Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-14-2014, 05:19 PM   #1
BraselC5048
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Default 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.
BraselC5048 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2014, 05:36 PM   #2
Flyndaran
Untagged
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
Default 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.
Flyndaran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2014, 05:37 PM   #3
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraselC5048 View Post
For a campaign I'm planning, I'm wondering how successful a selective breeding program for humans would be.
An effective selective breeding program requires an entity that has a lifespan of many generations and has fairly absolute control over the creatures being bred. This is unlikely if the breeders are human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraselC5048 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2014, 05:43 PM   #4
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
An effective selective breeding program requires an entity that has a lifespan of many generations and has fairly absolute control over the creatures being bred. This is unlikely if the breeders are human.
.
Methuselah's Children had the premise that a money distributing trust find and it's executive board could act as such an entity. They had a fairly straightforward goal (longevity) of course.

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
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2014, 06:15 PM   #5
gruundehn
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Default 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
gruundehn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2014, 06:27 PM   #6
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default 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
jason taylor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2014, 06:32 PM   #7
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraselC5048 View Post
Finally, there's the "nature vs. nurture" issue, but that's sidestepped in this case by being able to control both.
Being able to control the environment will be very helpful, especially if you are pragmatic about it and neither blinkered by preconceptions nor bound by tradition.

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.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2014, 06:34 PM   #8
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Methuselah's Children had the premise that a money distributing trust find and it's executive board could act as such an entity. They had a fairly straightforward goal (longevity) of course.
Yeah, on one hand, that's a fairly straightforward sort of alien entity that has a longer than human lifespan. Basically a corporation is a memetic parasite or symbiote that propagates between human hosts. So you could argue for a long-term project. On the other hand, what is "long-term"? One of the oldest corporate entities around is the Roman Catholic Church (note that it's not a commercial corporation; I'm not sure how old the oldest of those is, but I don't imagine it goes back much before the Renaissance). Two thousand years probably isn't long enough to produce major genetic change. I can see it producing a single change like the spread of the lactose tolerance gene.

Bill Stoddard
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2014, 06:49 PM   #9
David Johnston2
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran View Post
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.
Also selective breeding comes with downsides. Mostly what it does is specialize the line in a given direction. Thus breeding for superior race horse results in inferior ranching stock, or war horses.
David Johnston2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2014, 06:49 PM   #10
Peter Knutsen
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Default Re: Human selective breeding - how successful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor View Post
If that is not enough, it takes fifteen years to breed a human.
Apparently female teenagers are less fertile than women in their early 20s, and even if that isn't the case we Humans are amazingly infertile compared to other animals. If you rent a bull to take care of your cow, and you don't end up with a calf, then you can go to the bull's owner and demand a refund, because failure to concieve happens to rarely that he's well able to pay you back. That's not the case with Humans. Humans have sex all the time, yet pregnancies are very rare, and have always been so.

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.
Peter Knutsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
increased dx, increased iq, limits, selective breeding, templates

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.