Wayne

I am glad that you understand fallacious reasoning. But it only makes me more curious as to why you would propose such a low tech and potentially catastrophic solution for a hypothetical problem? What is your reason for choosing this solution ahead of a call for more genetic research?

A forum like this can offer you the chance to test and expand your arguments. You can only learn from this.

Wayne, I have a lot of difficulty with “devolution”, which assumes an intentional and progressive direction for evolution, as though there is a true road for life to follow, and we are its destination. I don’t believe this. The apparent “forward” direction of evolution is an artifact of our own narcissism.

What we’re doing here is applying traditional and erroneous ideas of man’s centrality in the universe to a very recent (150 year old) understanding of the physical mechanisms that brought about our human intelligence from stardust. Galileo was one of the earliest to start this process of disillusion, but for all our fears, Darwin tells us that there is grandeur in this (brave, new) view of life.

None of “us” as individuals evolve. We are all mere specks in a nearly infinite universe in incomprehensibly long time. Evolution only makes sense in retrospect, considering lengths of time and numbers of individuals and quantities of meaningless suffering that can only highlight the minuscule dimensions of our own lives and decisions. For us as individuals to worry about the quality and directions of the evolving human genome is absurdly presumptuous, and occasionally disastrous, especially given our fondness as a species for genocide.

There are much more basic, and urgent questions facing us. Like how to ensure the dignity and value of all humans already living, and how to ensure we as a species don’t exhaust the limited resources of our small and beautiful, beautiful planet.

Questions about the direction of the evolution of the human genome are of little consequence unless we can solve those concerns.

Thanks for starting this thread.

No doubt there will come another time when disaster in one form or another wipes out a large chunk of the world population. Whether it be by force (meteor?), natural disaster (ice-age?), disease (bird flu?), or human action (nuclear attack?), no doubt it will happen sooner or later. Nature has a way of rebalancing the equation. Usually the results are appalling, but nature is not a kind creature.

If the disaster is of sufficient magnitude then humans will once again be forced into a "survival of the fittest" situation. For example, without the health care system that we have now, thousands would die. I am among those who have the miracles of modern medicine to thank not just for my existence, but also my life. If I seem to have repeated myself, let me clarify: I only survived my own birth due to caesarean section. Likewise, the only way I am able to give birth is the same. If for whatever reason I am plunged into a situation where I am pregnant and there is no hospital, I will die. That is survival of the fittest. Whether I have a defect passed to me by my own mother is unknown, but the results are just as harsh should that medical knowledge be unavailable.

a specie , usually ,die from what made it succesful
it tend to get in an evolutionnary race to devellop its initial
advantage to absurd lenght .
for humans , take your pick

_large brain , way too large for our own good

_ sociopath interaction , we are a food group who became UBERpredator

_ A civilisation based on cheap and plentiful energy
if we were to consume the energy of the 1930's we would have the
society of the 1930's , except than we cannot come back without
a massive crash ,the law of democratic politic make it impossible

"curious as to why you would propose such a low tech and potentially catastrophic solution for a hypothetical problem? "

Simple is often best. Selective breeding has worked for the farming industry over the last few thousand years. It doesn't remove peoples right of choice and seems more natural than poking around with the genetics of unborns. If we offered top brand dna to IVF customers then we could do away with immigration over time. Thus solving the population imbalance such increased fertility rates might bring about. When the healthier children turn into adults they mix with the rest of the gene pool in the usual way. We help childless couples and improve the gene pool. Win win. Currently genetic science has no answer.

"A forum like this can offer you the chance to test and expand your arguments."

That's why I initially came here but I'm usually disapointed by the lack of intelligent responses. No offence.

"I have a lot of difficulty with “devolution”, which assumes an intentional and progressive direction for evolution, as though there is a true road for life to follow, and we are its destination. I don’t believe this. The apparent “forward” direction of evolution is an artifact of our own narcissism."

That's your difficulty. I can't be bothered explaining evolution or arguing its existence here in this thread. Just assume its a given or go and start another thread on the matter please.

"I only survived my own birth due to caesarean section. Likewise, the only way I am able to give birth is the same. If for whatever reason I am plunged into a situation where I am pregnant and there is no hospital, I will die. That is survival of the fittest."

A good example.

Wayne I too nearly died on the operating table due to a burst appendix.There are millions who would never have survived only for the intervention of medicine.

If we look at the trends in our society,the shrinking middle educated class have fewer children than those being supported by social security.The middle/working class are too busy paying for the mortage and taxes to pay for the indolent,who spend their time procreating on John Howard's baby bonus.We have 300,000 single mothers,of which many use their children as a source of income from the Govt.This is not really smart in terms of economics or genetics.

As you have suggested,why not pay intelligent people to donate sperm and eggs so we can enrich our genetic banks with people who can cope with the complexity of the technologies that quite often befuddles this old man,one Arjay.