Mutation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Kondrashov, in particular, argues that removal of formerly harsh selection pressures (like high rates of infant mortality and disease burden) that historically served to limit the buildup of deleterious mutations in the human genome will lead to the proliferation of these deleterious mutations in the species, resulting in unprecedented increases in genetic diseases like autism, schizophrenia, and diabetes, etc. | Kondrashov, in particular, argues that removal of formerly harsh selection pressures (like high rates of infant mortality and disease burden) that historically served to limit the buildup of deleterious mutations in the human genome will lead to the proliferation of these deleterious mutations in the species, resulting in unprecedented increases in genetic diseases like autism, schizophrenia, and diabetes, etc. | ||
He also argues that this removal of selection pressure has also resulted in potentially maladaptive or undesirable traits like obesity, psychopathy, and other socially undesirable traits increasing in prevalence. A counterpoint to this argument would be that the increases in many of these 'deleterious' (in a subjective sense) mutations may be due to them actually increasing the fitness of the bearer in the context of modern society. These mutations could be beneficial in that they currently increase the organism's fitness, but would possibly be deleterious in other cultural or social contexts. | He also argues that this removal of selection pressure has also resulted in potentially maladaptive or undesirable traits like obesity, psychopathy, and other socially undesirable traits increasing in prevalence. A counterpoint to this argument would be that the increases in many of these 'deleterious' (in a subjective sense) mutations may be due to them actually increasing the fitness of the bearer in the context of modern society. These mutations could be beneficial in that they currently increase the organism's fitness, but would possibly be deleterious in other cultural or social contexts; or would be beneficial to the individual, but a scourge on the group and society. | ||
Kodrashov is staunchly against eugenics and concludes that deleterious mutational accumulation can only be ethically and effectively be resolved via bioengineering technologies like gene editing. He discusses the various ethical quandaries surrounding the use of these technologies and the likely far-reaching social implications of their deployment at some length in the book. | Kodrashov is staunchly against eugenics and concludes that deleterious mutational accumulation can only be ethically and effectively be resolved via bioengineering technologies like gene editing. He discusses the various ethical quandaries surrounding the use of these technologies and the likely far-reaching social implications of their deployment at some length in the book. | ||