Subject:
|
Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2001 13:19:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
431 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Once again, though--since we're speaking of how we might address the
> population/resource crisis of the present and near future world, I don't think
> it's inappropriate refer to something that's been within the realm of
> possibility (ie: reproduction despite blindness) ever since the EXTREMELY near
> past. Further, the statistical chance of a blind creature passing on its genes
> is infinitely greater than a sterile creature passing on its genes (barring
> artificial reproduction methods like cloning et al), so the point remains that
> the greater crime to the individual, in terms of longitudinal effect on the
> propogation of genes, is sterilization.
I certainly agree with your larger point -- that your ability to reproduce
is is more important than your sight to your ability to propogate your
genetic line. However, I disagree with your "infinitely greater" comment.
When you reproduce, you're only passing down half of your genes, right? If
your sibling reproduces, (s)he is passing down one quarter (on average) of
your genes. From an evolutionary perspective, two neices is the same as one
daughter, and there are many instances of critters that have evolved the
capacity and drive to help propogate their relatives over strangers because
it is still increasing the gene frequency of their own genes. Further, I
can imagine a scenario involving a rich and powerful woman who has several
brothers, but depends on her sight to maintain her power base -- we could
say she is a tribal leader or corporate pilot. She may well have more
ability to bend the future gene pool more in line with her own genotype, by
keeping her sight and manipulating things to maximize the reproduction of
her brothers than by giving up her site and poping out the nine or so
children that she could before dying. Right?
Given that I can devise a possible (and not even too far fetched) scenario
by which the odds are in reverse order of what we agree is most likely,
_and_ the fact that even if we couldn't think of some such scenario the
difference is finite, I think that you are overestimating the discreppency
of the roles between the two afflictions on future genes.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
