As technology redefines our communities and our world, the
Internet will more than likely be the source of more obscenity trials
landing in front of the Supreme Court. Many believe the Court may have
to challenge the current state of the Miller Test as it relates to
electronic obscenity. What will happen in the future? Like Justice
Potter Stuart famously said about pornography decades ago, "I'll know it
when I see it."
NOTE:
I think the Supreme Court's 1973 Miller v. California on obscenity is
non-applicable when it comes to the Internet which transcends geographic
boundaries. Without the Internet obscenity is determined by community
standards; for example what offensive to someone from New York City may
differ from what offends a person in Topeka, Kansas. The article states,
"As technology redefines our communities and our world, the
Internet will more than likely be the source of more obscenity trials
landing in front of the Supreme Court. Many believe the Court may have
to challenge the current state of the Miller Test as it relates to
electronic obscenity.." I don't see how this would be possible. In the
absence of community standards, how could obscenity be defined? in the
case of Miller v. California obscenity is appeals to the "prurient"
interest (i.e., an unhealthy and degrading interest in sex or the
depiction or description of sexual conduct in a patently offensive way
and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value).
However, this is based on community standards. As an avid consumer of
pornography, I have seen and masturbated and climaxed to most forms of
pornography except homosexual pornography and snuff. There have been
some forms of pornography such as severe whipping and caning and snuff
which I have been psychologically attracted to but in which I was not
sexually stimulated. I've obtained intense sexual satisfaction from
bestiality and women, scat involving women or men and women, vomit and
women, spit and urine involving men and women. It goes without saying
none of this material has any literary, artistic, political or
scientific value. Pornography is intended to get one's rocks off, not to
have any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. As
Jay has mentioned sex and aggression are proximate moods and many sex
acts involving aggression have sexually stimulated me. There have been
forms of pornography which have sexually stimulated me but in which I
would not actually participate in. Some countries, such as China, the
government seriously controls the content of the Internet. it does this
for political reasons largely unrelated to online pornography. So,
theoretically if many other countries followed China's example this
would severely limit online pornography. As long as a person is over 18
pretty much anything is considered permissible when it comes to
pornography, except for child pornography and snuff. I think the
definition of obscenity needs to be scrapped. instead, sexual acts
including serious physical harm and death (murder on tape) of people and
child pornography should continue to be criminalized. It can be argued
adults having coercive sex with children has negative psychological
effects on the children. Causing the murder of people on tape for sexual
satisfaction is sadistic and should be considered a psychiatric
disorder. Adults who coerce children in sex acts should also be
considered a psychiatric disorder. In the Diagnostic Statistical of
Mental Disorders having a "prurient" interest in sex (unhealthy and
degrading interest in sex or the depiction and description of sexual
conduct in a patently offensive way or that lacks serious literary,
artistic, political or scientific value) is not listed ot considered
psychiatric disorders. Although an adult woman vomiting or defecating in
the face or the mouth of a man may be sexually offensive to many
people, it is not a psychiatric disorder and no physical (and I would
argue mental) harm results in such practices. Paraphilias are not
considered mental disorders unless they cause harm or distress.
Michael Raglandwhich has resulted in them working together to oppose birth control and abortion. The article also su ggests it is Catholics and evangelical conservative Protestants who are really opposed to extramarital sex. It states, "If making it more difficult for people to have sex outside marriage without consequences means making it more difficult for married couples to properly plan and care for their children, that appears to be a trade-off they are willing to make." Marriage certainly isn't as strong an institution today as it was a hundred years ago. More people divorce today than they did a hundred years ago or even fifty years ago. It can be argued this deterioration of the institution of marriage has weakened Christianity. Many Christians are also opposed to reproductive technologies, many to stem cell research, embryo research, euthanasia and of course abortion. In the past stem cell research, embryo research and reproductive technologies weren't possible. Abortion has existed ever since humans have existed but today it is a medically safe and easy procedure. Through the use of drugs voluntary euthanasia or assisted physician suicide is also medically safe and an easy and painless measure. I submit all of them has caused the extreme backlash of many Catholics and conservative Protestants. Christianity is in its death throes. We can expect things to get even worse before they get better when it comes to Christianity opposing these things. We may even see the establishment of more theocratic states, in the West even. If Christianity accepted abortion, stem cell research, embryo research, reproductive technologies and euthanasia it would no longer be Christian. As a religion, it would cease to exist. Many conservative Christians are also opposed to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights because they obviously weaken or negate the traditional family which is one of the major bases of Christianity. I consider many dogmatic Catholics and conservative Protestants to be a major evil force in the world. Although they are not as physically violent or terrorists like the extreme Muslims i.e. they don't crash airplanes into skyscrapers or mow down people in trucks or mass murder people, their policies and political influence in the West and in places like Africa and other places are, I would argue, more pernicious than that of the extreme Muslim terrorists. Their tactics are more insidious than the extreme Muslim terrorists. Jay has stated we are in WWW III as a result of the war the extreme Muslims are waging on the West and the West is waging on them i.e. war on terror. However, there is another war going on between Christianity and secularism: the Christian war on abortion, physician assisted suicide, the war on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the war against stem cell research, embryo research and reproductive technologies. I would argue the threat Christianity poses to the world is much greater than that of the extreme terrorist Muslims.
Michael Ragland
Michael R: For example, Hitler and many Nazis claimed the Jews were planning to control the world.
Michael R.: Note: I personally believe considering the immense size of the universe
alien life does exist. However, I think it is extremely likely some
alien civilizations/life forms have wiped themselves out with their
technology or been destroyed by a gigantic asteroid. The human race may
follow in their footsteps. I do think, however, there are probably some
alien civilizations/life forms that have managed to become interstellar
and are traveling/exploring the universe beyond their own planets.
However, I don't think such alien civilizations/life forms are
biological. I think they are artificial intelligence consisting of
mechanical and electronic components. However, in order for there to be
alien artificial intelligence life forms they would have had to be
preceded by biological forms of life. It is biological forms of life
which create artificial intelligence even if eventually such biological
forms of life become obsolete and are replaced wholly by artificial
intelligence life. We think of consciousness as being inseparable from
the brain but arguably artificial intelligence which doesn't include a
biological brain would have "consciousness". Does artificial
intelligence evolve by means of natural selection? Natural selection is
one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with
mutation, migration, and genetic drift. How would artificial intelligent
life forms have mutations, migration, and genetic drift? Certainly such
"mutations" would be qualitatively different from biological forms of
life. I don't see how migration and genetic drift would apply to
artificial intelligent life forms. Evolution is based on DNA. Artificial
intelligence wouldn't be genetically based on DNA. Artificial life
forms would be based on mechanical and electronic components. I suppose
there could be some way these mechanical and electronic components could
become damaged or changed in such a way that they alter the
mechanical/electronic message carried by these mechanical/electronic
components of artificial intelligent life and thus constitute a
"mutation". Beneficial mutations of electronic/mechanical artificial
intelligent life forms would be better adapted to their environment and
would tend to survive and produce more electronic/mechanical components
of artificial intelligent life and this would be artificial
non-biological "natural selection". It is ironic humans have developed
nuclear technology, constructed the Large Hadron Collider, landed on the
moon, explored the universe with the Hubble telescope and will probably
eventually create artificial intelligence without knowing the origin of
biological life or consciousness. It's quite possible we will never
really know what "consciousness" is or the origin of biological life.
However, it may not be necessary to know what consciousness is or the
origin of biological life to create artificial intelligent life which
will eventually replace human biological life.
Michael R.: When it comes to the human race you are complacent. You are either unwilling or unable to imagine something which could be better.. I agree with you we are an exceptional species. However, chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest relatives. We do share features with both species. We share some features with chimpanzees:Of all the world’s species, humans and chimpanzees are among the only ones who participate in coordinated attacks on other members of their own species.
Michael R.: Because
of their lack of advanced technology and weapons, chimps are only able
to kill a small number of chimps of rival communities but humans, such
as the case in WW1 and WW2, were able to kill millions. You write, "We
cooperate and compete at the individual and group level orders of
magnitude more than both species. We are where we are and they are still
hairy apes romping around the forest." Yes, we do cooperate and compete
(we actually cooperate to compete) at the individual and group level
orders of magnitude more than bonobos and chimps.. Because of this we
can engage in large scale warfare. It's true we are where we are and
they are both still apes romping around in the forest. However, there is
possible scientific evidence chimps have actually evolved more than we
have:
Jay R. Feierman: And finally, it is absurd to tinker with one of the most important human hormones, testosterone. Human beings are an exceptional species. Why change what works? It would be like tinkering with the winning race car. We are not like bonobos or chimpanzees. We have features of both. We cooperate and compete at the individual and group level orders of magnitude more than both species. We are where we are and they are still hairy apes romping around the forest.
Michael R.: Yes, an exceptional species and a species in which you think future genocides are inevitable and a species where war may be decreased but not eliminated. You also have wrote about how sociopaths are "evil" and traitors to their in-group yet you have zero interest in my proposal to keep them locked up for life once they are arrested for a crime. Seeing that chimps also engage in war and possibly genocide https://www.theatlantic.com/te
James Gray: There is so much wrong with this report that does not explain this game that is supposedly about aggression. I do not know where to begin or end. I suppose you think that it is a myth that intact bulls are more aggressive than steers. I challenge you to go out into the cattle land not far from where I live and go into a pasture and taunt an intact bull and the same with a steer. Do you think that a short term injection of testosterone into a steer would suddenly turn it into a raging bull. Nonsense. Why are you so opposed to the idea that testosterone is a major factor in aggression. Don't you realize that the brief items you have posted are really contrary to your strongly held belief that aggression in humans is controlled through biological pathways that are primarily mediated by genetics. Do you think that you might be cherry picking items that support your strange objection to the role of testosterone in aggression? There is so much more that could be said. However, your mind is made up and you are not open to other approaches.
I recently met with my former child and adolescent psychiatrist and he
had read some of the articles I wrote on the government providing
financial incentives for the poor to be voluntarily sterilized. He
commented on the margins of the paper how was this any different from
the Nazi sterilization program. He told me he found my proposal
disturbing. I don't dismiss his concerns regarding this. The Nazi
compulsory sterilization was a prelude to the Holocaust. One of the
differences between my proposal and the Nazi sterilization program is
the Nazi sterilization program was compulsory whereas my proposal offers
financial incentives to the poor and is voluntary. However, there is a
similarity between my proposal and the compulsory Nazi sterilization
program in that both targets minorities. The Nazis considered those they
sterilized as "parasites" and genetically deficient. Many people
consider poor African American and Latino ghetto inhabitants as
"parasites" i.e. they largely rely on welfare/so-called "handouts". Many
people also consider African American and Latino ghetto inhabitants as
genetically deficient i.e. they cause an inordinate amount of crime, are
intellectually inferior, etc. Although there is no scientific evidence
African American and Latino ghetto inhabitants are genetically deficient
compared to European Americans, Asian Americans and Jewish Americans
this hasn't prevented many people from considering them genetically
inferior to European Americans, Asian Americans and Jewish Americans.
For example, there are many more African Americans in the National
Football League and the National Basketball Association. The main cause
for this as seen as their "muscle superiority". In intellectual fields,
both African Americans and Latinos are vastly underrepresented. There
could be social and economic reasons for this but often this is
overshadowed by their perceived "genetic intellectual inferiority". If
financial incentives for voluntary sterilization were offered to African
American and Latino American ghetto inhabitants it is likely, given the
prevailing cultural mentality, it would be largely motivated by the
government's perception and the wider public at large they were "genetic
undesirables" and "parasites" who needed to be eliminated.
Theoretically, this could be a stepping stone to a more violent form of
genocide as was the case in Nazi Germany. My proposal is a "peaceful"
form of genocide i.e. eliminating a large segment of the African
American and Latino American populations through financial incentives to
be voluntarily sterilized. My reasons for this are many African
American and Latino American ghetto inhabitants don't have adequate
economic resources to have children and in the case of African American
ghetto inhabitants many children are raised without a father and often a
drug addicted mother and this partly leads to a life of crime. It is
not motivated by seeing African American or Latino ghetto inhabitants as
"parasites" or "genetically inferior". What is arguably needed is much
more social intervention i.e. being educated about unintended
pregnancies, available/accessible free contraception and access to
healthcare. However, there seems to be little political will in
accomplishing these things. As a result the cycle of single parent
households without a father and crime continues unabated. Jay has stated
one of the possible reasons for African American ghetto children having
a single father is past African marriage mating patterns. I think the
reasons for African American men being absent fathers i.e. just mainly
sperm donors is more complex and go beyond past African marriage mating
patterns. I think some real pathological agents are at work here. I
think much more research in needed in this area. Regrettably, I don't
think society/government will ever have the political will to socially
intervene to a "significant" degree in educating African American and
Latino American ghetto inhabitants about unintended pregnancies,
providing free contraception and having accessible/available healthcare.
Therefore, in order to stem the tide of absent fathers and crime, I
reluctantly advocate offering financial incentives to African American
and Latino ghetto inhabitants to be voluntarily sterilized or have long
term surgical implant contraception. I believe this is more politically
feasible than educating African American and Latino American ghetto
inhabitants about unintended pregnancies and providing healthcare
despite the risks of such a proposal being motivated by the government's
and public's perception of African American and Latino Americans as
parasites and genetically inferior. This would indeed be genocide but it
would be genocide under the auspices of a caring genocide and it would
be non-violent i.e. there wouldn't be mass killings. I admit, if this
occurred as planned it would be the first "peaceful" genocide in human
history and would be motivated by benevolent reasons, not malevolent
reasons. Some would argue humans aren't capable of orchestrating and
executing a "benevolent" genocide. However, I don't think this is
necessarily the case. In human history, there have been examples of new
developments which benefited mankind i.e. the Renaissance and the
Scientific Revolution for example. Of course, one can counter if that is
the case then why wouldn't it be possible for the government/society to
meaningfully socially intervene in the ghettos and educate African
Americans and Latino Americans, offering them free contraception and
affordable healthcare. Alas, I just don't think human nature is geared
that way. Throughout most of human history there has always been poor
people and there always will be; inequality is a typical characteristic
of our species. Whether this inequality is genetic in origin or mainly
social/economic in origin is a moot point - it just is. However, through
my "peaceful benevolent genocide" proposal the poor and this inequality
could be gradually eliminated. One could consider the elimination of
certain "racial" groups as "evil". After all, don't they have the right
to reproduce like anybody else and taking this away from them would be a
gross infringement on their liberty? However, is this liberty too high
in social costs? Dysfunctional family structures, crime, etc.? This
reproductive liberty must be judged in what is in the best interests of
society as a whole. As it stands, this reproductive liberty has not been
to the advantage or well being of society as a whole. My proposal could
theoretically be carried out without the use of human artificial wombs.
However, the likely use of artificial wombs in the future by the rich
and upper middle class will add a new element when it comes to human
reproduction. As I've stated I believe artificial wombs will become the
new reproductive standard and completely divorce sexual intercourse from
reproduction and society will increasing frown upon and disapprove of
viviparous offspring. The poor, and this includes many people of color,
wouldn't be able to afford the use of an artificial womb. It is Whites
who mainly use IVF because they can afford it. Of course, for a
relatively long time there will be the rich and upper middle class who
opt to use artificial wombs and poor who will continue to have
viviparous offspring. However, in the long term society will completely
switch exclusively to the use of artificial wombs. Despite the
"benevolence" of this "non-violent" genocide some people might still
consider it evil. Many years ago my psychiatrist commented psychiatrists
and pediatricians were the lowest paid medical professions. I told them
that was evil and he remarked, "Reality is often evil". When he
recently criticized my proposal of offering financial incentives to the
poor to be voluntarily sterilized I told him "Reality is often evil and
the bad guys are the one's who often make history. Using discriminatory
artificial wombs and sterilizing the poor would continue to follow this
pattern. It is the human saga!
Jay R. Feierman: I
don't consider Antisemitism to be either paranoia or delusions of
persecutions by Jews. Antisemitism is best understood as simply
out-group aggression. The millions of European Christians who have been
antisemitic over the centuries are neither paranoid or delusional.
Michael R.: I
think you are treating my points flippantly. You have stated Paranoid
Schizophrenics mis-perceive clues in the environment and interpret them
as threats to themselves.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
Yes. The delusions in someone with Paranoid Schizophrenia are based on
mis-perceiving environmental clues do to a perceptual and a reasoning
problem. They use predicate logic to reason and equate predicate
nominatives. This is pervasive.
Michael R: You
stated, "The millions of European Christians who have been antisemitic
over the centuries are neither paranoid or delusional." I don't think
that is entirely true.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
It is not entirely true as about 1% European Christians were and still
are schizophrenic. However, I don't believe that schizophrenic persons
have the cognitive machinery to become antisemitic, which is acquired by
normative coercion through doing what most people do and what high
status people do. Persons with schizophrenia are notorious for not
following those rules. This is one way that I identify persons with
schizophrenia in tribal societies. They dress and behave differently
from the norm.
Michael Ragland: For example, read the following from Wikipedia: Blood libel (also blood accusation)[1][2] is an accusation[3][4][5] that Jewsk
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
You are confusing rationalizations for behavior with the causes of
behavior. The cause of antisemitism is out-group hostility. However,
people have to rationalize their behavior.
Michael Ragland: This is certainly examples of mis-perceiving clues in the environment and interpreting them as threats to themselves and not merely rationalizations for out-group hostility.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
Nothing that you wrote above from Wikipedia indicates that antisemitic
Europeans mis-perceived environmental clues. Persons with schizophrenia
do this pervasively. Antisemitic Christians were and still are high
functioning people in all rungs of society. There is nothing wrong with
their perceptual abilities or their reasoning abilities.
Rationalizations are not causes of behavior. People with schizophrenia
do not function well in society.
Michael Ragland: The accusations of blood libel and well poisoning are delusional and a partly a manifestation of paranoia.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]: You are confusing rationalizations of behavior with causes of behavior.
Michael Ragland: I write, "Paranoia
figures prominently in such antisemitic conspiracy theories i.e. "The
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", "The "International Jew". You
answer, "That's
not paranoia, which is a term restricted to people who have severe
psychiatric disorders in which they mis-perceive features of their
environment and mis-interpret them as threats to self. Paranoia is not a
factor in antisemitism." That is assuming antisemitism is not a
psychiatric disorder which I think it is.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
Antisemitism is not in the DSM-V. Out-group hostility is not a
psychiatric disorder. It is human nature. The Nazis took it to the
extreme by using genocide.
Michael Ragland: I don't think it is just a rationalization for out-group aggression. Rationalization is defined as a
defense mechanism that involves the justification of an unacceptable
behavior, thought or feeling in a logical manner, avoiding the true
reason for the action."
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
That's a reasonable definition if you leave off the Freudian "defense
mechanism." Most Nazis, including those in the SS, did not know the
"true reason" for the genocide other than it was ordered by the regime.
They just did what they were told to do.
Michael Ragland: I
find nothing "logical" in "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"
or "The International Jew", two famous and well used antisemitic
conspiracy theories claiming Jews are planning to dominate Gentiles or
do dominate Gentiles.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
It is doubtful if most of the Nazi SS officers who carried out the
Holocaust ever read or even heard of these books. And if they did, they
were just used as political propaganda. Certainly many of the SS
enlisted men didn't read them. Political propaganda is not a cause of
out-group hostility. It is a mechanisms that facilitates it. Again,
people will believe almost anything if most people and high status
people believe it.
Michael Ragland: In
my opinion, both works go beyond mere "rationalization" and out-group
hostility and mis-perceive features of the environment and mis-perceive
them as threats to Gentiles. As such, I regard both works as products of
a psychiatric disorder which is antisemitism.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]: Again, those works were not used to motivate the enlisted SS soldiers to carry out the Holocaust.
Michael R: For example, Hitler and many Nazis claimed the Jews were planning to control the world.
Jay R. Feierman: That is just a rationalization for out-group hostility. It is neither a delusion nor a manifestation of paranoia.
Michael R.:
I explained above why I think European Christians and Hitler and the
Nazis claims Jews are planning to control the world go beyond mere
rationalization and and out-group hostility and are manifestations of
paranoia and meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
I understand your argument. I just don't believe it is correct.
Antisemitism is just a specific case of out-group hostility carried to
the extreme in the Holocaust.
Jay R. Feierman: Most
human political and religious beliefs have no basis in reality. That
does not make them a manifestation of paranoia. Political and religious
beliefs are not caused by a defect in perception by which the
environment is mis-perceived. Rather, they are caused by our tendency to
be aggressive towards out-groups. They are acquired by normative
coercion and the tendency for conformity and prestige bias.
Michael R.:
Very few political and religious beliefs have been as pernicious as
"The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" or "The International
Jew". Aggression towards out-groups in our evolutionary past may have
had a legitimate basis i.e. xenophobia and avoiding diseases of
different groups. However, the antisemitic conspiracy theories of "The
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and "The International Jew"
have no legitimate evolutionary basis; they are truly representative of a
psychiatric disorder even if antisemitism has not yet been classified
as a psychiatric disorder. Both works grossly mis-perceive features of
the environment and mis-interpret as threats to Gentiles.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]: Again, they are just political propaganda rhetoric. The writers and readers were not psychiatrically ill.
Michael R: . . . yet they certainly increased aggression against Jews.
Jay R. Feierman: Aggression
against Jews is predictable as long as Jews are a separate breeding
population that competes for resources with non-Jews. It has been that
way for 3,500 years. However, Jews are assimilating rapidly and
out-breeding. In the 1950s in the USA, 95% of Jews married other Jews.
Today, the number is 30%. In a hundred years the only "Jews" that will
be left will be the Orthodox, who today are a small minority who only
marry other Orthodox Jews.
Michael R.:
There is arguably aggression between separate breeding populations in
terms of competition for resources which doesn't involve mis-perceiving
features of the environment and mis-interpreting them as threats.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
You are conflating perceptual mis-perception, such as is seen in
schizophrenia along with logical dysfunction, with political propaganda
used in out-group hostility.
Michael R: There
is clearly aggression between the Chinese and Americans for competition
for resources in the economic sphere which doesn't involve physical
elimination of out-groups.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
Yes, that is true today. There is no guarantee that the competition
will not escalate to force in the future. If history is any guide, this
could be predicted.
Michael R: To
the best of my knowledge the various racial-ethnic groups in the U.S.
which compete for resources haven't resorted to leveling accusations of
blood libel, poisoning wells or other pernicious falsehoods.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
There was plenty of untrue political propaganda against "the Catholics"
when they started migrating to the USA in the early part of the 20th
century, which is why it was so controversial in 1960 when John F.
Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected president of the USA. Today, there is
lots of political propaganda, some of which is untrue, about Muslims in
general. Political propaganda is a tactic of inter-group competition.
But again, it is just a facilitator of inter-group competition.
| |||
I'm sending you some articles I posted on the Yahoo Human Ethology
group I subscribe to. Most of them deal with the idea of using future
genetic engineering on humans to produce consistent testosterone throughout development. Male Bonobos, unlike human males, have consistent
testosterone throughout development. They don't experience a surge of
testosterone in puberty like human males and male chimps. It has been
speculated the female dominated society of Bonobos may have something to do with male Bonobos having consistent testosterone throughout development. As I mention I think if future genetic engineering was used on humans to produce consistent
testosterone throughout development this would not necessarily result
in a human female dominated society but I do think it would produce more
egalitarianism between the sexes. I've been accused of wanting to turn
male humans into Bonobos but that is not accurate. Rather, I want to duplicate one aspect of Bonobo biology, consistent testosterone throughout development, in male humans. If this was possibly done it would not turn male humans into Bonobos.
MichaelMichael R.: When it comes to the human race you are complacent. You are either unwilling or unable to imagine something which could be better.. I agree with you we are an exceptional species. However, chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest relatives. We do share features with both species. We share some features with chimpanzees:Of all the world’s species, humans and chimpanzees are among the only ones who participate in coordinated attacks on other members of their own species.
James
Gray (new): This is misleading in so many ways. Wolves, lions,
hyenas, and many ant species engage in such coordinated attacks.. It
seems to apply to killer whales as well. In fact it such behavior
appears to be universal among social species that eat meat.
Michael R.: In
other words, both species are able to deliberately provoke a war. And
in the case of primates, attacks are not caused by interference with
humans, which was for some time wrongly thought to be the cause of the
signs of aggressiveness displayed by these animals. What moves them to commit violent acts is in fact an adaptive strategy, as was recently concluded by thirty primatologists, based on the analysis of data gathered during five decades of research on conflicts involving chimpanzees.
Attacks increase in denser populations and in those in which there is a
greater number of males. And the victims are usually members of rival
communities. Combined with our advanced technology and weapons this has
been and most likely will continue to be a recipe for disaster.
James
Gray (new): You love to use loaded terms that are far more appropriate
to political campaign than thoughtful scientific discourse.
With
our big brains, capacity for speech, and upright stance, humans have
long assumed that our species must have hit the genetic jackpot. But a
controversial new study challenges the idea that we sprinted along on
the evolutionary fast track while our chimp brethren were left swinging
in the trees.
Elite genome: Genes in the chimp genome appear to have undergone more positive evolutionary changes than corresponding human genes.
A
comparison of thousands of human and chimpanzee genes suggests that
chimps have actually evolved more since the two species parted from a
common ancestor approximately five million years ago, according to Jianzhi Zhang, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who led the research.
James
Gray (new): How does this relate to your overall point? I cannot see
how molecular evidence that chimpanzees may have had more positive
selection since the divergence from the common ancestor of chimpanzees
and humans says anything about your points in your disagreement with
Jay.
<snip>
Michael R.: “It’s human egotism to put us on a pedestal,” says molecular anthropologist Morris Goodman of
Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit. “I was attracted
to the paper because it seemed to be chipping away at this desire to
make us all that extra-special. At the molecular level, humans are not
necessarily exceptional in terms of the adaptive changes.”
James
Gray (new): Jay has argued that humans an especially successful
species. That is not the same as putting humans on a pedestal. The are
other exceptionally successful species like Norway rats and common
pigeons. It is irrelevant how successful they seem to be at the
molecular level. Do you think that me saying this is the equivalent of
putting rats and pigeons on a pedestal.
<snip>
Michael R.: Not
everyone is convinced that Zhang’s team has drawn the correct
conclusion from the gene analysis. Humans and chimps are so similar that
it is difficult to determine whether the genes are the product of
positive selection, says Bruce Lahn, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago who studies the genetic basis of brain evolution.
James
Gray (new): At least you included this reservation about Zhang's
data. I still do not see the relevance of Zhang's data even without
these reservations
Michael R.: “It
is very rare that there will be enough changes in such a short lineage
to tell us there is positive selection,” says Lahn. “I’m very surprised
that they claim these are positively selected genes. I would guess if
they tried to publish each of these genes as an example of positive
selection, there wouldn’t be enough supporting data for the majority of
them.” https://www. technologyreview.com/s/407705/ chimps-are-more-evolved-than- humans/
You state, "And
finally, it is absurd to tinker with one of the most important human
hormones, testosterone." Why is absurd? You imply tinkering with
testosterone in humans would eliminate our exceptional quality as a
species.
James
Gray (new): Have you ever heard of the law of unintended
consequences? On what basis do you assume there would be no unexpected
consequences of fiddling with genes that control human hormones?
Michael
R [NEWER]: James, humans are not bonobos and even if genetic
engineering was possibly used to produce consistent testosterone
throughout development in humans this would not make them male bonobos.
They would be genetically modified humans, not male bonobos. There are
many other things which make male bonobos male bonobos besides their
consistent testosterone throughout development. Both humans and chimps
experience a surge of testosterone in puberty yet they are not the same;
despite the similarity of chimps and humans experiencing a surge of
testosterone in puberty they are very different in many other aspects of
their genetics. If genetic engineering was used on male humans to make
them have consistent testosterone throughout development this would not
make them bonobos. It has been speculated the female dominance of
bonobos may have something to do with the male bonobos consistent
testosterone throughout development. However, I doubt using genetic
engineering to make human males have consistent testosterone throughout
development would result in human female dominated societies. Given
humans different genetics, I think it is possible it would result in
neither sex being dominant. I guess human societies aren't as male
dominated as chimp societies; still in human societies males are more
dominant than females. Most human societies have been patriarchal and
that remains true to this day. Despite the gains made in woman's rights
such as there being able to vote, entering many professions once only
held mostly by men, being just as educated or more educated than males,
etc. I don't think political advances will be able to eliminate the
basic underlying patriarchal structure of human societies. I think only
genetic engineering of humans will be able to accomplish that. If
genetic engineering was used to make human males have consistent
testosterone throughout development I don't think this would result in
matriarchal societies. I do think, however, it would produce more
egalitarianism between the sexes. You write of the unexpected
consequences of fiddling with testosterone. I don't know what exactly
the consequences would be but I certainly don't think it would damage
the exceptional quality of the human species. I suppose you probably
think war is a part of what makes humans an exceptional species but I
don't think this is correct. As you point out almost any meat eating
species engages at some level in coordinated attacks on other members of
its species; chimps, wolves, hyenas, lions, etc. Since other species
besides humans make war humans are not exceptional in this regard and I
don't regard human warfare as an exceptional characteristic of our
species. Yes, human warfare is qualitatively different from chimp
warfare and you might think this is what makes human warfare
exceptional. However, on an purely genetic evolutionary level-not a
cultural level-human warfare is not exceptional. Other species engage in
warfare. The evolutionary continuum of warfare between species is
clearly present. Ostensibly, human genetic engineering would be used to
break this continuum. I think in the future, maybe a a few thousand
years from now, humans will no longer eat meat. I think eventually it
will be regarded on par with past practices of cannibalism.
Michael R.: As
I previously posted, bonobos unlike chimps, have consistent
testosterone throughout development. They also don't engage in homicide
like humans do. I think there is a strong correlation, if not causation,
between the consistent level of testosterone in bonobos and their not
engaging in homicide/violence/war.
James Gray (new): You make this assertion on the basis of one species, an N of one. How much data do you have?
Michael
R. [NEWER]: I just read in a few articles bonobos have consistent
testosterone throughout development. Based on this I'm assuming that is a
fact. Yes, it is based on just one species but bonobos are our closing
living genetic relative other than chimpanzees. Because of this I think
the data are highly relevant for humans. I don't see how researching
whether other species have consistent testosterone throughout
development would have as much import for humans as bonobos having
consistent testosterone throughout development. As I stated there is
strong correlation, if not causation, between bonobo consistent
testosterone throughout development and no clear cut specific instances
of homicide in bonobo communities.
Michael R.:
Human males, like chimps, also experience a surge of testosterone in
puberty/adolescence and like male chimps they do engage in war and
commit homicides. I speculate genetic engineering of humans may lead to
making testosterone consistent throughout development like bonobos and
this may, as in the case of bonobos, result in less
violence/homicides/war.
James
Gray (new): We have figured out by now that you want to turn humans
into bonobos. When dictator Ragland comes to power and forces people to
undergo genetic engineering to become bonobo like, much of civilization
will collapse. The descendants of humans would no longer be able to
survive in temperate climate let alone polar climates.
Michael
R. [NEWER]: I think you are being unduly alarmist James. As I've stated
I don't want to turn humans into bonobos. Rather, there is one aspect
of Bonobo biology, consistent testosterone throughout development, that I
would like to duplicate in male humans. What do you base your statement
"much of civilization would collapse" if genetic engineering was used
to produce consistent testosterone throughout development in male
humans? Do you think if violence, homicide and war were largely
eliminated this would result largely in the collapse of human
civilization? A plausible argument can be made it is human violence/war
which possibly threatens the partial or large collapse of human
civilization. I recently posted an article in which bonobos did better
on certain intelligence tests than chimpanzees because they were not
hampered by fighting with each other as chimpanzees did. It's possible
certain aspects of intelligence are deficient in war. At a fundamental
level, war may be a decidedly unintelligent enterprise. What makes you
think if human males were genetically engineered to have consistent
testosterone throughout development they wouldn't be able to survive in
temperate or polar climates? Humans largely live in artificial
temperature controlled environments i.e. heating and air conditioner;
they are not out in the wild with their balls flapping in the wind.
Michael R.:
Don't you think it might be possible through genetic engineering to
make testosterone consistent throughout development in human males and
to possibly reduce violence/homicides/war and still keep humans an
exceptional species? As I've repeatedly stated Hawking states "Genetic
engineering will change the standard of what a human being is but it
will be gradual because there is so much we don't know and because
people take a long time to grow up." You need to grow up Jay.
James
Gray (new): I really do not like this last statement. If you make
such a statement you should be prepared to support it. So tell us in
what way you view Jay's behavior as childish. I think you are so
frustrated by Jay's cogent arguments that you do not have a cogent
answer to, that you resort to belittling comments instead of using
reason or data.
Michael
R. [NEWER]: Yes, I do think Jay's view is immature. I recently posted
an article on trans humanism and genetic engineering. Trans humanism
views human evolution as a half baked process and as a species we are
not at the end point of evolution. Jay harps on how evolution has "made
us what we are", an exceptional magnificent species-he doesn't leave
open any room open for genetic improvement other than eliminating
certain diseases.
Note: Personally, it is psychological suffering which makes me shed
tears. I've only cried a few time that I can remember, when I was a
young teen. When I was around 13 years old and another boy on my school
bus got off the bus and said to me, "I heard you called me a faggot."
There was a crowd of other girls and boys around us. He started to hit
me and I fell to the ground and then he started kicking me. I heard one
boy in the crowd yell, "Let's charge admission of one dollar." My next
door neighbor saw me getting kicked on the ground and he came running
out and gave the boy hitting me a strong upper cut and he went to the
ground. I was standing and crying uncontrollably. My next door neighbor
rescuer then motioned for me to do what I wanted to this boy who started
hitting me. Still crying, I took my school notebook and slammed it on
his head. I then went home still crying. It was my first day in Middle
School and I was dressed in my best clothes. Another time I walked to
the school basketball court and there I saw a boy I knew (I had once
gone to his house and he played the Walrus song by the Beatles for me). I
certainly didn't consider him an enemy. However, he was in a group of
other freak kids and he apparently felt compelled by peer pressure to
confront me. He had a bag of plastic water and he poured some of it on
me. I said to him, "What are you doing, taking a piss? He then hit me
and I fell to the ground. He then hit me in the nose which made it
bleed. The other girls and boys who were watching this enjoyed watching
this. Some of them made verbal sounds of spectator enjoyment. He then
said something to me which I can't remember. He then said, "Do you want
me to hit you again? I shook my head no. He then threw my basketball
out into the athletic field. I fetched my basketball and went home and
told my mother what happened and cried. Partly because of these things
which happened to me, I emotionally shut down in future incidents of
kids hitting me. I was dehumanized. For example, I remember one next
door neighbor kid saying something nasty to me. I went up to him and
said, "Do you want to fight." He then hit me in the mouth which made my
gums bleed a little." I remember in the middle of fighting him I stopped
and opened up my mouth and asked him if I was bleeding inside my
mouth." He said, "No." We started fighting again. I hit in the side of
the face and he lost his balance and almost fell down. This made him
very angry. At this time his mother was watching from the front door and
motioned him to stop. I went back inside my house. Another time a
neighborhood kid on the school bus got off and tried to start a fight
with me. I got him into a clench and I took my fingernails and pinched
his cheek. The bus driver came driving by and we stopped. He then went
to the neighborhood recreational field and I heard from some other kid
he yelled out loud, "Ragland fagland fights like a sissy. The next day
he told another older very well known freak friend of his what I had
done to him and showed his pinched cheek to him. I was sitting in a
school classroom and some kid poked his head in the door and said, "Hey
Ragland, Billy wants to see you." After class I walked down the stairs
and there was Billy. He hit me in the mouth giving me a fat lip. I then
gingerly tried to hit him in the stomach. He just moved back. He then
hit me in the side of the head. I turned my body and head towards a
school locker. For several second he pummeled the side of my head. There
was a crowd of kids watching this and I remember one kid yelled out
loud, "Break his jaw Billy." A teacher saw what was happening and broke
it up and escorted Billy and me to the principal's office. As we waited
for the principal to see us he looked at me and shook his head and said,
"I should have fucked you up more." Another freak friend of his came
into the principal's office (he was a courier) and he looked at my fat
lip and then looked at Billy and smiled." I said to Billy, "Why don't
you pick on somebody your own size." He got a look of discomfort. I said
something else to him and he said to me, "If you don't shut up I'm
going to come over there and hit you again." I shut up because I knew if
I said one more thing to him he would hit me again." We were called
into the principal's office. The principal was an African American and a
former officer in the Air Force. He asked Billy, if I had been off
school grounds would have he attacked me and Billy said, "Yes." We were
both suspended for a week. Even though I did not start a fight with
Billy I was suspended. I did not cry at all when all this happened to
me. By this time I had been so dehumanized by other kids in my
neighborhood and at school and been abused by my father I had nothing
left in me to cry. Another time I was on the school bus and another kid
who played drums in school music class took his drum sticks and played
jingle bells on my skull. I just sat there. He eventually stopped. There
were a few times I did defend myself and fought back and even won a few
fights. I was popping caps on the sidewalk and this punk kid walked by
and poured coca cola on my caps. My mother saw this from the front door
and she motioned with her body for me to do something about this. I
stood up and took a swing at this punk. He looked surprised and fell
into the bushes and I proceeded to pull large tufts of his hair out from
his head. He then got up and I kicked him in the ass. He went home
crying to his daddy who later came knocking on our front door and wanted
to know why I beat up his kid. Another time in school there was this
kid who said he was going to beat me up to other kids. I heard this and
became very anxious. I decided to beat him to the punch. I waited
outside in the hallway and as he came walking out of industrial class I
socked him in the chin and he went falling backwards on his ass. He then
got up and we started exchanging punches. He was wearing a necklace and
I ripped it off of him. A teacher broke us up and as he escorted us to
the principal's office this kid punched me in the mouth. The teacher
then grabbed him by the neck and lifted him off the ground. I have
another "funny" story to tell readers. There was a few retarded kids who
lived across from me. I was playing Nerf football with them and one of
them tripped me and I fell on my left wrist snapping it. I heard the
bone crack. I remember trying to lift my wrist and saw it flop to my
elbow. I said, "My arm is broken." And this retard kid who tripped me
looked at my flapping broken wrist and said, "Are you sure its broken?"
Later the parents of this retard wrote a letter to my mother telling me
not to play with their retard kid anymore. Generally speaking, the human
race is a flagrant turd. I highly recommend genetic engineering of it.
Jay R. Feierman: And finally, it is absurd to tinker with one of the most important human hormones, testosterone. Human beings are an exceptional species. Why change what works? It would be like tinkering with the winning race car. We are not like bonobos or chimpanzees. We have features of both. We cooperate and compete at the individual and group level orders of magnitude more than both species. We are where we are and they are still hairy apes romping around the forest.
Michael R.: Yes, an exceptional species and a species in which you think future genocides are inevitable and a species where war may be decreased but not eliminated. You also have wrote about how sociopaths are "evil" and traitors to their in-group yet you have zero interest in my proposal to keep them locked up for life once they are arrested for a crime. Seeing that chimps also engage in war and possibly genocide https://www.theatlantic.com/te
James Gray: There is so much wrong with this report that does not explain this game that is supposedly about aggression. I do not know where to begin or end. I suppose you think that it is a myth that intact bulls are more aggressive than steers. I challenge you to go out into the cattle land not far from where I live and go into a pasture and taunt an intact bull and the same with a steer. Do you think that a short term injection of testosterone into a steer would suddenly turn it into a raging bull. Nonsense. Why are you so opposed to the idea that testosterone is a major factor in aggression. Don't you realize that the brief items you have posted are really contrary to your strongly held belief that aggression in humans is controlled through biological pathways that are primarily mediated by genetics. Do you think that you might be cherry picking items that support your strange objection to the role of testosterone in aggression? There is so much more that could be said. However, your mind is made up and you are not open to other approaches.
Michael R.:
Actually, I don't object to testosterone playing an important role in
aggression. I just believe there are other genetic factors involved
which don't include testosterone. It would be more accurate to say I
cherry pick items that support the idea other genetic factors are
involved in aggression other than testosterone. Female mammals have a
much lower level of testosterone than males yet they can be fiercely
aggressive in defending their young. This suggests to me other genetic
factors other than testosterone are involve in maternal aggression.
Jay R.. Feierman [NEW]: That's
true. There is also very little if any correlation between serum
testosterone level and aggressiveness in adult men. There is a wide
range of normal values for serum testosterone for adult men. See http://elitemensguide.com
However,
in an adult mammal if you get the testosterone level to pre-pubertal
levels by castration or (in humans) anti-androgenic hormones, there is a
significant decrease in aggressivity and an almost no interest in
things sexual. I've given anti-androgens to a number of people and have
seen the effects on both aggression and sexual behavior. I've used it to
decrease aggression as well as sexual behaviors.
And
finally, it is absurd to tinker with one of the most important human
hormones, testosterone. Human beings are an exceptional species. Why
change what works? It would be like tinkering with the winning race car.
We are not like bonobos or chimpanzees. We have features of both. We
cooperate and compete at the individual and group level orders of
magnitude more than both species. We are where we are and they are still
hairy apes romping around the forest.
Michael R. [NEWER]: When it comes to the human race you are complacent. You are either unwilling or unable to imagine something which could be better. I agree with you we are an exceptional species. However, chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest relatives. We do share features with both species. We share some features with chimpanzees: Of all the world’s species, humans and chimpanzees are among the only ones who participate in coordinated attacks on other members of their own species. In other words, both species are able to deliberately provoke a war. And in the case of primates, attacks are not caused by interference with humans, which was for some time wrongly thought to be the cause of the signs of aggressiveness displayed by these animals. What moves them to commit violent acts is in fact an adaptive strategy, as was recently concluded by thirty primatologists, based on the analysis of data gathered during five decades of research on conflicts involving chimpanzees. Attacks increase in denser populations and in those in which there is a greater number of males. And the victims are usually members of rival communities. Combined with our advanced technology and weapons this has been and most likely will continue to be a recipe for disaster. Because of their lack of advanced technology and weapons, chimps are only able to kill a small number of chimps of rival communities but humans, such as the case in WW1 and WW2, were able to kill millions. You write, "We cooperate and compete at the individual and group level orders of magnitude more than both species. We are where we are and they are still hairy apes romping around the forest." Yes, we do cooperate and compete (we actually cooperate to compete) at the individual and group level orders of magnitude more than bonobos and chimps. Because of this we can engage in large scale warfare. It's true we are where we are and they are both still apes romping around in the forest. However, there is possible scientific evidence chimps have actually evolved more than we have:
With our big brains, capacity for speech, and upright stance, humans have long assumed that our species must have hit the genetic jackpot. But a controversial new study challenges the idea that we sprinted along on the evolutionary fast track while our chimp brethren were left swinging in the trees.
Elite genome: Genes in the chimp genome appear to have undergone more positive evolutionary changes than corresponding human genes.A comparison of thousands of human and chimpanzee genes suggests that chimps have actually evolved more since the two species parted from a common ancestor approximately five million years ago, according to Jianzhi Zhang, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who led the research.
To test that idea, Zhang and his colleagues analyzed sequences of approximately 14,000 genes from the chimp and human genomes. They compared rates of two types of mutations–those that alter the shape of the gene’s protein product and those that leave the structure of the protein unchanged. Genes that have been changed by positive selection have significantly more protein-altering mutations.
The results, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, were surprising. Chimps had 233 positively selected genes while humans had just 154, implying that chimps have adapted more to their environment than humans have to theirs.
“It’s human egotism to put us on a pedestal,” says molecular anthropologist Morris Goodman of Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit. “I was attracted to the paper because it seemed to be chipping away at this desire to make us all that extra-special. At the molecular level, humans are not necessarily exceptional in terms of the adaptive changes.”
To Zhang’s surprise and disappointment, the positively selected genes were not related to brain or cognitive function but to more mundane cellular housekeeping duties. “One explanation might be that the number of genes responsible for evolution of the human brain may be very small,” Zhang speculates.
The Michigan team also discovered that a higher percentage of positively selected genes were associated with disease in humans than in chimps. According to the laws of population genetics, natural selection tends to be more efficient at spreading good genes and tossing bad ones in large populations than in smaller ones. Until recently, the chimpanzee population was much larger than the human population, which may have allowed natural selection to eliminate the deleterious chimp genes.
Michael R. [NEWER]: When it comes to the human race you are complacent. You are either unwilling or unable to imagine something which could be better. I agree with you we are an exceptional species. However, chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest relatives. We do share features with both species. We share some features with chimpanzees: Of all the world’s species, humans and chimpanzees are among the only ones who participate in coordinated attacks on other members of their own species. In other words, both species are able to deliberately provoke a war. And in the case of primates, attacks are not caused by interference with humans, which was for some time wrongly thought to be the cause of the signs of aggressiveness displayed by these animals. What moves them to commit violent acts is in fact an adaptive strategy, as was recently concluded by thirty primatologists, based on the analysis of data gathered during five decades of research on conflicts involving chimpanzees. Attacks increase in denser populations and in those in which there is a greater number of males. And the victims are usually members of rival communities. Combined with our advanced technology and weapons this has been and most likely will continue to be a recipe for disaster. Because of their lack of advanced technology and weapons, chimps are only able to kill a small number of chimps of rival communities but humans, such as the case in WW1 and WW2, were able to kill millions. You write, "We cooperate and compete at the individual and group level orders of magnitude more than both species. We are where we are and they are still hairy apes romping around the forest." Yes, we do cooperate and compete (we actually cooperate to compete) at the individual and group level orders of magnitude more than bonobos and chimps. Because of this we can engage in large scale warfare. It's true we are where we are and they are both still apes romping around in the forest. However, there is possible scientific evidence chimps have actually evolved more than we have:
With our big brains, capacity for speech, and upright stance, humans have long assumed that our species must have hit the genetic jackpot. But a controversial new study challenges the idea that we sprinted along on the evolutionary fast track while our chimp brethren were left swinging in the trees.
Elite genome: Genes in the chimp genome appear to have undergone more positive evolutionary changes than corresponding human genes.A comparison of thousands of human and chimpanzee genes suggests that chimps have actually evolved more since the two species parted from a common ancestor approximately five million years ago, according to Jianzhi Zhang, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who led the research.
Mutations happen spontaneously, and most are neutral or bad, says
Zhang. But sometimes a beneficial mutation occurs in an individual and
spreads throughout the population over time, a process known as positive
selection: the genes carrying these good mutations confer evolutionary
advantages that allow organisms to adapt and thrive. The changes thus
become “fixed” in the genome.
Scientists generally believed that traits like higher cognitive
skills were due to bursts of adaptive evolution, in which key genes
accumulated beneficial mutations that contributed to the evolution of
the human species.To test that idea, Zhang and his colleagues analyzed sequences of approximately 14,000 genes from the chimp and human genomes. They compared rates of two types of mutations–those that alter the shape of the gene’s protein product and those that leave the structure of the protein unchanged. Genes that have been changed by positive selection have significantly more protein-altering mutations.
The results, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, were surprising. Chimps had 233 positively selected genes while humans had just 154, implying that chimps have adapted more to their environment than humans have to theirs.
“It’s human egotism to put us on a pedestal,” says molecular anthropologist Morris Goodman of Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit. “I was attracted to the paper because it seemed to be chipping away at this desire to make us all that extra-special. At the molecular level, humans are not necessarily exceptional in terms of the adaptive changes.”
To Zhang’s surprise and disappointment, the positively selected genes were not related to brain or cognitive function but to more mundane cellular housekeeping duties. “One explanation might be that the number of genes responsible for evolution of the human brain may be very small,” Zhang speculates.
The Michigan team also discovered that a higher percentage of positively selected genes were associated with disease in humans than in chimps. According to the laws of population genetics, natural selection tends to be more efficient at spreading good genes and tossing bad ones in large populations than in smaller ones. Until recently, the chimpanzee population was much larger than the human population, which may have allowed natural selection to eliminate the deleterious chimp genes.
The other explanation, says Zhang, is that human genes that may
have been advantageous in the past may now trigger disease because our
environment and way of life have changed.
Not everyone is convinced that Zhang’s team has drawn the correct
conclusion from the gene analysis. Humans and chimps are so similar that
it is difficult to determine whether the genes are the product of
positive selection, says Bruce Lahn, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago who studies the genetic basis of brain evolution.
“It is very rare that there will be enough changes in such a short
lineage to tell us there is positive selection,” says Lahn. “I’m very
surprised that they claim these are positively selected genes. I would
guess if they tried to publish each of these genes as an example of
positive selection, there wouldn’t be enough supporting data for the
majority of them.” https://www.technologyreview.c
You state, "And
finally, it is absurd to tinker with one of the most important human
hormones, testosterone." Why is absurd? You imply tinkering with
testosterone in humans would eliminate our exceptional quality as a
species. As I previously posted, bonobos unlike chimps, have consistent
testosterone throughout development. They also don't engage in homicide
like humans do. I think there is a strong correlation, if not causation,
between the consistent level of testosterone in bonobos and their not
engaging in homicide/violence/war. Human males, like chimps, also
experience a surge of testosterone in puberty/adolescence and like male
chimps they do engage in war and commit homicides. I speculate genetic
engineering of humans may lead to making testosterone consistent
throughout development like bonobos and this may, as in the case of
bonobos, result in less violence/homicides/war. Don't you think it might
be possible through genetic engineering to make testosterone consistent
throughout development in human males and to possibly reduce
violence/homicides/war and still keep humans an exceptional species? As
I've repeatedly stated Hawking states "Genetic engineering will change
the standard of what a human being is but it will be gradual because
there is so much we don't know and because people take a long time to
grow up." You need to grow up Jay.
No comments:
Post a Comment