Slashdot Mirror
Genetically Engineered "Smart" Mice
Lucius Lucanius writes "A smart gene that helps mice learn faster has been discovered. This follows recent discoveries about neuron generation in monkeys and the creation of doogie the smart mouse. Excitement abounds in the "smart pet" industry, but will it ever be applied to humans?"
for Algernon ...
Personally, I can't wait. Maybe we can get smart humans, instead of the dumb variety we have now. (want proof? Read at 0).
www.eFax.com are spammers
Intellimouse
---- I made the Kessel Run in under 11 parsecs.
Come on guys, do we really NEED smarter mice? What happens when they "learn" what a mouse trap is? What happens when they "learn" to open the fridge? Come on, THINK before you act people!
:-)
http://kered.org
Please, I beg of you, do not moderate this down or reply in flame because you disagree! I'm only trying to make a point (that you may or not believe in) for the sake of discussion.
Evolution has held before a process of survival of the fittest. OK. This is very over-simplified, but let's just leave it at that. We can assume that there are minor differences in every creature, and those differences which prove beneficial tend to be passed on, thus evolving the species. I know we now know that there are conditions that can alter the rate of evolution, but again, for the sake of discussion, let's keep it simple.
The problem that I've always seen is that humans have stopped evolving. At least according to this scheme. Sure, we keep attaining more knowlege, but for the most part the biological (and this includes mental) aspect of humanity is not changing (at least in no way that is caused by the strictest sense of evolution). This is because we no longer abide by "survival of the fittest".
Sure, just because someone is smarter / stronger / etc than most gives him/her a huge advantage in life, but doesn't necessarily affect the outcome of survival. With some exceptions, no longer do the fittest survive only, but all do. This means that weak genes are just as likely to be passed along as strong ones. Evolution, for the most part, no longer applies.
Have we reached the stage where we need to evolve ourselves? Where we are in control of evolution? It's a scary thought. Granted, this article only hints of what may be possible in the future, but it's a concept that is relatively new and frighteningly, very feasable. The ability to modify genes in an unborn embryo.
Isn't this controlling the specie's evolution? No matter how many laws the nation or world passes, if the technology exists it will be used. There is not, however, any way to stop the progress.
Personally, I don't think the question is if we ever are able to control our own evolution, how to we stop it, but, when we are able to control our own evolution, how will we mold it?
Something to think about.
Peace,
DranoK
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die.
Shh! Nobody knows I'm gay!
Anyone else notice how OLD all of this news is ??
We read these papers in journal club last FALL !!
Yet Hemos is posting it now. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
The thieves apparently entered the cafeteria late at night through a ceiling heating duct and lowered themselves to the floor using a stolen fishing rod. After disabling the security motion detector, they picked the combination lock on the cupboard and stole various food supplies, including American cheese singles, peanut butter crackers, and java-chip power bars.
"It's really strange," said cashier Fred Tunalu, "that heating duct is really, really small."
In a completely unrelated story, Pets.com has been suffering from an abnormal increase in fraudulent credit card transactions, resulting in (continued on page 42)
It scares me to know (not think) that eventually this is going to be applied to humanity. Of all the apocalyptical scenarios envisioned by science fiction writers, the genetically-bred humans vs. natural humans forwarded in media such as Star Wars and Gattica seems the most real and most likely. While aliens or meteors may come out of the sky, there's a certain lack of denial that eventually human beings are going to genetically alter themselves in more than trivial ways, and given human nature, it's not a stretch to imagine a way peeking its head out of such a development.
The only hope I draw is from Mother Nature herself. Everyone talks about this being a step in evolution, but what if there's a reason we haven't evolved there yet? I like stories like Ender's Shadows that posit what corrective measures nature may have preinstalled. Card's certainly not alone in his view, either. What isn't as interesting as a genetic super-mouse is the development of a genetic super-mouse. Is it normal in every way except for intelligence, or will other genes be affected by this one being turned on, genes that may lead to super strength or self-destruction.
Our view of gene structure is simplified. We turn a gene on and consider it a success. Nature, however, does not live in a vacuum. Everything is balanced tenuously in nature, and turning on one gene may disrupt that balance completely. So when, not if, we make these leaps, the study shouldn't be about the object being modified, but about the way that nature reacts to those modifications, for that will be where the real benefits are found.
Evolution is not just about survival, it is about breeding. Individuals with poor genes may survive, but no hot chicks will want to fuck them, so they will not pass those genes on.
Many 'nerds' and other less-than-prime specimens are able to attract women through their high salaries and material security. However, studies have shown that up to 50% of their children were actually conceived in extra-marital affares with hot young studs, because women have a deep instinct to get the best DNA for their offspring.
Many people with what would be considered 'undesirable' genes are able to mate quite easily with other ugly, stupid people. Just look at an episode of Jerry Springer for evidence of this. There is a theory that these people are breeding faster (a girl's IQ is proportional to the age at which she first gets knocked up, and inversley to the number of children she eventually has) and therefore evolution is decreasing our average IQ.
Many of the markers developed by evolution to pick out potential mates are actually quite accidental 'red herrings' that are now propogated through the mechanism of evolution, but serve no real purpose. For instance, one day a caveman decides he finds large breasts attractive. He marries a girl with big tits. All his children inherit his desire for breasts, and also look for wives with big knockers. Eventually, having large breasts is considered a desirable quality in a mate, even though it serves no real purpose.
Abashed the Devil stood,
And felt how awful goodness is
We are not 'dirtying' our gene pool with people who have disabilities! The very definition of evolution is such that, if we frame a disability as a trait, that in certain environmental circumstances a trait is a disadvantage, useless, or an advantage. So that means that if we start throwing things out of our gene pool, we lose evolutionary power because we won't be able to match those genes to future cases because they happened to fail on past cases.
In this case, a disabled person can have *perfectly* healthy/good genes and an unfortunate environmental circumstance. Like mothers who take drugs during pregnancy. Or we have extreme cases, like Steven Hawkings, where a disability is paired with a bonus.
Evolution is still alive and well! As long as there are factors that control our birth rate and survival rate, evolution is at work!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
What matters is: Did you have any children? If not, the species "evolves away from you". If so, it "evolves towards you".
That's actually an oversimplification. For example, let's say a strain of humans develops a sterile member every 10 births. That trait should die out by your theory. However, now let's say that this sterile member tends to become a caregiver that helps the rest of the population survive. Then that strain would have better survival characteristics than a strain without the sterile members.
Evolution can be extremely subtle. It's not all about cranking out as many children as possible (in fact, that's an anti-survival trait because of overuse of resources).
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
...after the next big die-off.
The bright ones will leave the planet and be free to expand exponentially. The dim-witted ones will be left behind for Malthus to deal with. Once some of our eggs are out of the one basket, I give it a century before Holy Terra goes up in the Holy Fire of the Atom.
The ways of Nature are harsh, but just.
BTW, what are breasts made of? Mostly fat. A woman with large breasts and a small waist is well-fed but physically fit (and not pregnant), add in a good set of child-bearing hips, long legs (indicating maturity), and regular facial features (indicating both health and a genetic history of being able to attract the best mates), and you've got an ideal mate. In modern society, large breasts due to implants are also a sign of wealth, something people rarely admit to looking for in a mate, but never turn their noses up at. They are also a sign of willingness to surgically tamper with one's own body for some gain, which may turn out to be a damned adaptive trait in the coming years of cybernetic enhancement.
How long, I wonder, until we can "uplift" a few other species? Apes, dolphins, dogs, pigs, parrots all seem good candidates. Myself I'd love that; the variety would truly make things interesting.