Artificial Selection, featuring the PokéWorld

Preface:   Artificial selection has resulted in plants that are more disease-resistant, cows that produce more milk, and racehorses that run faster.  One must wonder what will come next.  In this blog entry, answer the following question:  under what circumstances, if any, should humans be artificially selecting plants or animals, if any?

Background, or "You're telling me the key to evolution is ROCKS?"

Before tackling this rather heavy subject, you must understand artificial selection as well as natural selection.  How will I explain these two concepts?  That's right ladies and gentlemen, another analogy is coming up; this one will probably be easier to recognize.

Pokémon (for pronunciation purposes, see this amusing YouTube clip or, alternatively, this version) is an enormous, multimedia franchise that is veered towards entertaining children.  For those of you who have not played the game, this is it in a nutshell:

1. You, the trainer, must capture and secure monsters known as Pokémon, which is short for Pocket Monsters.  OPTIONAL:  Give them ridiculous and sometimes offensive names that make you giggle inside
2. Be a loving and caring guardian, raising your Pokémon with respect and dignity.  OPTIONAL:  Raising your Pokémon with respect and dignity.
3. Pit your Pokémon against others in battles to the death.  OPTIONAL:  Surviving.
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!!
   

Point #2 is the one that relates to evolution.  Pokémon have the ability to evolve during the course of the game.  They adapt to their circumstances, becoming stronger, faster and generally more cool looking.  However, this may occur in one of two ways, which are described below.

Naturally, after hours and hours of dedicated training, Pokémon may evolve into a more advanced organism.  After fighting so many battles, Pokémon alter themselves so that they may better compete and conquer others.  This kind of evolution is unpredictable and usually takes place over an extended period of time.  The changes that occur benefit the Pokémon greatly, granting them new capabilties and increasing their survivability.

Some Pokémon however, regardless of how many beatings they have under their belt, will not evolve on their own.  In certain circumstances, a trainer may force evolution with special stones.  Stones vary depending on the needs of the trainer/Pokémon (i.e. a Water Stone will allow a Pokémon to evolve into a form which can swim/swim better).  In this way, a trainer may select for the traits which he desires in his companion.

---

Natural Selection is very much like the first type of evolution because the organism itself desires the adaptation.  If the Pokémon does not feel they need to evolve, they may remain as they are.  Should characteristics such as heightened strength or greater agility arise however, Pokémon change accordingly.

Artificial Selection, whether it be by stones or otherwise, is evolution that is brought upon the organism depending on the wants/needs of a ruling body.  An exterior element interferes with the organism in a way that dictates how it will change. For example, in the above picture, a Pokémon by the name of Eevee (a clever play on the words "Ev"olution) is a monster which does not naturally evolve.  With the help of various stones, Eevee may become aquatically apt as a Vaporeon, conduct electricity as a Jolteon, or gain the ability to withstand and produce intense flames as a Flareon.  The choice ultimately rests in the hands of the trainer and the role the trainer wishes for Eevee to play.

As one can guess, artificial selection is quite a questionable process. 

The Good, or "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger... Sooner."

Why is artificial selection commonplace in today's world?

The answer is simple:  efficiency.

Evolution takes a while.  A LONG while.  Seeing as how the average human lives approximately 70 years, scientists cannot afford to waste time waiting for changes to occur naturally.  Many of the advances made in the field of genetics were discovered due to artificial selection (i.e. Gregor Mendel and his ever so cherished pea plants).  These findings, in turn, helped scientists better understand life and living organisms better.  Artificial selection is used in this way for the purpose of research.

However, what other reason is there for artificial selection?  The second incentive to utlizing artificial selection is consumerism and commerce.

Consider the status of the chicken as a profitable cattle animal.  Chickens that can lay more eggs or grow large faster are beneficial to a business.  Due to the demand for meat and eggs, chickens are bred to grow to gigantic sizes and produce eggs at alarming rates.

In both these examples, artificial selection creates multiple benefits.  However, one must understand that the organism that reaps the most reward from tampering with evolution is man.

The Bad, or "With the added bonus of arthritis at NO EXTRA CHARGE!"

One of the negative points of artificial selection is that certain traits that may cause various issues are carried along with those desired.  This was visited in the Unit 8 video you probably did not watch, which included one such trait which is found heavily in large dog breeds.

Canine Hip Dysplasia, or CHD for short, is a malformation in the hip joint that impairs a dog's ability to move.  Damage to cartilage caused by this malady sometimes leaves dogs fully disabled and/or in need of a walking aid.  This trait is usually gained by means of genetic inheritance and is commonly found amongst German Shepards, Retrievers, and other above average sized dogs.  Under natural circumstances, selection would have erased this gene entirely.  However, due to breeding and breeding practices, it remains within the canine gene pool.

The previously visited case with chickens also holds a dark side as well.  At the cost of producing more eggs or bearing more meat, most chickens experience numerous health issues.  Most egg-laying hens have a deficiency for calcium (as it is processed to create egg shells) and therefore have brittle bones.  On the other hand, broiler chickens, those bred for size, become so overburdened with excess meat that their legs cannot support their weight.  Both maladies result in chickens that are unable to move.

Though having a thoroughbred dog/meaty chicken may seem quite prestigious/profitable, is it really worth risking the health of the dog/chicken as well?  Allowing such genes and others like them to prosper essentially sets animals down a long path of pain and suffering.  This is a heavy consequence to desiring certain traits of fur and so factors heavily in the dispute over artificial selection.

The Unintentional, or "Opps, did I do that?

Artificial selection can also occur unconsciously.  Human actions not meant to alter evolution have also caused selection in the world.  One example of this is the Heike crab.

The Heikegani, a giant enemy crab small Japanese crab, experienced an odd form of artificial selection.  This crab features a striking image that resembles a scowling samurai on its underbelly.  It was believed that Heike crabs were reincarnations of slain Heike (a Japanese clan) samurai, and so they were revered by fishermen.  Heike crabs were traditionally thrown back into the water, which allowed this samurai-facing to become a common trait amonst its species.

In this situation and many others, artificial selections occurs inadvertently.  I brought this to your attention to demonstrate that human interaction with the world, no matter how small, can result in artificial selection.  The influence of man encompasses so much that stopping artificially selection is near impossible.

The Conclusion, or "Connecting to prior knowledge."

This question brought forth on artificial selection is very much related to the previous blog that concerned Designer Babies. The same concept of choosing for genes and the perfect offspring applies here, except the organisms in question are animals rather than humans.  Due to this, the new moral dilemma at hand here is our roles as stewards to the world and its inhabitants (again, a throwback to another blog).  Seeing as how both previous subjects relate to the one at hand, the conclusion here is a mixture of its predecessors.

Artificial selection has both positive and negative outcomes; this is a fact. However, it should not be utilized for personal gain or at the expense of the organism's health/survival.  To enhance one's own offspring is seen as immoral, so one can assume that tampering with the child of another being is even more so.  Furthermore, to put another organism at risk could possibly affect the biodiversity of various creatures, including ourselves.

Not much more can be said on the subject that was not already said in previous blogs.  It is very much within the power of man to control evolution.  However, It is also our responsibility to understand the morality of the situation and make a reasonable decision on the matter.

The Closing, or "I'll do it because I want to, not because I'm bred to."

"The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap." - Ayn Rand, Philosopher and Author

This was quite a "bleh" topic.  Not much to write that is new material.  I apologize if this read like an overly repeated news headline or joke about a certain rapper who's name rhymes with Banye Test.

Deviating from my previous stance on artificial selection would have made me seem like a hypocrite.  Animals have an equal right to an undisturbed life as any individual human.  We are not greater than or less than the organisms around us; humans are simply another part of the web of life.

Next time I'll have something more intriguing, I promise.

- Alfred Chen

 ---

Sources Used:

What is Artificial Selection?

Canine hip dysplasia (CHD)

Life Science | Session 5

A geek in Japan — Heike crab

Blogs Commented On: 

Selecting the plants and animals of future, is it as easy as it seems?

Sounds a Bit Like Planned Parenting

Designer Babies: The Road to Intergalactic Feuds?

Preface:  "Designer babies" is the term being used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting our children's genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic).  Are things getting out of hand with our research into genetic processes?  In this blog investigate the social and ethical implications of this research and technologies that have been developed from it.

As I started the last post with a modern day reference, I think that it would be best for me to do so again.  Beware; this one is a bit more chunky than the last!

Gundam SEED, a part of the popular anime series Gundam, was a television show which featured a group of engineering students caught amidst a struggle of nations, ethics, and giant gatling-gun-totting, fist-punching, barrel-rolling, energy-sword-swinging robots (which are referred to as simply Gundams).  The fuel for this conflict was the issue of genetics and genetic modifications.  In the world of Gundam, the field of genetics has expanded to the point where one can not only pick which traits are passed on, but also go so far as to create new ones.  The controversy surrounding this subject has split Earth into three factions:  the Naturals (those born of ordinary circumstances), the Coordinators (those born with the aid of genetic modifications) and Orb (a state which accepts people of all walks of life; the side which the main characters choose).  Teen angst and the reality of war are combined with a struggle of morals and ethics in this anime.  Oh, and most of this takes place in space.

As you can see, Gundam SEED puts forth a rather deep question to its young audience.  This show parallels the question to be addressed and is a great analogy.  Though I highly doubt that delving into genetics will result in an intergalactic feud, war over this matter is very much possible.

For this blog, I will be taking the views of the Naturals and Coordinators to examine the question at hand.  Just so you have a better understanding of what is to come, here is a brief intro to each group and their point of view.

Naturals believe that to tamper with life is to play God.  No man should be able to reconfigure their offspring; this is a selfish and immoral act.  As such, it is the duty of Naturals to punish the Coordinators for trespassing upon the work of God.

Coordinators, on the other hand, feel that genetic modification is the future of man.  They are no longer hampered by the possibilities of both mental and physical disease or disability.  With the mind granted to them by God, they have transcended into a new era of life.  Coordinators have taken up the responsibility of teaching their ways, whether it be peacefully or by force.

NATURAL Law, a "Moral" Perspective

Because God said so... Words echoed through time to justify and demonize anything ever to show its face on Earth.  Apparently, some people view this problem as so (cookie to whoever understands the reference!):

RIGHT:  "Every man shall have two legs, both jointed twice and ending in a foot with five toes each..."

WRONG:  "Every man shall have two legs, both jointed twice and ending in a foot with five toes each... He shall be able to jump 5 feet in the air, have toned and defined calves, and never grow a single hair below his knees."

Though some did not use God as their scapegoat reason, many people have advocated the natural course of life. Regardless of whether or not the purpose behind genetic modification is solely beneficial, many feel that it is immoral and unethical.  The world has willingly adopted a belief system based on the common sayings "leave and let be" and "the ends do not justify the means" in regards to genetics.  As such, this specific field of science has remained relatively untouched.

COORDINATED Evolution, a "Progressive" Perspective

Life is a cruel mistress.  Part of what makes life so painful is the ever-present roulette known as sexual reproduction.

Hereditary diseases such as those briefly touched upon in the Nelson Biology 11 textbook are some of the traits which may be passed on to one's offspring. However, such things can be avoided through the use of germline therapy, a process which can be used to control the transfer of traits to offspring. Obviously enough, use of this procedure on human offspring is and always has been a gray area.

But can it be morally correct to use germline therapy to prevent the inheritance of unwanted diseases which threaten the lives of children?

Consider this:  The Good Samaritan Law, which is in effect in much of Canada, states that if a person does not do everything within their power to help someone in peril or risk of peril, they are liable to be sued; in the case that one's own safety is at risk, they are no longer liable.  This law was enacted to encourage people to act with what power they had.

Knowing this, one can infer that if the technology were made available, to act morally and legally would be to ensure that a child does not inherit life-threatening genes with germline therapy.  As nobody has brought the subject to the attention of the world, this is simply my personal take on the matter.

Before Mendel, A Historical Perspective

Is it really that much of a surprise that people desire certain traits in their offspring?  If your answer to this question is yes, you have not seen the movie 300 and should do so immediately (Photo [MW Dragon Boat 06-07 Coaches] courtesy of Joe Chen; not to be used or reproduced without his consent).

Since the beginning of time, various societies have been very picky when it comes to their offspring. One such group of persons that practiced selectively picking their offspring were the infamous Spartans.  If you have seen the movie 300, you probably happened upon a scene where a malformed child was being thrown into a pit of skulls.  Though this may seem as if it were exaggerated for cinematic purposes, this was the reality of ancient Sparta.  This was a warring nation that produced the highest quality soldiers; there was no room for the weak.

Other examples include:

1. Preference in regards to gender; males wanted more than females in order to carry on a family name/reputation.
2. Pregnancies terminated because doctors have diagnosed a child with Down Syndrome or other physical/mental disabilities.
3. The Aryan Ideal, a belief born in Germany that blond hair and blue eyes were a sign of superiority.
   

In light of this, I repeat:

 
Is it really that much of a surprise that people desire certain traits in their offspring?

Conclusion, a Cumulative Perspective

Hate is a very strong word.  So is Designer Baby.

Genetic modification, in all reality, has its faults.  There is a very high probability that many will use any associated technology for ulterior motives that may harm humanity as a whole.

OK.

It was the same thing for TNT.  And nuclear fission.  But none of these inventions were created to be viewed as such.  Each of these things were made with a common goal in mind: to better the lives of all men.  It was the actions of a select few that allowed these things to become dangerous or harmful.

In all actuality, every invention ever to grace the Earth was a double-edged sword; with just the right mindset, one could use anything for evil.  Even simple every day items such as toilet paper can be utilized improperly as a tool of harassment which results in ridiculous amounts of amusement.  Does this mean that toilet paper as a whole is immoral? I hope your answer to that was no, as I do not hold a preference for leaves in regards to such utilities...

In conclusion, condemning all of genetic alteration as immoral or evil is ignorant. The use of the word "Designer Baby" singles out one aspect of the matter and does not give credit to the concept as a whole.

Closing, a Student's Perspective

"From the smallest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from one attribute of man - the function of his reasoning mind." - Ayn Rand, Philosopher and Author

Though I wouldn't mind being 6"4  less vertically challenged  basketball height  GODZILLA! a wee bit taller, I believe that genetic manipulation for the sake of enhancement rather than prevention is immoral.  Life would be boring if everyone had a perfectly squared face; randomness and variety give flavor to life. I for one would not enjoy watching a basketball game where every single player was at the same caliber as LeBron James. It would be a constant barrage of windmill dunks and horrible free-throw shooting.

Reason is the facet of the human mind I would like to bring to your attention this time around.  With reason, everything gains purpose and justification.  Reason can persecute or glorify, condemn or reward, and belittle or exonerate.  But one must be careful, for biased and blind reason can shroud one's mind.  Reason must weigh both sides, leaving neither short of their actual worth.

 So, Symbiotes of Choice, will you choose to use reason?

- Alfred Chen

---

Sources Used:

Gene Therapy and Children

 

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Genetically altered babies born

 

Genetics

 

The True Story Behind 300 and Sparta's "Super Soldiers" - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Commented On:

What a wonderful world... - Prada Children: Desginer babies

bee-eye-oh blog - no one can be perfect? think again.

Biodiversity and Man

Preface: Many scientists consider humans as the most invasive species, as humans can greatly change an environment and impact living things that reside there. Are we being stewards of the world? Take a look at an issue in which human intervention has positively or negatively affected the biodiversity of our ecosystems.

Before I examine the question at hand, I would like to recall an item from my childhood which I find to be an appropriate introduction to this topic.

Banjo Kazooie, a waste of time great 3D platformer was released on the N64 in 1998. In this game, you play as Banjo the bear, traversing exotic worlds with your partner, Kazooie the bird. With the help of your feathered friend, you are granted abilities such as flight (yes, you, a BEAR, can FLY with the help of a 5-pound avian; apparently, anything IS possible). In these ways, Kazooie proves to be a complete tool helpful little bugger. Unfortunately, she comes with her downsides as well. This Red-Crested Breegull (the fantastical cousin of the common seagull) has quite the mouth. Kazooie finds it necessary to utter rude and sarcastic remarks to everyone and anything, including Banjo. In turn, the problems you must endure are ultimately brought upon you by Kazooie herself. This begs one to question as to whether the partnership is parasitic (beneficial to one party, harmful to the other) or mutualistic (beneficial to both parties).

Humans and the Earth are in a relationship not so much unlike Kazooie and Banjo; humans, like Kazooie, can be seen as either friend or foe to the world. Humans live in a sort of symbiosis with all things around the world, as our actions usually result in global reaction. However, this symbiotic relationship heavily favours human needs, while occasionally bettering the lives of other organisms. Therefore, whether humans have a negative or positive impact on the global ecosystem is a controversial topic.

To determine whether or not humans are proper stewards, one must analyze both the parasitic and mutualistic relationships humans have with biodiversity.


Biodiversity, an Overview for those who cannot remember

Before discussing the effect of humans on biodiversity, one must define biodiversity.

In its broadest sense, biodiversity simply refers to the vast amount of living organisms within a given area. All species of flora and fauna create the immense mosaic that is an ecosystem's biodiversity.

Biodiversity within an Ecosystem

A more specific definition of biodiversity is the genetic variation found within a species. Genetic variants that result from sexual reproduction create unlimited uniqueness in numerous living organisms. This variety also relates to the survivability of a species.

Biodiversity within a Species a Race an Immediate Family

Man, the Parasite to Biodiversity

A parasite, by definition, is an organism which relies on another in order to exist, function, or survive at the expense of the host. Considering this, one can see how humans behave in a parasitic manner when interacting with the environment and other species.

Humans choose which species are helpful to them and use/abuse them, sometimes to the brink of said species' (direct and indirect) extinction. Over harvesting, which is the act of using or collecting a resource faster than the resource reproduces/develops, is one instance of this.

As an example, consider the current issue with over fishing surrounding the Maritimes. For a good portion of the last decade, attention has been given to the threat of extinction of fish like the cod found in the Atlantic and Pacific waters encasing Canada. A demand for cod that spans five centuries of fishing and harvesting has produced a severe handicap on biodiversity in the species and in the area.

As the population of cod drops, so does the gene pool available for reproduction. Though the loss of genetic material is not uncommon, the rapidity of the decline as a result of over harvesting is far too drastic. Strands and variants that should survive for some generations are being wiped out by the tonne. Due to this, general uniformity may arise and eventually lead to the demise of the entire species, should an environmental shift occur.



Man, the Mutualist with Biodiversity

A mutualist is one party of a partnership in which both sides benefit from association. Knowing this, the first thing that probably comes to mind is domestication.

Since the beginning of time, humans have worked in tandem with animals to achieve tasks beyond the ability of either party alone. Wolves and hunters, cattle and farmers, bees and beekeepers; the list of alliances between man and multiple species goes on and on.

But how exactly do these associations across species benefit the biodiversity of the world?

Humans provide shelter, protection, and food in return for the aid reaped from domesticated animals. Though it may be hard to believe, some species still present today are only living because of human intervention. One example is the Bombyx mori, or the silk moth, which was dubbed useful in ancient China around 3000 BC. At maturity or adulthood, silk moths lose their ability of flight, leaving them incredibly vulnerable to predators. However, because their silk cocoons were found to be luxurious and highly desirable in China, humans chose to adopt the animal. If humans had not domesticated the silk moth for its valuable assets, the species may not have endured through time due to their lack of survival skills during their reproductive age.


Conclusion: Man, the Steward?

From these two standpoints, man can be interpreted as either helpful or harmful. No true conclusion can be drawn from these instances alone, but a general consensus can be discerned.

So far, as stewards, we have failed; this is not surprising as managing something as grand as the whole world is indeed an arduous task. As beings that lay claim to a higher intellect however, we should be embarrassed of our foolhardiness.

Man selfishly works towards his own goals, throwing away what is unnecessary and taking along what is useful as he progresses. Yes, humans can produce, but only at the cost of others. Be it the animals surrounding us or the land we tread, we must take before we can give.

This is not to say that humans should not take; we are, by nature, consumers. However, it is our responsibility to understand how far our well of resources reaches, how far we may dip our hands, and how fast it replenishes itself.

As a final note, I would like for you to take the following statement to heart:

Even a parasite does not kill its host, for to kill one's host is to kill one's self.


Closing: Man, the Symbiote by Choice

"Every man builds his world in his own image. He has the power to choose, but no power to escape the necessity of choice." - Ayn Rand, Philosopher and Author

Or, in layman's terms, the power is YOURS!

Captain Planet references aside, the main concept I would like everyone to contemplate is choice. Man is able to choose to be a parasite; man is able to choose to live in mutuality. It is our ability to choose, to decide, and to differentiate that sets our species above that of any other. And, as Uncle Ben always said they say, with great power comes an even greater responsibility.

That being said, what you choose to do with said power is entirely up to you. Will you continue the trend of poor stewardship? Or will you take up rod and staff for the ecosystem?

You may choose to be ignorant.

You may choose to be indifferent.

You may choose to eat dirt?

You may choose to take action.

But you MUST choose.


- Alfred Chen

----

Sources Used:

Canadian Biodiversity: Theory

Defining species: The indirect impact of humans on biodiversity

Catches of Endangered Grand Banks Cod Exceed Target by Over 500 Tonnes in 2008

History of DOMESTICATION OF ANIMALS


Commented On:

A World in our Hands: Poisoning Biodiversity

Bio Blog:  Endangered Species Reserves Help to Sustain Biodiversity in our Ecosystems