Evacuate Earth

[Seret]

It absolutely has to be based on genetics.

Rigourous medical screening would be prudent, and that would include any genetic issues we knew how to screen for, but it would be just one of many criteria. You wouldn't choose someone who had a squeaky clean clean bill of health but no useful skills, would you?

[Pawelk198604]

There's nothing wrong with trying to survive, but it's not okay if you think you are the most important thing in the universe.

You only pick the best possible candidates, because it gives the survivors the best possible chance of making the mission a success.

The lottery would only add increased possibility of failure.

Maybe, but it is fair. Without favoring anyone.

For example, I have Asperger's syndrome, it is not my fault, I was born that way.

There are also people who have ADHD are a bit childish, but in the same time very creative.

Both Asperger's syndrome and ADHD is determined by a gene inherited from our Neanderthal ancestor. Does this make less human?

Why are these people not be able to find a space on the Space Ark?

[Stargate525]

Why are these people not be able to find a space on the Space Ark?

It sounds incredibly cruel, and please don't interpret this as my own opinion:

A Space Ark has a very limited gene pool. Humanity can't afford to have negative double-recessives or inheritable mutations in that group; it's just too risky. Yes, you might be abandoning otherwise useful people, but that weighed against the potential of introducing a negative genetic abnormality into the common population is insignificant.

[RRG]

What could be done is to test people's genetics at birth begining some 30 years before launching the ship. Millions could be selected and they would go to schools that would train them for the journey, but since only some would be able to go, a lottery would be used to choose between the graduated and the ones still on school.

[Seret]

Tbh, I don't think it would be necessary to screen out absolutely all genetic defects. Aspergers is actually a really good example, in that it doesn't necessarily prevent people from being productive and living happy lives. Some would argue that people affected by it are actually better than neurotypical at certain tasks. I don't know that much about it though, is it a single gene, or a group of them, and does it also give rise to more serious problems like autism?

[Pawelk198604]

Tbh, I don't think it would be necessary to screen out absolutely all genetic defects. Aspergers is actually a really good example, in that it doesn't necessarily prevent people from being productive and living happy lives. Some would argue that people affected by it are actually better than neurotypical at certain tasks. I don't know that much about it though, is it a single gene, or a group of them, and does it also give rise to more serious problems like autism?

Here's what I meant, lot of aspies are exceptionally gifted, maybe not me, but lot has

For example this boy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369595/Jacob-Barnett-12-higher-IQ-Einstein-develops-theory-relativity.html

But he had asperger, why some N a z i like geneticist can decide who can survive?

Granted the Ark has limited place, so why not reserve some seats for people with useful skills and talents and distribute rest equally among all countries and make lottery. It most fair solution

Edited January 11, 2014 by Pawelk198604
why i cannot use word ****:-)

[Ralathon]

Both Asperger's syndrome and ADHD is determined by a gene inherited from our Neanderthal ancestor. Does this make less human?

Why are these people not be able to find a space on the Space Ark?

No, but that's not what's disputed here. What's disputed is the viability to take everyone with a sobstory on board. A heat exchanger that leaks because of a manufacturing error is still a functional heat exchanger, but I wouldn't want it anywhere near a ship that has to last for decades. Simply being alive does not entitle you to anything. If you are born without legs you're never going to run in the olympics. If you are born with down syndrome chances are you'll never end up earning a PHD and if you have genetic defects that could potentially harm the future of humanity itself you won't get a spot on the escape ship when judgement day comes.

[ZetaX]

And stop this na-zi (stupid filter) comparissions (a.k.a. reductio ad hitlerum) please. If you have arguments, just list them, and you won't need any derogatory terms.

[Nibb31]

I guess Steven Hawking doesn't get seat then.

[ZetaX]

Yes. Even assuming a healthy normal life he would not be a good choice due to being to old. If you would take a much younger version of him with you, that would cost more than your average person as well, and due to having a reduced life expectancy might therefore be a waste of space for several others, depending on what your ship aims for.

[Ralathon]

I guess Steven Hawking doesn't get seat then.

No, he wouldn't. Why would you waste a seat on a guy with ALS who won't last for many years? His ideas can be digitized and stored in a databank but he himself should stay on earth.

[Pawelk198604]

And stop this na-zi (stupid filter) comparissions (a.k.a. reductio ad hitlerum) please. If you have arguments, just list them, and you won't need any derogatory terms.

Please don't quote Godwin's law to me if someone try to use eugenic genetic to decide who could be saved and who not, why do not call such policy only suitable term which is na zi like.

"Life unworthy of life" i know it's oxymoron:D

Of course, you can not save everyone which is some talented scientist, crew and leaders , and make lottery for rest

[ZetaX]

You still have not given an argument. Also, the wikipedia article on reductio ad hitlerum explains why your naming is inappropriate. In the end, you are contributing nothing to the discussion by that and only try to convinve people by appeal to emotion instead of facts.

[Pawelk198604]

The facts are that useful people with useful skills they would have been left to a certain death, only for this that does not have super Aryan genes. While muscled Guy or Girl, who is had super good genes but not very smart or useful skills would have chance to survive.

And why would not appeal to the emotions, when it came to about my very existence.

I would not have any objections if I knew that we all have the same chance in the lottery. No breakdown favored with good genes Aryans and subhuman "Life unworthy of life" every should be treated equal.

Following the reasoning of some users, the homosexuals of both sexes also should not have access to the ark, because they were not that eager to contribute to a common gene pool. But to discriminate against them because of their psychosexual orientation, also would not be right. Do we agree or maybe not:D

Everyone should have the same chance, because in terms of genetic discrimination, or any other should not take place

[SargeRho]

You have a very wrong idea of what the genetic selection process would actually focus on. It would do the exact opposite of a pure aryan race. It'd go for the biggest possible genetic diversity, to minimize inbreeding.

[Pawelk198604]

You have a very wrong idea of what the genetic selection process would actually focus on. It would do the exact opposite of a pure aryan race. It'd go for the biggest possible genetic diversity, to minimize inbreeding.

genetic diversity What does this mean?

Does this mean that people with Asperger, ADHD, or minor health problem would have chance?

[dharak1]

Probably not. That's the last thing you want on a ship with only 250k people. It depends what kind of minor health problem. If it isn't anything major and isn't genetic then they may be allowed to come along. By genetic diversity they mean that they want plenty of races and features along with samples of people more resistant to certain things. Think of how Native Americans were less resistant to small pox and other mainly European diseases. Think like that but with a more global population. That's my interpretation anyway, I'm not sure if it's 100% correct.

[SargeRho]

What do you mean, "genetic diversity, what does this mean?"? It means genetic diversity. As many different people as possible, of all races.

[K^2]

Probably not. That's the last thing you want on a ship with only 250k people.

Not exactly. It's very hard to say what's actually bad. Some genetic conditions are obviously disabling, and there is no reason to take on people with these when you can take on healthier individuals. But it gets very shaky very fast as you go down to less obvious things. Maybe a particular genetic variation makes you more likely to get Alzheimer's, but it gives you a higher IQ. Do you want to just discard that?

There are also plenty of things which you just don't know that they are a problem, until you end up with a small population and you get just the right set of genes present in one individual. So you have to take a look at why genetic diversity is important.

And it's important for the same exact reason that inbreeding is bad. Every single person is going to have some genes "broken". Some of these might be responsible for producing melanin in your hair. Others could be producing some enzyme you need to survive. Fortunately, you have two sets of genes. Parental and maternal. And so even if you picked up a vital broken gene, the working gene in the other chromosome still produces what you need. In other words, you are a carrier for a genetic condition that's recessive on this particular allele. But you don't have a condition, because the working gene is dominant, and you're fine.

However, you do have 50% chance of passing on that broken gene down to your child. If your partner happens to have the same recessive gene, and also passes it on, child will have two copies of the broken gene, and will therefore have the condition which could be disabling or fatal. Or it could be just blond hair. Fortunately, deadly or disabling conditions are rare, so the odds of two people who are carriers for the same condition are absolutely minimal.

This isn't a case for siblings. Siblings share 50% of genome on average. Meaning that if one of them is a carrier for something, the other one has a 50% to be a carrier too. And like I said, everyone's a carrier for something. That results in very high chance of offsprings with various genetic problems. If it's something benign, it can stick in the population. If not, it's probably going to get filtered out fast. But you can also have something that's harmful, but not outright deadly or disabling, and that can lead to entire populations with serious health problems.

With small populations, you end up with the same problem. That small population is going to bring with them their own sample of recessive genes. And after just a few generations, it's going to be almost impossible for two individuals to not have some sort of a shared ancestor. And that significantly increases odds of two individuals being carriers for the same condition. The rest is just statistics. Some recessive gene, just by chance, becomes extremely common in population. If it's something harmless, like blue eyes or red hair, it can stick with the ancestors of that small population. But if it's something disabling, it can result in all sorts of problems leading to a degradation and demise of the group.

So what sort of a genetic diversity would you look for on a generation ship or an evacuation ship? You'd start by screening for known genetic diseases that are disabling or deadly. These people simply don't make it on the ship. I'm sure we can lose some very important people this way, but short term benefits shouldn't outweigh long term survival. Then you start looking at any conditions that are known to be, lets say, slightly detrimental. There would have to be a quota on these, and you should try avoiding getting multiple people with the same conditions. The last stage is going through recessive genes in general, and trying to make sure that the population of the ship is going to be as diverse in these, recessive, genes. If the gene is dominant, it's expressed, and you can check the health and abilities of the individual in other tests. Critical dominant genes will not be diverse, but they don't need to be. The rest will end up having sufficient diversity simply by random draw. Recessive genes are the ones that have to be checked out.

Naturally, all of this is a bit oversimplified, but the method can be made rigorous with a goal of maximizing long term viability of the group.

[Drunken Hobo]

Easy solution to the genetic diversity/eugenics idea - no natural births. Ask those being left on Earth to provide "genetic material" for the colony ship and use IVF techniques to produce future generations. Suddenly you've got a gene pool of at least several million (most people will want their genes to survive, even if they can't) and could use various screening techniques to ensure the embryos are healthy & free of genetic defects.

Wouldn't be perfect, but would work to an acceptable degree.

[Pawelk198604]

Easy solution to the genetic diversity/eugenics idea - no natural births. Ask those being left on Earth to provide "genetic material" for the colony ship and use IVF techniques to produce future generations. Suddenly you've got a gene pool of at least several million (most people will want their genes to survive, even if they can't) and could use various screening techniques to ensure the embryos are healthy & free of genetic defects.

Wouldn't be perfect, but would work to an acceptable degree.

It's not what I meant, but i like this idea.

You might as well take also take some people without best gens but are some kind useful, and fix their flaws troughs genetic engineering.

The Ark should also take genetic material of plants and animals, and after reaching the destination try to introduce Earth animals and plants to local ecosystem.

[K^2]

People would probably be a bit cross about only being allowed someone else's children. But if you allow two children, one of each, then you'll probably have no trouble having people go along with it, and you'd have good diversity.

[KASASpace]

Oh, I've seen this before. I think.

So, instead of actually building a huge interstellar spacecraft, I would just retreat to a safe distance, with a nuclear pulse propelled spacecraft. Along wit ha huge hydroponic farm and maybe a few million people.

[Drunken Hobo]

People would probably be a bit cross about only being allowed someone else's children.

To be fair, they'd also be quite miffed about the complete destruction of Earth and the near-extinction of all known life.

If planning to spend generations in space it might make sense to genetically alter the human body. Depending on the artificial gravity situation, could make humans more resiliant to space or just do something simple like give us longer & more jointed toes, as we wouldn't be doing much walking. 4 hands would be very useful.

[ZetaX]

Genetically engineering of the four-arms-kind is really complicated and requires significantly more than the current research gives. It would involve changes to how fetusses grow, how your brain works, and such things. The problem is not that this yould be impossible per se, but to get well-working usable new limbs would require lots of tests, some of them maybe incompatible with (current) ethics.

Edited January 12, 2014 by ZetaX