new start

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z wrote:
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What SHOULD be bred for, if one is proposing
> > eugenics? Well I
> > could propose
> > > breeding for metabolisms that don't require 2-3
> > hours of physical
> > activity a
> > > day to keep from obesity and its comorbidities.
>
> I am not really a fan of eugenics, not on the
> principle of it, I just think it is inefficient way of
> going to an end. If what we want is smarter people,
> then we find ways of boosting intelligence. This can
> be done in a couple of ways (almost all involve
> science fiction concepts, but hey, eugenics itself is
> still pretty scifi too).

Au contraire, mon ami. Eugenics is just a way of avoiding saying
controlled breeding. Farmers have been doing this with animals and
plants for millenia.

It's more distasteful for humans to equate themselves to the process
because of free will, love, and other human qualities.

Though you are faced with trial and error issues, the combinatoric
principles are well understood.

>
> First, you can enhance oneself through the use of
> drugs. I'm talking more of smart drugs here, tailored
> to boosting memory functions and cognitive abilities.
> Of the ones I am listing, this is the least scifi
> concept.

Drugs have all sorts of unintended consequences. Moreoever, drugs
would have to replicate the effects of genetic potential. Lastly,
drugs would have to be reapplied as an external performance booster
rather than the sought after benefit being a part of the person.

>
> Second, physical augmentation - biological. So you
> want to be stronger, graft steel onto your bones.
> Want to be able to breathe underwater, graft gills
> onto a human.

Steel bones will involve drastic surgery and have mass penalties as
well as pain, maintenance and even performance penalties. Steel
might help you support a lot of weight, like weightlifters, or
prevent a broken bone when skiing, but performance that depends on
muscles will not be affected. The muscles will tear if you have to
lift a car over your head.

I'd rather increase my lung capacity through genetics and endurance
training than surgically change my whole physiology to incorporate
gills into my body for a short term need.

>
> Third, physical augmentation - cybernetic. The
> ultimate man meets machine. Add a computer to your
> head, add eyes that can see in the ultraviolet
> wavelength.

Computer may help with storage issues for memory, and calculation of
programmed problems, but I'd sure hate to be talking to someone and
freeze as my brain went through a re-boot, and the reboot beep
sounds were coming out of my mouth. That would be embarassing :)

>
> Fourth, add non-human genes - design your own
> werewolf, make a transhuman who is fire resistant or
> someone who uses photosynthesis. The possiblities are
> endless.

What is it that you find distatsteful about eugenics that you don't
find distasteful about human genome engineering? Is it the bad or
evil implementation of it in the past?

TangoMan