interesting, I didn't realize that diabetes may have been spread through our species from a selection pressure! I'll have to check out that book, so thanks for the recommendation. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 6/27/2008 1:19:02 PM | | Defining a bad gene is very difficult. Even people predisposed to diabetes and cancer might possess some advantage under the right set of circumstances. In my opinion, it would be unwise to "remove" genes that have naturally occurred in our species. | |
|
| Is It Good To Keep Bad Genes In the Gene Pool?
Posted: 6/27/2008 2:23:48 PM | I have always maintained that eugenics is good for the species but bad for the soul. That is if you can reach a point of deciding who decides what is good and what is bad genetically. Then you have to have the fortitude to carry out what is little more than a sterilization program to weed out the bad. Who decides? As time goes by the activity could go through changes and evolve to where one race may have dominance in selection. Will religion take precedence or politics? Will some other force take shape to drive a eugenics program? Many questions.
Not sure if society can withstand a long range program of this type. We have enough problems socially now. | |
|
Home
login 
