10-14-2014, 05:19 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Oct 2012
|
Human selective breeding - how successful?
For a campaign I'm planning, I'm wondering how successful a selective breeding program for humans would be. In a sense, the goals are ambitious, but in another sense they aren't.
The goal is something like DX 15, IQ 12, HT 12, Per 15, basic speed up something like +0.75 to +2.00, and a high rate of acute senses and useful advantages. Which seems like a tall order. The first thing is, the resulting people don't all have to meet that. 10-20% of them winding up with that or above is plenty, maybe even only 5%. Second, they don't have to actually wind up with specific advantages every time, just frequently. And the starting point is a population where DX 13-14 and HT 11+, along with a slight increase in basic speed, is already common, and there's mixing some people with high Per in as well. In a sense, you're taking a population and incresing the average by some, and mixing in traits you already have people with. Finally, there's the "nature vs. nurture" issue, but that's sidestepped in this case by being able to control both. The "nurture" part will likely be at least as important, if not more, since it's optimized to produce the template above. There are plenty of other things in the template, but they can simply be trained into each generation, without requiring any sort of breeding effort (Very Fit and extra FP, for example). If anything, raising them to meet the criteria would accomplish most of it. |
10-14-2014, 05:36 PM | #2 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?
Realistic breeding programs will only concentrate genes already extant in the species gene pool. Mutating improvement takes a lot of generations.
DX 15 is so far off the charts for a species that I don't see a way for that to come about from simple short term eugenics.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
10-14-2014, 05:37 PM | #3 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?
Quote:
Probably not possible unless you've got hundreds of thousands of years available, or you're doing extensive genetic engineering, and even then it might not be possible without quite substantial side effects. |
|
10-14-2014, 05:43 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?
Quote:
To the OP: You could look at Gurps Bio-tech for eugenics rules. It allows for maybe 1.5 cp per generation and would permit only DX+1 and Basic Speed +1.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
10-14-2014, 06:15 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?
I know of only one human breeding program and it was a failure. The Nazis tried to breed "good Nordic" types and people, even good party members (even those running the program) and SS (who were supposed to be fanatics - and probably were) did not pay much attention to the program. Humans are too unreliable to control their own breeding programs and there is no one to force them to stay with a breeding program. Genetic engineering, presuming that the political will exists for such, is the only way I see to do this.
__________________
The World's Tallest Dwarf |
10-14-2014, 06:27 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?
Any selective breeding program would have to anticipate ahead of time what qualities are desired. Most animal breeding programs are for a specific quality useful to humans, such as repressed carnivorousness(for a herd dog), brute strength and docility(for a pack beast), agility(for a horse) and so on. If you wish to breed humans you have to be breeding for a specific quality and there is no point to it unless all you really want is slaves.
Furthermore, as was said before, complete dominance is needed which means they need to be either literal slaves or slaves of a tyrannical code of honor(like Spartans). In fact few freefolk would consider it worth it, making it only something you want to do to slaves. If that is not enough, it takes fifteen years to breed a human. Finally the nature of relations among intelligent beings is so complex that what is desired is likely enough to be obsolete by the time the program comes to fruition. Picture trying to breed fanatical hoplites only to find that catapults, properly used peltests, Companion Cavalry, and last of all legions were arriving on the scene.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison |
10-14-2014, 06:32 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?
Quote:
The main range of adult male human height, in the absence of discrete conditions such as pituitary dwarfism, acromegalic gigantism etc. is about 5'4" to 6'4". There are tails on that distribution beyond the left and right ends — my father for instance was 6'7"+ without any growth abnormality —, but the main story is a foot of variation. The people who study human physical variation report that about half of this variation is down to genetics, and about half is down to environment. If you kept mothers healthy and properly nourished while they were pregnant, and kept boys well (except for minor illnesses), properly nourished, moderately active, and free from stress until they were in their late teens you would shrink the range of height to 5'10" – 6'4", raising the average from 5'10" to 6'1". Add in consistent physical training and that should be good for at least a +1 to average ST. With IQ — including Will — there is likewise evidence for large effects from correct nutrition including vitamins and the correct fats. There is also evidence that exposure to stress hormones during childhood compromises brain development. I would not be at all surprised if intelligence turned out to be like height, allowing you to move the whole central range of normality into what is now its own upper half with proper nutrition, good health, and a stimulating and nurturing environment free from beatings, shouting, and other triggers for the release of cortisol. I'll easily believe that that is good for a +1 to average IQ right there. Then you have the fact GURPS IQ includes to a very significant extent general knowledge, good mental habits, and the possession of accumulated intellectual tools. I can easily believe that with a well-designed curriculum, plenty of teachers, and effective teaching methods kids could do a lot better out of thirteen years in K–12 than all but the most advantaged of us currently do. I'm happy to call that another +1 to average IQ. HT. It is a curious fact that a large proportion of the Australian swimming team suffered from asthma as children: some still do. Their paediatricians prescribed long hours of swimming training to develop excess cardiovascular capacity to protect them through asthma attacks. This early, sustained physical training turned them into Olympic athletes in an endurance sport. Start with healthy, well-nourished kids and make sure they are active for an hour a day: good for +1 to average HT. DX. As with ST and IQ, there's plenty of evidence that reaction times and the appropriateness of reactions are improved by correct nutrition, including vitamins and adequate intakes of the correct fats. And though I haven't seen studies I wouldn't be at all surprised if a program of dancing, ball games, field games such as football or hockey, and perhaps gymnastics or combat sports, started early, sustained through childhood, and designed to aid development without imposing excessive stress (rather than to build school spirit and attract donations from alumni) would be sufficient to shove the whole normal range into the upper half of the current normal range. Note well, though, that all these programs would be of most benefit to the kids who currently turn out with significant deficits (compared with their genetic potential) because of childhood malnutrition, sickness, deprivation, and abuse, and it won't make much difference to the kids who presently combine low potential with a good environment (and end up middling) or those who currently combine genetic and social advantages. You're turning 5'4" men into 5'10" men, and 5'10" into something between 5'10 and 6'4", but your 6'4" men are staying 6'4". This will get you, perhaps, a range of IQ or DX that shrinks from 8–13 to 10–13 or something like that, not a range from 9–14 or 10–15. Something similar is true of simple genetic selection. Its first effect is what is called a "selective sweep". You get rid of the genes that used to give you IQ 10 in an ideal environment and 7 in a very poor one, and the ones that used to give you IQ 11 in an ideal environment and 8 in a very poor one, and the ones that used to give you IQ 12 in an ideal environment and 9 in a very poor one. Perhaps you end up with nothing but the genes that used to give you IQ 14 in an ideal environment and 10 in a very poor one — but you don't get genes that give IQ 15 if you didn't have IQ 15 before, not until new genetic variations arise. A better environment than any significant number of people ever grew up in before is possible. Selection alone won't produce better genes than you ever had before. And now I think you are scheduled for a conversation with the Cult of Stat Normalisation.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
|
10-14-2014, 06:34 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?
Quote:
Bill Stoddard |
|
10-14-2014, 06:49 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?
Quote:
|
|
10-14-2014, 06:49 PM | #10 | |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
|
Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?
Quote:
Also you'll want to breed multiple children per female, so that you have a pool to select the next generation from, so a case can be made for a generation span that averages to 25 years, or perhaps (at the very least) 22 or 23 in a medieval or other low-tech setting. Easily 28 in a setting with modern medicine and living standards. I'd just shrug and say 4 ticks per century, instead of messing around with precise fractions. |
|
Tags |
increased dx, increased iq, limits, selective breeding, templates |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|