Yes and OK, but with a caveat: While we have an idea about what the best genes are through the phenotypical indicators we normally (instinctively) go by, there's no telling what (exactly) will be best in a future scenario. I would advise caution. And there are other factors.
If an animal chooses a mate with the best genes so they can have the best offspring, is that 'eugenics'?
-
-
-
By the way,
@primalpoly what's your opinion on the movie Gattaca? It seems relevant. :) - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Well, people do this with insemination all the time. Considered normal. Also, Madonna kind of did this with he father of her first child. She seemed to choose him for his genetics and not much elese.
-
All heterosexuals do this. We're hard wired to gravitate toward strong genes, recognizable due to mental or physical attributes with the ultimate goal of improving our ability to successfully pro-create and improve our gene pool. It's how we select our mates
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Still waiting for the day that everyone votes 'just show results'.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
this is a fascinating animal and frankly I want to know more about it
-
geneticists are indeed fascinating creatures
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Different from most versions of eugenics though, because the parent(s) are the ones that have to carry the brunt of such choices being made. They have skin in the game.
-
Nope. Currently discussed eugenics is about the possibility (for ex) of aborting fetuses with "bad dna", or of modifying them. So in current discussion it's about the people with skin in the game as well, mostly
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Disappointed with the "intellect" of these votes. It assumes animals think about genes, instead of merely following their own attraction. There's the expected retort that what are we attracted with it's associated with better genes, but it's easy to see the mistake in it (1/2)
-
First you'd had to prove they were *thinking about it* which is already hard to do in humans, even harder in species that as far as we know have no language to state that. Second, this ignores certain environmental variables. (2/2)
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.