rantt | But as
you saw, eye color and hair color are controlled by a lot more than a
few genes and those genes can be altered by everything from hormones in
the womb to environmental pollutants. Our genome didn’t evolve for easy,
modular editing in the future. It evolved in response to diet and
stressors in our ancient past. If you wanted to make sure that your
child was 6' 3" tall, weighed no more than 200 pounds, and was really
good at football, that’s going to involve total 24/7 control over
thousands of genes and the child’s environment from the moment of
conception.
Maybe
this could be possible one day, but it certainly won’t be any day in
the foreseeable future, and it definitely wouldn’t be practical if it
was ever possible, or even remotely advisable. The kind of eugenic
thought which gripped the world in the early 20th century and kicked off
the Holocaust was actually based on a profound misunderstanding of
statistics, and very pseudoscientific approach to evolution. Basically,
Francis Galton and his followers mistook more people becoming literate
and educated as a rise in mediocrity through a mathematic concept known
as regression toward the mean, triggering a wave of racist and classist alarmism.
Eugenicists
were worried that their “superior” genes were being corrupted by
interbreeding between classes and races, that genetic diversity was just
dragging them down towards brutish mediocrity. It’s a train of thought
you can still find resonating among today’s racists, or
ethno-nationalists as they like to call themselves. But this worry
reveals a profound lack of scientific understanding that’s fairly
critical to any future effort to modify DNA, and shows they’re using the
wrong ways to measure human progress.
Genetic
diversity is essential for any species to survive and adapt to its new
environment. Without a significant enough library of genes that can help
us deal with a future stressor, we may be unable to cope with drastic
changes in diet or new diseases that come at us. Similarity in genes
results in severe inbreeding, making us a lot more vulnerable to an
environmental blow that could kill off an entire population without
giving it a chance to develop any useful mutations. History is replete
with examples of inbred organisms dying off when climates changed or
during disease outbreaks.
Ultimately,
this is why even in a far future where we can customize children, we
have to be extremely mindful of allowing diversity and not messing with
too many genes which could one day contribute to disease resistance, or
give us the ability to adapt to a new diet. Nature doesn’t necessarily
care if we’re getting high IQ scores because those are fairly arbitrary, and are much closer correlated to household values and income than biology.
It’s also completely disinterested in our athletic prowess or how
conventionally attractive we are to a particular culture. It only cares
about reproduction rates.
In
fact, in the grandest scheme of them all, nature is a series of trials
which test random organisms with random genetic make-up in different
climates with different resources and against different stressors. The
ones able to live long enough to reproduce and pass down their genes are
successful, even if they don’t end up with long lives and building
civilizations that explore new worlds. Evolutionarily speaking, we’re
pretty successful, but nowhere near as successful as insects or bacteria
which typically live fast, die young, and are constantly reproducing in
large numbers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment