[FRIAM] semi-idle question

Sat Apr 24 14:37:40 EDT 2021

Up to maybe hundred years ago, a rich man could sire and raise ten children
or more and many poor men none or at the most a few. The key point is that
genetic differences influenced the number of descendants a person had with
the result that the conditions were there for natural selection and
undoubtedly human beings evolved.
Today however, genetic differences between people have very
small influence on the number of their descendants so the conditions are
very weak for natural selection. I conjure that if natural selection is
happening today it is very small, maybe negligible?
But if you look beyond natural selection and include gene editing, humans
can of course evolve. I would be very surprised if there are not already
some filthy rich people doing it in secret.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 20:32, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

> DaveW -
>
> I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the many
> clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout
> history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic
> drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest
> taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes.
>
> The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have happened
> hundreds of thousands of years ago and the reconvergence/subsumption
> roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the most *significant* evolution
> we know of among "modern" humans...    The time-scales I consider in your
> questoin are on the order of hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of
> thousands.   That alone suggests to me that we will not see anything we can
> measure as "evolution".   The divergence of traits we identify as "race"
> seem to have happened over tens of thousands of years as well.   From our
> experience with domestic animal breeding, we probably have (refer to
> Eugenics literature) some sense of how many generations it would take us to
> "breed in" or "breed out" various traits.
>
> As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, it
> seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become acutely
> more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", much less
> evolution by natural selection.
>
>
> And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution:
>
>
> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2
>
> Who knew we had come this far from Dolly
> <https://dolly.roslin.ed.ac.uk/facts/the-life-of-dolly/index.html>?
>
> Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild
> things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes
> afoot?   I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting
> relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we
> are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals,
> colorful birds, ...  in particular).
>
> For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high
> mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so
> while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes,
> Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the
> order of decades.
>
> I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or *social*
> evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think (some of us)
> we see looming on the near horizon.   A very specific (engineered?)
> pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure.
>
> In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of
> human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to
> maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and
> other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with
> metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge...  but how many generations
> of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other
> populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that
> survival trait?   And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances
> of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT
> creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just
> moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?)
>
> I'm definitely not going to depend on it!
>
> - Steve
> On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between.
>
>
>
> Please see attached.  It’s short.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Merle Lefkoff
> *Sent:* Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question
>
>
>
> Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was
> proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Dunbar>, who argues that human
> intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological
> problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and
> complex social groups."
>
>
>
> That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> Can human beings evolve?
>
> Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial
> Revolution. (population genetics)
>
> Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth
> was easy prey.
> Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be
> covered in soot, turning them dark.
> Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.
>
> Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a
> similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?
>
> Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their
> lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than
> adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?
>
> davew
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org
>
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
>
>
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
>
> twitter: @merle110
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210424/7ed45fc1/attachment.html>