Rate my "Big Bad Evils"

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't think that follows. There are really large insect societies. For example, a termite weighs around 2 g. A colony of a million termites weighs about 2 tons, and is quite sustainable. And because metabolism varies with surface area, not with mass or volume, it has the metabolism of about 1500 of your hypothetical 30-lb. insects.

Besides, there are lots of mammals that weigh 30 lbs. or more, and a mammal's metabolism is faster than a typical insect's, probably about tenfold for equivalent body mass. But mammals survive perfectly well.

I don´t think social organization and body size is correlated in the sense that if a colony of termines weighs X and each termine weighs X/1M, if that same colony were constituted by only 10K termines then each one would weigh X/10K. The correlation between environmental and genetic factors with body size however has been studied and proven by many entomologists.

"If oxygen actively drove increases in body mass to avoid toxicity, lower levels would not be immediately fatal, although in time, they will probably diminish performance of the larger insects. Such reduced performance will eventually have made it possible for other species to outcompete the giants."

"Because exoskeletons are rigid, insects need to molt as they grow, shedding the old skin and growing a new one. This vulnerable time may put a ceiling on size: Larger animals, particularly those without protective skeletons, would make for more attractive meals to a predator. The bigger you get, the more of a tasty vulnerable package you are."

About the not enough oxygen theory:
"Support for this theory comes from the fact that about 300 million years ago, many insects were much larger than they are today. There were, for example, dragonflies the size of hawks, with wingspans of about 6 feet (1.8 meters), and ants the size of hummingbirds. At this time, the oxygen content in the atmosphere was about 35 percent, versus 21 percent today."
"Certain species can get about 20 percent bigger in a single generation when given more oxygen."
"But facts are that this hasn't been proven."

My own theory about insects size possible correlation to oxygen: They grow to avoid oxygen toxicity.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Can you increase all of those traits together? Dogs have greater genetic plasticity than humans; but if you increase speed, as with greyhounds or Persian gazelle hounds, you aren't going to get the strength of a mastiff, and it's doubtful you'll get the intelligence of a border collie or the tenacity of a dachsund. And if you have to make tradeoffs then you have a choice of which gain to prioritize; there isn't a straightforward "best."

Specific examples have never demonstrated the invalidity of general rules. It is a fallacy. And these are probably examples of selective breeding exclusively.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Exactly. If your idea of the "best" is say Raoul Wallenberg, well that is a good model. It is also one likely not to have reproductive success for obvious reasons: he is likely to very nobly get himself killed. How about Michelangelo? Someone like him only succeeds because of having a patron and a lavish civilization even discounting that the real Michelangelo had a love life that was not conducive to reproductive success. How many generations does our Ancient Conspiracy wish to go before it starts cranking out Michelangelos and Oppenheimers? Or perhaps do we keep a few members for stud, and geld a few others so they can do other kinds of work? But then we are focusing on group success not individual reproductive success. Or in other words we are trying to build a civilization. Except building civilizations is what other civilizations seem to have been trying to do reasonably well without such brutal means.

Or maybe we have one Ghengis Khan, and he patronizes and protects lots of Michelangelos and Di Vincis in his secret society?

And that leaves off the point that we really have no reason to grant reproductive success as the criteria. If we do we grant it not to Ghengis Khan to the first person who ever lived and who knows what he was like. Was he a cave man with a club dragging off Raquel Welch by the hair? Was he Odin walking around with an eyepatch? Or Adam walking around in a garden? None of these models are really suitable for biological research so they cannot be used in a eugenics project. Just picture it,"Hey Odin can you come down from Asgard to get a blood sample if your not to busy partying in Valhalla." Or better yet Zeus. Given how much time he spends womanizing he must have a great reproductive success rate.

But why the success in spreading genes? Why not success in spreading memes? In that case a great sage, or philosopher, or scientist or artist is a better model then Genghis Khan.

That´s why the collection of dozens of samples is necessary, as well as the test method by trial and error.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In any case the most useful trait of dogs as of people is social cooperation.

But Eugenics is deceitful. The Spartans exposed infants that did not live up to their physical standards according to the judgement of the city elders. As a result of this and other elements of that philosophy, however scary an individual Spartan could be, Sparta could not compete.

Eugenics is not limited to selective breeding.

[Alonsua]

Macrotermes bellicosus is a termite with length of over 11 cm itself, and soldiers being even larger. These gengineered ants are required to achieve about 50 cm length, so now that´s less than a x5 factor there. Now specifically for ants you have the dorylus helvolus, with over 5 cm length nowadays (x10 factor).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Eugenics is not limited to selective breeding.

The historical movement called "eugenics" relied on sterilization of the "unfit," or more broadly on control of who reproduced and who didn't. It didn't use or even envision genetic engineering as we now know it. So the use of the word to mean the latter methods is at least a departure from established and familiar usage, and one that can give rise to misunderstanding and that can make a request for clarification appropriate.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Specific examples have never demonstrated the invalidity of general rules. It is a fallacy. And these are probably examples of selective breeding exclusively.

An example of a problem arising can illustrate that it's possible for the problem to arise, and can make it appropriate to ask if the problem will arise in a particular case.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

I don´t think social organization and body size is correlated in the sense that if a colony of termines weighs X and each termine weighs X/1M, if that same colony were constituted by only 10K termines then each one would weigh X/10K. The correlation between environmental and genetic factors with body size however has been studied and proven by many entomologists.

"If oxygen actively drove increases in body mass to avoid toxicity, lower levels would not be immediately fatal, although in time, they will probably diminish performance of the larger insects. Such reduced performance will eventually have made it possible for other species to outcompete the giants."

"Because exoskeletons are rigid, insects need to molt as they grow, shedding the old skin and growing a new one. This vulnerable time may put a ceiling on size: Larger animals, particularly those without protective skeletons, would make for more attractive meals to a predator. The bigger you get, the more of a tasty vulnerable package you are."

About the not enough oxygen theory:
"Support for this theory comes from the fact that about 300 million years ago, many insects were much larger than they are today. There were, for example, dragonflies the size of hawks, with wingspans of about 6 feet (1.8 meters), and ants the size of hummingbirds. At this time, the oxygen content in the atmosphere was about 35 percent, versus 21 percent today."
"Certain species can get about 20 percent bigger in a single generation when given more oxygen."
"But facts are that this hasn't been proven."

My own theory about insects size possible correlation to oxygen: They grow to avoid oxygen toxicity.

All this would be more convincing if you gave sources.

But also, species getting bigger if provided with higher oxygen levels during maturation does not seem to show that the same species could be bigger in the current planetary environment. It's not as if you were providing a way to boost the oxygen content of the atmosphere in general! And there's also a big difference between a 20% increase in size (and does that mean body mass, or length?) and a 900% increase in length!

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

That´s why the collection of dozens of samples is necessary, as well as the test method by trial and error.

Surely but aside from the fact that you have to figure out the objective you are breeding for, human success cannot be judged on biological criteria. If it was President Roosevelt would be pretty down low being unable to walk. Except someone invented radio for him to make fireside chats, someone else, in fact a lot of someone elses, invented the United States from which he drew his power. And so on. FDR would be a bad choice to survive in the wilderness but he was obviously a pretty good choice to survive in the human environment. Except the human environment was made by millions of people, a large percentage of which did not have any children at all.

[AlexanderHowl]

Most of the people who have lived have not produced children (around 50%, on average, died before reproducing). In the developed world, so many people are not having children that it is only through immigration that populations remain stable or grow. A man with IQ 200 might not be able to reproduce because he suffered an accident in his youth that prevents him from producing sperm while a woman with IQ 200 might not be able to reproduce because she was born with a deformed uterus as a congenital defect. In both cases, they possess superior genetics, it was just random chance that made them unable to reproduce.

When it comes to ants, I am not worried about 30 lb ants except as a possible problem for building foundations. A 30 lb ant is probably not going to be stronger than a 30 lb dog, and it will likely be a lot dumber. Since its exoskeleton cannot thicken proportionally to its size, otherwise it would be unable to move or breathe, it is just a very large and very fragile pest.