Artificial Selection
- From: "whitesickle@xxxxxxx" <whitesickle@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:43:07 -0500 (EST)
Comment: I don't think "moral selection" or "ethical selection" (while
existing) are really forms of artificial selection. I agree "However,
most biologists and evolutionary theorists employ the term artificial
selection only to make a distinction between the intentionally
human-chosen "artificial" factors and the combination of instinct and
ecology that is "natural" without human choice." It can't be stressed
enought social Darwinism/Fascism are the antithesis of artificial
selection. As the author states, "This begins to intersect with Social
Darwinism and fascism to a degree, both of which held that dominant
human societies optimized, but did not alter, the fundamental factors
driving selection of individuals to propagate a species."
The author states, "But, as other cases of runaway sexual selection
demonstrate, individuals or cliques within a species do not in general
act for species-wide utility, and individuals and even whole species
are sometimes extincted due to excesses of their species' sexual
selection process. Were a Marxist or feminist view to predominate, then
their shared humanism would be artificial selection." A question here:
(1) Are there examples of whole species sometimes exticted due to
processes of their species sexual selection process? I don't see sexual
selection as separate from natural selection but rather a part of it. I
disagree, however, if Marxism and feminism predominated, then their
shared "humanism" would be artificial selection. These constructs have
existed for a while and though they oppose the "natural order" they are
also a product of it. Indeed, in the cases of Marxism and Communism,
where such regimes have had success, there has been an intensification
of social-Darwinism irrespective of ideological differences with
Capitalism, Fascism, etc.
As mentioned, however, most biologists and evolutionary theorists
employ the term artificial selection only to make a distinction between
the intentionally human-chosen "artificial" factors and the combination
of instinct and ecology that is "natural" without human choice." I take
this to mean genetic manipulation/genetic engineering. The Nazis we're
mutt men, treating people as chickens and dogs to be artificially
selectively bred. Indeed, Himmler was a chicken farmer at one time. But
humans aren't chicken and dogs and we've had much more success
artificially selectively breeding chickens and dogs than people.
One danger of artificial selection are unintended consequences or what
the authour ingenously calls "unconscious selection". For example,
"For, the domestic chicken has been bred to reach a large size
relatively quickly (compared to its feral ancestors). The resulting
changes in the chicken's gut have come at the expense of a reduced
brain size and relatively smaller leg bones; these latter changes were
not intentional artificial selections, but through a parallel process
sometimes called "unconscious selection". A very interesting thing in
the future will be for genetic engineers to effect certain changes in
the human DNA and their ability to see in the long term what effects
this will have on the organism. I think this will prove not entirely
possible. So although increased artificial selection will undoubtedly
give us more ability to guide our evolution and tailor it to our
survivability needs as a species, there will continue to be some
element of randomness and unpredictability in our evolution.
I understand why it is so important and will continue to be to do
research on animals. Although they aren't identical to us such genetic
research would be invaluable in seeing what the long term effects of
genetic engineering are.
Hitler once stated, "I lead with the certainty of a sleep walker." As a
species we have to ultimately shut down automatic pilot i.e. Darwinian
evolution. To many in this newsgroup this will appear absurd and/or
impossible. However, I wouldn't even be mentioning it if there wasn't
the scientific possibility in the future it won't be possible to do
this. There is a difference between accepting and understanding Darwin
and having a gestalt belief system which divests one from moral and
ethical responsibility. Ask a Konrad Lorenz type.
Michael Ragland
Artificial selection
>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
This Chihuahua mix and Great Dane show the wide range of dog breed
sizes created using artificial selection.In the theory of evolution,
artificial selection is the process of intentional or unintentional
modification of a species through human actions which encourage the
breeding of certain traits over others. When the process leads to
undesirable outcome, it is called negative selection.
Charles Darwin originally coined the term in order to contrast this
process from what he called natural selection. He noted that many
domesticated animals and plants had special properties that were
developed by intentionally encouraging the breeding potential of
individuals who both possessed desirable characteristics, and
discouraging the breeding of individuals who had less desirable
characteristics.
He then postulated that a similar process occurs naturally; individuals
in the wild who possess characteristics that enhance their prospects
for having offspring would then undergo a similar process of change
over time; although in this case "desirable" characteristics would be
not those which specifically satisfy human needs, but those which
enhance survivability. This natural process forms the basis of the
theory of Darwinian evolution.
The most obvious examples of artificial selection can be found in the
range of specialised body shapes and even personality types in
domesticated dogs. The wide range of sizes and shapes, from Dachshund
to Wolfhound, shows the power of artificial selection through selective
breeding.
In a more modern sense, human beings are seen as a more integrated part
of the whole of our world's ecology, creating a somewhat fuzzier
distinction between "natural" and "artificial" selection.
On the one hand, certain characteristics may unintentionally be
encouraged while intentionally selecting for a desired result. For
example, the domestic chicken has been bred to reach a large size
relatively quickly (compared to its feral ancestors). The resulting
changes in the chicken's gut have come at the expense of a reduced
brain size and relatively smaller leg bones; these latter changes were
not intentional artificial selections, but through a parallel process
sometimes called "unconscious selection".
On the other hand, human activity in the larger sense creates a new set
of unintentional environmental pressures which in turn act in concert
with "natural" selection pressures, sometimes in unexpected or
ultimately undesirable ways.
This 1845 painting of a Shorthorn bull by J. Loader shows how animals
can be bred for size.As James Baldwin pointed out, organisms can alter
their environment, and thus alter selective pressures, which can thus
affect the evolution of the organism's own species. Artificial
selection in this sense refers to the conscious ways human beings alter
the environments of organisms (including their own environment) so as
to alter the evolution of these organism's species. The most common
example is the creation of new breeds of animals through the control of
their reproduction. The decision not to conceive, or to abort a fetus,
based on knowledge of the traits of the offspring (e.g. that the child
would have a congenital birth-defect) is an example of artificial
selection acting on humans themselves.
Another example of artificial selection is the spread of various
species of European grass in North America, which must be maintained by
lawn care and pesticides. Another example is the extermination by human
hunters of the great apes, who are large and thus easy to hunt for
their "bushmeat". An even more prevalent example is dog breeding for
specific extreme traits, e.g. the large size and eating habits of the
Great Dane, e.g. the small size of the Chihuahua. Traits that would
lead to thriving under natural selection, such as a gorilla's size, or
to utter extinction, such as aggressive behavior in small yappy dogs,
are very often the exact traits which lead to the opposite outcome
under artificial selection pressure.
Controversially, profound examples of artificial selection are often
said to be seen in humans themselves, who employ substantial cultural
bias in mate selection, most obviously in the preference of human
females for socially powerful mates - a factor which is not directly
related to natural ecology or to simple secondary sexual
characteristics. Critics of this view argue that sexual selection in
all mammal species favors aggressive males, and that males of other
primate species trade food for sex - and that aggression and
food-gathering capacity are causally related to social power in any
social species. This argues for a fuzzy line between ecological,
artificial and sexual selection, especially in a highly cognitive and
highly social species.
However, a more obvious artificial selection takes place when an
unmarried human male is imprisoned for a crime - removed from the
general human society and mating environment for a period of time -
most likely for the aggression or valuables-gathering capabilities that
natural selection must encourage.
Similarly, in many societies, such institutions as polygamy and the
harem have served to permit some of the most successfully aggressive
and logistically competent males to father drastically more offspring
than others. Similar observations are made of harems of the Ottoman
Empire and Siam, and of polygamy in Islam and among some who claim to
be Mormons.
There is substantial controversy as to whether these are truly
artificial selections, or examples of ordinary sexual selection, or
even (when the economics predominate) natural selection, carried to
extremes in human beings. Controversies of this sort lead some to make
a careful distinction between ecological selection and sexual
selection, i.e. to differentiate which of the two aspects of natural
selection can be said to apply to humans in what circumstances, and
what "artificial" aspects are perhaps "environmental" but neither
naturally ecological nor wholly sexual.
Another way to resolve the controversy is to suggest that when humans
act on humans, as when other animals act to select any of their own
species as mate or when members of their species are harmed as a part
of the mating rituals, the entire process should be considered part of
sexual selection, and that only man acting on non-human species is a
true "artificial" selection.
In this view, even such complex matters as economics may be considered
wholly "sexual" (by certain green economists) or even wholly "natural"
(by some anthropologists using the neoclassical political economy).
This begins to intersect with Social Darwinism and fascism to a degree,
both of which held that dominant human societies optimized, but did not
alter, the fundamental factors driving selection of individuals to
propagate a species.
Predictably, such assumptions also conflict with Marxist or feminist
views which hold rather that an imposed political economy, i.e.
capitalism (classical and neoclassical economics) or
patriarchy/feudalism/militarism (as in the harem case above), are
creating artificial conditions drastically at odds with what is of
highest survival utility for the human species as a whole. But, as
other cases of runaway sexual selection demonstrate, individuals or
cliques within a species do not in general act for species-wide
utility, and individuals and even whole species are sometimes extincted
due to excesses of their species' sexual selection process. Were a
Marxist or feminist view to predominate, then their shared humanism
would be artificial selection.
Some believe the term artificial selection should be employed only to
make a distinction between the human-chosen "artificial" factors and
the combination of instinct and ecology that is "natural" without human
choice. To describe more deliberate influences on human behavior they
may refer to moral selection or ethical selection, e.g. as in the
prison case.
These terms, too, often recur in moral philosophy and in arguments
regarding influences on the evolution of societies deemed "desirable".
The central focus in many religious traditions of suppressing sexual
desire seems to suggest that what is usually deemed desirable for the
society as a whole may well be exactly the opposite of what is
desirable for the individual under normal natural selection, e.g. a
human male who learns he has Human Immunodeficiency Virus could attempt
to impregnate the maximum number of females hoping to have one born
without the virus, or could choose to forgo sexual activity entirely
due to the suffering it could cause. Or, alternatively, could choose to
reveal the deficiency to partners, exactly the type of acquired trait
that males in natural sexual selection would conceal. Removing oneself
from the mating pool or drastically limiting mating choices in these
ways would seem to constitute both morally sound and reasonably ethical
behavior, and also clearly exemplify artificial selection.
However, most biologists and evolutionary theorists employ the term
artificial selection only to make a distinction between the
intentionally human-chosen "artificial" factors and the combination of
instinct and ecology that is "natural" without human choice. To
describe more deliberate influences on human behavior they may refer to
sociobiology, moral selection or ethical selection.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Interrelation between Sex and Death
- Next by Date: HELP: HOW TO DOWNLOAD THE TOTAL PROTEIN SEQUENCE DATABASE OF MOUSE FROM NCBI
- Previous by thread: Re: Article: Precision Extinction - Eradicating a species when you want to isn't that easy
- Next by thread: HELP: HOW TO DOWNLOAD THE TOTAL PROTEIN SEQUENCE DATABASE OF MOUSE FROM NCBI
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
