Why did humans get so weak? (And our potential)

[Mark Rippetoe]

Not quite. Imagine that you get 500 elite powerlifters together, all with 900lb deadlifts. And 500 female elite powerlifters with equivalent deadlifts. They all have children together.

What is the deadlift of the second generation? 500lbs, if we’re lucky. Stronger than the base population, but there will be serious regression towards the mean. Most of the kids won’t train. Some will get injured. Some will just have bad luck in the genetic recombination lottery.

Now for the hard question. What is the deadlift of the third, fourth, and fifth generations, of this closed breeding pool? It stays right at 500lbs. Regression to the mean is complete, and there is no longer any active selective pressure, so deadlift no longer goes up. Over a long enough time period, absent selective pressure, it will even go down due to genetic drift.

For this to work you need continuous active selective pressure (and that’s what goes on with actively bred border collies). Every generation, the weakest/least border collie-like are culled from the gene pool. Over time, and with a closed gene pool, this will effect results.

The 900/500 deadlifts of the parents are not completely due to the genetics of the parents. Not at all. Once again, the taint of Lamarck persists.

[Pluripotent]

For this to work you need continuous active selective pressure (and that’s what goes on with actively bred border collies). Every generation, the weakest/least border collie-like are culled from the gene pool. Over time, and with a closed gene pool, this will effect results.

If you're going to do this on a human timescale (i.e. in your lifetime) then yes, you would need a selection process that is harsh and which probably most people would consider evil, and even then you'd only get a few generations in before you died. You can do it to some extent with dogs because they don't live that long compared to humans and you can breed them in just a year as opposed to 11 or 12 (because really, if you're evil enough to run this experiment, then you're probably going to breed them as soon as you can, and maybe even try to figure how how to accelerate menarche) and with dogs, a lot of the work was done for you over the thousands of years dogs have been with us. With dogs, you don't have to actively cull the poor performers, you just castrate them or somehow prevent them from breeding (maybe just by selling them and thereby get them out of your kennel) People don't get very upset when you do this with dogs but they probably would if you did it with humans, and you can't just tell humans to go away or stop breeding.

This also assumes that we know what to select for. Genetics isn't understood well enough to know what combination of traits would produce strong humans. We barely know enough about more simple traits such as eye color to successfully create that if we wanted to. So, in all likelihood, you'd just end up with the Island of Dr. Moreau - all the mutant traits and none of the desirable ones. (And is strength the only thing we're selecting for? Or do we want them to be intelligent, also? How about attractive?) So, this would have to be a multigenerational experiment done somewhere where no one would shut it down and put you and your subsequent generations of experimenters in jail, or (justifiably) nuke your space lab from orbit.

In the early 20th century, Eugenics was all the rage and to some extent some of these things were tried in America - which was in the throes of a progressive revolution at the time - but to much more of an extent in Japan, China, Russia and Germany, but then we decided that Eugenics is a horrible pseudoscience (which it is), much to the chagrin of the left, who secretly desire to somehow resurrect this ugly pseudoscience back into existence in any way they possibly can, but thankfully, still today they can only whisper about it, because to talk openly about eugenics with anything but pure scorn immediately - and rightly - identifies you as a vile person, which is why they just don't talk about it, because they would be on the wrong side of history (so to speak) if they did. Personally I think we need to talk about it more, because people don't understand just how vile the actual history of it is (which is another reason they don't talk about it).

But there is an active selective pressure put on the human species - albeit over a much longer timeframe: female selection. Taking the long view over generations, half or more of men have zero offspring, the other half have all of it, while most women have offspring. Females and their preferences are driving the genetic traits that get passed down. You either meet their expectations and pass on your genes, or you are cut off from future generations. And people talk about the male gaze being harsh.

[Jennifer Williams]

If you're going to do this on a human timescale (i.e. in your lifetime) then yes, you would need a selection process that is harsh and which probably most people would consider evil, and even then you'd only get a few generations in before you died. You can do it to some extent with dogs because they don't live that long compared to humans and you can breed them in just a year as opposed to 11 or 12 (because really, if you're evil enough to run this experiment, then you're probably going to breed them as soon as you can, and maybe even try to figure how how to accelerate menarche) and with dogs, a lot of the work was done for you over the thousands of years dogs have been with us. With dogs, you don't have to actively cull the poor performers, you just castrate them or somehow prevent them from breeding (maybe just by selling them and thereby get them out of your kennel) People don't get very upset when you do this with dogs but they probably would if you did it with humans, and you can't just tell humans to go away or stop breeding.

This also assumes that we know what to select for. Genetics isn't understood well enough to know what combination of traits would produce strong humans. We barely know enough about more simple traits such as eye color to successfully create that if we wanted to. So, in all likelihood, you'd just end up with the Island of Dr. Moreau - all the mutant traits and none of the desirable ones. (And is strength the only thing we're selecting for? Or do we want them to be intelligent, also? How about attractive?) So, this would have to be a multigenerational experiment done somewhere where no one would shut it down and put you and your subsequent generations of experimenters in jail, or (justifiably) nuke your space lab from orbit.

In the early 20th century, Eugenics was all the rage and to some extent some of these things were tried in America - which was in the throes of a progressive revolution at the time - but to much more of an extent in Japan, China, Russia and Germany, but then we decided that Eugenics is a horrible pseudoscience (which it is), much to the chagrin of the left, who secretly desire to somehow resurrect this ugly pseudoscience back into existence in any way they possibly can, but thankfully, still today they can only whisper about it, because to talk openly about eugenics with anything but pure scorn immediately - and rightly - identifies you as a vile person, which is why they just don't talk about it, because they would be on the wrong side of history (so to speak) if they did. Personally I think we need to talk about it more, because people don't understand just how vile the actual history of it is (which is another reason they don't talk about it).

But there is an active selective pressure put on the human species - albeit over a much longer timeframe: female selection. Taking the long view over generations, half or more of men have zero offspring, the other half have all of it, while most women have offspring. Females and their preferences are driving the genetic traits that get passed down. You either meet their expectations and pass on your genes, or you are cut off from future generations. And people talk about the male gaze being harsh.

This was dealt with in our courts back in 1927 when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes pronounced that “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” in the case of Buck vs. Bell. The finding upholding the constitutionality of the compulsory sterilization of inmates considered to be feeble minded. Carrie Buck was confined and said to have an intellect of a 9 y/o at 18. It’s a precedent that is regarded with deep embarrassment and regret to this day. I had one particular client years ago with an extremely low IQ. I represented his mother in a guardianship proceeding. I had to recommend that he not come to the hearing since all he could do was sit and scream all the time each time he was in my office. I recall the judge telling me that it his was the lowest IQ that he’d ever seen on a petition. It’s a heartbreaking situation to behold.

With that said, I have been following the advancements of preimplantation diagnostic testing for some time now. I find this technique to be both exciting and terrifying at the same time. I haven’t looked recently, but I know that the list of genetic and chromosomal disorders that it addresses is getting longer each time I check. And, as someone who has worked closely with a few families dealing with early onset Alzheimer’s, the idea that this dreadful disease could be eradicated from families is truly wonderful. So, the idea that this could extend to other similarly horrible conditions is also wonderful. I cannot think of a human being who wants to pass on such a progeny. Obviously, the dilemma is how far this will go. Could I make my children taller. HA! I’ve also read that China does not have the restrictions that we do here in the states. They are free to experiment with all sorts of genetic/chromosomal engineering. So, in the extreme this may leave us behind one day in a way we never imagined. But, we have ethics, and as you mentioned they could end up with the Island of Dr. Moreau- A truly terrible movie.

[3rdcoast_slope]

As mentioned, we are very good hunters with projectiles and we are also very clever (traps and such). Our eyes and ears are phenomenal in close quarters, and we also have quite the endurance for long hunts that some elusive animals cannot maintain. The history of the plains deer and Native Americans comes to mind. They would essentially run them down until the deer got so tired they would make a vital mistake. Now mix intelligence with strength, deadly combo. Once I started hunting and fishing again I realized just how good ones eyes and ears can become to the slightest sound or movement. Sense of smell picks up quite a bit too when your in the woods and only a few smells mean something.

[Scaldrew]

In the early 20th century, Eugenics was all the rage and to some extent some of these things were tried in America - which was in the throes of a progressive revolution at the time - but to much more of an extent in Japan, China, Russia and Germany, but then we decided that Eugenics is a horrible pseudoscience (which it is), much to the chagrin of the left, who secretly desire to somehow resurrect this ugly pseudoscience back into existence in any way they possibly can, but thankfully, still today they can only whisper about it, because to talk openly about eugenics with anything but pure scorn immediately - and rightly - identifies you as a vile person, which is why they just don't talk about it, because they would be on the wrong side of history (so to speak) if they did. Personally I think we need to talk about it more, because people don't understand just how vile the actual history of it is (which is another reason they don't talk about it).

Knew it was coming. Not disappointed, one bit.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Just as a thought experiment here -- and certainly not as a suggestion, because I would never suggest this ever because it's mean -- what would happen to society over time if people convicted of their 3rd violent assault crime were sterilized as a part of their sentencing?

[Pluripotent]

This was dealt with in our courts back in 1927 when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes pronounced that “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” in the case of Buck vs. Bell. The finding upholding the constitutionality of the compulsory sterilization of inmates considered to be feeble minded. Carrie Buck was confined and said to have an intellect of a 9 y/o at 18. It’s a precedent that is regarded with deep embarrassment and regret to this day. I had one particular client years ago with an extremely low IQ. I represented his mother in a guardianship proceeding. I had to recommend that he not come to the hearing since all he could do was sit and scream all the time each time he was in my office. I recall the judge telling me that it his was the lowest IQ that he’d ever seen on a petition. It’s a heartbreaking situation to behold.

I have seen some of these cases in medicine. If you work in a hospital with a psych ward, you will see some people getting pregnant who you know have no business having children. Some of them have multiple children. These are obviously difficult cases. And I heard a lot of my colleges casually talk about forced sterilization and eugenics as though it would be justified in these cases, and I understand the sentiment, but I have come to think that the harm that is done by deciding for them that they cannot have children outweighs the harm that is done by allowing it. Even though when some people have children a lot of harm may indeed be done, it is just too dangerous of a precedent to set to say that they should be sterilized. And there is absolutely no way that, once that power to decide who can reproduce and who can't is given to a group of people - any group of people - no matter how good the initial intentions, it will eventually become politicized. Without question this will happen and history bears this out.

With that said, I have been following the advancements of preimplantation diagnostic testing for some time now. I find this technique to be both exciting and terrifying at the same time. I haven’t looked recently, but I know that the list of genetic and chromosomal disorders that it addresses is getting longer each time I check. And, as someone who has worked closely with a few families dealing with early onset Alzheimer’s, the idea that this dreadful disease could be eradicated from families is truly wonderful. So, the idea that this could extend to other similarly horrible conditions is also wonderful. I cannot think of a human being who wants to pass on such a progeny. Obviously, the dilemma is how far this will go. Could I make my children taller. HA! I’ve also read that China does not have the restrictions that we do here in the states. They are free to experiment with all sorts of genetic/chromosomal engineering. So, in the extreme this may leave us behind one day in a way we never imagined.

Of course this is already happening. But I don't think we know enough about genetics for this to work very well yet, and I'm not as optimistic about the time frame as others might be. I think it's going to take a very long time for use to figure out what genes cause complex diseases. We are just at the beginning. I'm not sure the experiments in China with perimplantation are going to have the results that people hope, but the experiment is underway, so we'll see. Also, China has been conducting a different sort of experiment since the 70s with selective abortion of females because of their truly barbaric one child policy (which is now "relaxed" to a "two child policy" in some circumstances), which is more than likely a negative selection in that it will have long term potentially devastating consequences on their culture. They may have already doomed themselves demographically, so in that regard, it might not matter if they can select against debilitating diseases. But if you can only have one child (or two) then it would tend to drive people to take more potentially dangerous measures make sure that the one they can have doesn't have debilitating problems.

But, we have ethics, and as you mentioned they could end up with the Island of Dr. Moreau- A truly terrible movie.

Try the book.

Just as a thought experiment here -- and certainly not as a suggestion, because I would never suggest this ever because it's mean -- what would happen to society over time if people convicted of their 3rd violent assault crime were sterilized as a part of their sentencing?

I understand the sentiment and agree with the underlying desire. But I think the actual result would be that the definition of "violent assault crime" would become whatever it needed to be so that the "right sort" of people ended up being sterilized.

We can see something similar happening with the concept of a "hate crime," which is defined as worse than a crime that doesn't involve "hate," if such a thing is possible. Once it's in the law, it gets broadly applied, but only in one direction (favored groups - by definition - are not capable of committing "hate crime.")

[Kyle Martin]

My girlfriend used to be a Primates keeper at a large metropolitan zoo, the stories she tells of the strength of the large primates are scary. One particular silverback gorilla used to get bored and pick the welds out of metal bars with his fingertips.

[Mark D]

Just as a thought experiment here -- and certainly not as a suggestion, because I would never suggest this ever because it's mean -- what would happen to society over time if people convicted of their 3rd violent assault crime were sterilized as a part of their sentencing?

My guess? Nothing. First because there's a good liklihood they've already passed on their genes before the third felony, second because committing felonies isn't genetic but is largely due to upbringing. I guess there's a possible detriment effect but I doubt there would be a genetic impact.

[Brodie Butland]

Just as a thought experiment here -- and certainly not as a suggestion, because I would never suggest this ever because it's mean -- what would happen to society over time if people convicted of their 3rd violent assault crime were sterilized as a part of their sentencing?

We don't even have to do the thought experiment. California already does this...but instead of sterilization, they impose a life sentence. At the very least, it's dubious that the three-strikes law has had any meaningful impact on crime rates. UCR Today: Evidence Does Not Support Three-strikes Law as Crime Deterrent