Armchair Speculation: Will modern cosmetic techniques destroy natural selection?

Great Debates
1

…and ultimately… humanity itself?! :eek:

Assuming [deep breath]:*
There exists some set of hard-wired, genetic sexual attraction instinct that affects your tastes in mates, ones that might exhibit sexual features which your libido seeks to find, in order to complement your physical and behavioral traits. Resulting in healthy, more robust offspring (considering life’s/evolution’s appearance to select for traits that yield healthier, stronger, and adaptive generations; generation after generation, by the perceived indifferently cruel, yet tried and true, way for nature to assure life continues in perpetuity by simply having those countless unfortunate, born with negative traits, to die off from never attracting mates to begin with.)

[lets out deep breath]

Whomever has the means and/or desires to change their appearance, for whatever reason, as to directly or indirectly “deceive” any future mate’s natural sexual attractions, thereby start creating – pardon me now – uglier and uglier humans?

Okay… a bit of a joke… but what about genetic/congenial diseases that change appearance in that it triggers a response of ostensible illness in otherwise potential mates, a typically repellent emotion, resulting in significantly reduced chances of reproducing by sexually attracting mates; sterility; and in the case of the eventual mutation, becoming a new species incapable (without aid of sufficiently advanced technology) procreation a genetically viable offspring with their parent species?

And if this could be the case, would it matter? As cosmetics become more advanced, convincing and however life-changing… still… bypassing nature; so will bio/medical technology in life extension and “genetic overrides”, allowing us to procreate, making evolution itself… moot.

Could be a wash. :wink:

*yes… I realize reality might not be anything like this. If not, then take my impulsive speculated assumption as an exercise in either pitying my ignorance as I publish random musings on the internet; or as Science-Fiction mutating the thread into a bastard discussion and mandating an eventual move to Cafe Society.

2

Well, not really “moot”; evolution by artificial selection is still evolution. It’s just not natural selection.

That said, arguments in the form of “cultural/technological phenomenon X is going to cause evolutionary disaster” nearly always ignore something very important: the time factor. Human evolution is slow. Long before human created things can have an evolutionary effect they change or vanish and something else replaces them. Long before cosmetic techniques can do anything through evolution, we’ll be altering ourselves far more heavily on purpose, or civilization will have collapsed and the techniques in question will be gone. We aren’t going to suddenly stop and stay where we are technologically for the next 10,000 years.

3

At worst, evolution will begin to select for those most adept at earning money to enhance their physical appearance.

**DT: **Well, not really “moot”; evolution by artificial selection is still evolution. It’s just not natural selection.

Assuming, of course, a distinction is made between “natural” and “artificial” selection, rather than treating mankind as a part of nature.

4

just among the rich, say 15% of the population?

5

Considering that humans who do such things will be using design, intelligence and have a goal - things nature lacks entirely - the difference is a significant one.

6

The result might be different, but selection still is the driving force in evolution whether it’s natural, sexual or artificial.

7

My experience is that ugly people get a lot more children than good looking people. Maybe because they tend to start a family much earlier.

8

Why do you assume appearance is the sole or main driving force in human reproduction?

I mean sure, the norm is to like your mate to look good, but particularly on the female side, traits such as “good provider” and “kindness” can more than compensate for ugly or weird looking.

That’s one of the flaws with with premise of the OP - appearance is not the only factor in human mate selection.

9

I"d be more concerned with medical technology enabling those with serious conditions to reproduce before cosmetic surgery.

10

I had a congenial disease once. Very nice disease. Very easy to get along with.

11

Not all serious conditions are inheritable. In fact, quite a few have nothing to do with genetics and the people affected can have normal children.

Concerns about the “defective” reproducing in the early 20th Century, however, led to eugenics laws involving forced sterilization of children, often without informing either the parents or children of what was being done, for conditions that we now know are completely unrelated to genetics. So, I get a little twitchy when people start expressing concerns about the less than perfect reproducing.

12

Why would you be worried about that? More genetic diversity is better. Those people aren’t destroying any of the “good” genes that you seem to want to preserve.

13

Relax, I’m not supporting some old timey eugenics program. I’m talking more about people that are allergic to sunlight, or everything but pineapple juice, or have other serious, heritable, conditions that affect quality or length of life. I’m not aiming for perfection.

14

Well, what specifically are you “concerned” about and what do you propose to do?

15

I don’t want to hijack this thread; if you want to discuss it in detail we can open another.

In short though, I would support a voluntary opt-in program for those with serious genetic problems that would provide fully funded medical care for the course of their life, and preferential treatment in adoptive processes, (provided they meet the usual requirements) in exchange for sterilization.

16

Excellent way to put it.

Can’t you see I’m in my armchair? Besides the toilet, it’s where I do most of my assuming.

Your point is, of course, conceded. However, let’s not downplay the role of physical traits as it pertains to increasing the potential of attracting mates in so far as progeny, how deep such things run in the fundamental driving forces of life and nature, and its manifestation in our phenotypes. “Ugly” and “weird looking” might not actually be as superficial as we’d all like to think. Why do you suppose we all find certain people ugly or weird looking? And why is your ugly, my beautiful, and vice versa? I’d argue that in the context of progeny, perhaps there’s a deep, fundamental intuition that may have something to do with ensuring health, adaptation and even avoiding passing on mutation to our offspring.

Look, I understand we’re very social animals, and many, many factors play a role in finding partners. I’m also being somewhat of my own devil’s advocate, here. I think most rational people see that human sexuality is more recreational, idiosyncratic and complicated than it is instinctual, one-dimensional and animalistic.

However, procreation is a strong force of nature, especially in humans, but certainly across the spectrum of life on earth in general; despite our civilized intellects. I’ll argue that it’s technology which affords us the luxury to all but forge our lifestyle around our more developed, complex and intellectual sexuality. It’s easy to forget that procreation is still hard-coded into life – yes, even humans. That’s what I’d like this thread to focus on, before we start diving into the Kinsey scale, and getting all nervous and s-s-scared over notions like eugenics, and such stigmas associated with N-N-Nazis, and other painfully obvious flawed philosophies.

Anyhow, back to the OP, it was a slightly tongue-in-cheek starting point to kick off a discussion on how natural selection plays a role not only on our attractions to potential mates, but in how it’s even shaped our very bodies.

Thankfully the gene pool is the most robust it’s ever been, considering our numbers. If anything, aside from some sort of cataclysm that would reduce our numbers to a few hundred, technology has brought us past the point of any real concern.

That said, let’s not be too arrogant to assume we’ve transcended into enlightened beings and by “playing god” with our meager technology, can avoid, now and forever, the powerful pitfalls of our genotypes. I believe our species will go far, but looking at the forces of nature, and life itself, all bets are off until we do actually transcend these feeble bodies forged over millions of years of indifferent natural selection and evolution. And even then, would we still be immune to our biases?

Forgive my grammar. I’ve been lazy in proofreading ever since I had to let my editor go. I’m afraid the internet will just have to get by for now. (wink)

17

I once got charged with a misdemeanor. My lawyer argued it down to a miscongeniality.

18

I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that particular trade. In fact, I’d rather see fully funded medical care for everyone for life, regardless of genetic status.

I’d like to see young people with serious genetic problems who want sterilization have ready access to it (it is still common practice these days to deny sterilization, particularly to women, until either children are produced of the person is past their 40’s) but I don’t want to see any pressure to undergo such a procedure. Ready access to birth control, yes, but I want that for everyone anyway.

Admittedly, a lot of my hesitation comes from the history of past abuses. I am not confident society won’t screw up again in that area.

The thing is, I’ve know a number of people over the years who have serious genetic problems themselves, and most of them seem to voluntarily opt not to reproduce. In other cases, people who are carriers of serious genetic diseases have been known to take steps to avoid selecting mates who are also carriers - the most notable instance of this is the marked drop of Tay Sachs cases in North American Ashkenazi Jews. That groups has the highest rate of carriers of the trait, but last I looked into it there hadn’t been a child born with the actual disease for years now, all the actual Tay Sachs cases in North America in the 21st Century have actually come from low-risk populations outside of the Ashkenazim.

So I don’t really think we need to offer much incentive beyond simple knowledge in a lot of cases, and perhaps some preferential treatment in adoption. It seems people can make rational choices about reproduction, though of course there will always be exceptions. There will also always be random mutations, too. To some extent, we just have to deal with these inherent oopsies in the system.

19

You’re basing your argument about cosmetic surgery on two points:

  1. Men and women typically chose who they were going to reproduce with throughout history, and

  2. That this choice was strongly based on physical appearance.

Neither of these two assumptions has been particularly true throughout human history. Arraigned marriages were extremely common throughout history and are still common in many parts of the world. Marriages tended to be business or political alliances between families.

Women rarely were allowed to choose their own sexual partners throughout history. Having money and power was a much better way for a man to obtain access to lots of female sexual partners than being handsome was.

Even today, people (hate to generalize, but especially women) consider a lot more than just how good looking someone is when they decide to fuck him or her. People who have access to cosmetic surgery would presumably have access to birth control. I might have sex with a woman purely because she was physically attractive, but I’d never have a child with a woman purely because of how she looked.

20

Yeah, you marry her and then she endlessly harangues you…
That’s what you meant, right?