fish shrinkage...threatening our survival?

[gabe]

article

what do you guys think? does this affect us?

[ake]

Phew, you scared me there, good thing it was that other kind of fish.

[Humphrind]

"By selectively harvesting the largest fish, we end up changing the whole biology - not only growth rates, but egg size, fecundity, feeding behaviour," he said.

Darwin gone wrong. The best don't live longest, the worst are the ones that survive to repopulate. but does that mean that we need to step in and help? his is not an issue with cows, we keep the best and most fertile cows to do all the breeding.

Can the cow strategy be applied to the fish in any way?



BTW - :P

[UncleBuddy]

[quote="Humphrind"]

Darwin gone wrong. The best don't live longest, the worst are the ones that survive to repopulate.

It's true of our species as well. Our best and brightest go forth to improve the world, maybe spawn a child or two...while trailer trash continue to shoot out puppys like howitzers.

Another bright and happy moment brought to you by UB!

[Sed]

"By selectively harvesting the largest fish, we end up changing the whole biology - not only growth rates, but egg size, fecundity, feeding behaviour," he said.

Darwin gone wrong. The best don't live longest, the worst are the ones that survive to repopulate. but does that mean that we need to step in and help? his is not an issue with cows, we keep the best and most fertile cows to do all the breeding.

Can the cow strategy be applied to the fish in any way?
BTW - :P

When I flyfish in the backwoods and want to have a little dinner, I'll keep the midranged fish, not the monsters... The big guys are more likely to reproduce, and reproduce in higher numbers, which keeps the stream healthy and fishable when I come back years later.

Too bad the commercial fishermen don't think like that.

- sed

[Humphrind]

It's true of our species as well. Our best and brightest go forth to improve the world, maybe spawn a child or two...while trailer trash continue to shoot out puppys like howitzers.

Another bright and happy moment brought to you by UB!

Well, not quite. It is true that our governement promotes lower class people to have more children, and higher class people have access to more methods of birth control when desired. But, I don't think this adds up to mean that the US or any country is egulfed in reverse selective breeding.

But the most important fact i what if we are? Would you really like for someone to kill all Americans who are not providing a meaningful contribution to something? And if so, who would we want to define 'meaningful contribution'? I'm sure as the less productive were killed, the regulations would become more strict until people were literally fighting to be the most helpful.

[UncleBuddy]

Well, not quite. It is true that our governement promotes lower class people to have more children, and higher class people have access to more methods of birth control when desired. But, I don't think this adds up to mean that the US or any country is egulfed in reverse selective breeding.

Darwinism moves slowly. Ever see this 8th grade exam from the turn of the century? Even though, as a people, we are far more technologically advanced than we ever could have imagined, I doubt that many could argue that we are smarter.

But the most important fact i what if we are? Would you really like for someone to kill all Americans who are not providing a meaningful contribution to something? And if so, who would we want to define 'meaningful contribution'? I'm sure as the less productive were killed, the regulations would become more strict until people were literally fighting to be the most helpful.

I would never advocate such a tactic. That being said, if we lived in a world with fewer saftey nets and higher risks for additional children, lack of education etc. I think that we would find Darwinism to still work in favor of the species.

[a500lbgorilla]

"By selectively harvesting the largest fish, we end up changing the whole biology - not only growth rates, but egg size, fecundity, feeding behaviour," he said.

Darwin gone wrong. The best don't live longest, the worst are the ones that survive to repopulate. but does that mean that we need to step in and help? his is not an issue with cows, we keep the best and most fertile cows to do all the breeding.

Can the cow strategy be applied to the fish in any way?



BTW - :P

Define "best."

Sounds to me like it's exactly what Darwin said. The best traits of surviving (i.e. Not being delicious or full of meats) are the traits being passed on.

-'rilla

[Humphrind]

Define "best."

Sounds to me like it's exactly what Darwin said. The best traits of surviving (i.e. Not being delicious or full of meats) are the traits being passed on.

-'rilla

Well, that's the catch 22 for the fish. The exact things we see as helpful to the fish, we also see as delicious to the human. Fish (like salmon or trout) are almost all meat, with a very un-intrusive skeletal structure, VERY small amount of connective tissue and fat and they never work hard enough to make their meat gristly, unlike cows. Therefore, the best of their natural species are the best for humans to eat.

In cows, we have to raise them a certain way and treat and feed them correctly to ensure their tasty-ness. If I served you some wild longhorn cattle, you would not like it as well as farm-raised steak. But if I served you some wild salmon, you would like it as much, if not more than salmon from a hatchery.

So in fish, the best traits for the animal, are what we desire, and in cows, the best traits for the animal are not what we desire.

Check and mate.

[a500lbgorilla]

What I'm saying is a "best" trait is a trait that will let them survive longer. By not being appetizing, they will survive longer. By being appetizing, they will not survive longer.

Therefore, deliciousness is a trait that needs to be lost if the species wants to live longer.

Do you see why?

-'rilla

[Humphrind]

Do you see why?

I see why, but my point is the ideal fish or survival is also the ideal fish for eating. Unlike other species. The only thing that can help them is an anti-yummy enzyme to make them taste gross. But we're inventive and I'm sure we've already got a sauce that can compliment the anti-yummy enzyme.

When a lobster dies, it started producing an enzyme that turns the meat into a liquid. 2 hours after dead, and you can't eat it if you wanted to (did you ever see that scene with the crab in Castaway?) But humans are aware of this and account for it by cooking the lobster alive, or killing it directly before cooking. This is a variation on the anti-yummy enzyme but it still hasn't helped keep predators (humans) away.

[a500lbgorilla]

I see why, but my point is the ideal fish for survival is also the ideal fish for eating

Then it's not the "ideal" fish for surivival.

The ideal fish would be the one surviving, not being eaten.

So if the fish just become smaller or whatever it is they're naturally doing in hopes of extending their lifespan, then that is indeed what Darwin said would happen.

-'rilla

[TylerK]

Darwin gone wrong. The best don't live longest, the worst are the ones that survive to repopulate.

It's true of our species as well. Our best and brightest go forth to improve the world, maybe spawn a child or two...while trailer trash continue to shoot out puppys like howitzers.

Another bright and happy moment brought to you by UB!

This is social, not biological, and therefore is not relevant to Darwin's theory. Furthermore, suggesting that this idea is valid is morally reprehensible. Do you see why?

[Sed]

Darwin gone wrong. The best don't live longest, the worst are the ones that survive to repopulate.

It's true of our species as well. Our best and brightest go forth to improve the world, maybe spawn a child or two...while trailer trash continue to shoot out puppys like howitzers.

Another bright and happy moment brought to you by UB!

This is social, not biological, and therefore is not relevant to Darwin's theory. Furthermore, suggesting that this idea is valid is morally reprehensible. Do you see why?

Somebody has had to have done a study to see which socio-economic group the highest number of offspring comes from. Don't go making generalizations without some support. Reprehensible, maybe, but possibly true.
- sed

[TylerK]

Somebody has had to have done a study to see which socio-economic group the highest number of offspring comes from. Don't go making generalizations without some support. Reprehensible, maybe, but possibly true.
- sed

Yes, it's called "eugenics," and not only is it misguided and despicable, it's incorrect.

[Sed]

Yes, it's called "eugenics," and not only is it misguided and despicable, it's incorrect.

Wow, that a bit off the wall... I was thinking more along the lines of my personal observations, being in an academic settings, where it seems that the majority of people I deal with have between 0-2 children, very few have a larger number. The other end of the spectrum I have no idea of... which is why I wanted to see a study.

- sed

[TylerK]

Yes, it's called "eugenics," and not only is it misguided and despicable, it's incorrect.

Wow, that a bit off the wall... I was thinking more along the lines of my personal observations, being in an academic settings, where it seems that the majority of people I deal with have between 0-2 children, very few have a larger number. The other end of the spectrum I have no idea of... which is why I wanted to see a study.

- sed

I have no doubt that census information might reveal that lower-income families have, on average, more children. How is that relevant? The PREMISE that academic or financial success is genetic is the issue here.

[Humphrind]

I've never heard of Eugenics before. I looked it up and felt a little strange.

It's not like neo-nazis. They don't want to kill the minorities, they just want the minorities to die out naturally.

Eugenics

But I think Tyler is getting wrapped up in the wrong issue. All UncleBuddy was saying is we have a slight governmental problem where we in-directly encourage the lower class to reproduce, while allowing the upper classes to inhibit breeding. I agree with his statement. But it's not being taken to the Eugenics extreme.[/url]

[Humphrind]

The PREMISE that academic or financial success is genetic is the issue here.

no, academic success is not genetic. But the opportunities provided to people are going to provide a lot of influence to what they can and will do with their life. And people don't get the same opportunities in a low income household that they do in a high income household.

When the parent didn't finish high school and doesn't fully realize the error of his ways, he could have Einstein as a kid and the kid still will drop out and find himself washing cars at a carlot when he's 50.

[TylerK]

I'm not arguing that we don't have a social problem. I'm arguing that we don't have a biological problem, and it shouldn't come up in a discussion of evolution.

[Sed]

I have no doubt that census information might reveal that lower-income families have, on average, more children. How is that relevant?

That is all I read into UB's statement... not that the intelligent beget intelligent or the low-income/less educated beget less academically inclined children.

- sed

[Humphrind]

I'm not arguing that we don't have a social problem. I'm arguing that we don't have a biological problem, and it shouldn't come up in a discussion of evolution.

But it's a social problem (or is it a sociological problem?) with a biological explaination. it's got it's feet in both pools.

gabe has to love that he only put this up as a double-meaning with the title.

We will take anything and run with it. Mwa Ha Ha ha ha

[Sed]

this could go on for days....

[UncleBuddy]

Darwin gone wrong. The best don't live longest, the worst are the ones that survive to repopulate.

It's true of our species as well. Our best and brightest go forth to improve the world, maybe spawn a child or two...while trailer trash continue to shoot out puppys like howitzers.

Another bright and happy moment brought to you by UB!

This is social, not biological, and therefore is not relevant to Darwin's theory. Furthermore, suggesting that this idea is valid is morally reprehensible. Do you see why?

Can't say I do. We, as a species, have a particular soft spot for protecting the weak among our own. No other species is caple of this, as a result our species continues to populate with those who are less intelligent, less strong and less productive.

I think you are making the common mistake to not include the social and intellectual aspects of our species in any discussion of Darwinism. Our intellect and higher intelligence is what we evolved to.

[TylerK]

Darwin gone wrong. The best don't live longest, the worst are the ones that survive to repopulate.

It's true of our species as well. Our best and brightest go forth to improve the world, maybe spawn a child or two...while trailer trash continue to shoot out puppys like howitzers.

Another bright and happy moment brought to you by UB!

This is social, not biological, and therefore is not relevant to Darwin's theory. Furthermore, suggesting that this idea is valid is morally reprehensible. Do you see why?

Can't say I do. We, as a species, have a particular soft spot for protecting the weak among our own. No other species is caple of this, as a result our species continues to populate with those who are less intelligent, less strong and less productive.

I think you are making the common mistake to not include the social and intellectual aspects of our species in any discussion of Darwinism. Our intellect and higher intelligence is what we evolved to.

Thread rapidly approaching Godwin's Law...

[UncleBuddy]

Thread rapidly approaching Godwin's Law...

Aww come on...we don't have to go there. I think Humphrind put it best when he said that this is an issue with feet in both pools. Couple that with the fact that our evelutionary tract is seeded in our social structure and it should be easy to see that the two aren't easily separated.

[a500lbgorilla]

But I think we can all agree that the commericalization of Chirstmas is a mixed blessing at best.

(Please get my Simpsons reference)

-'rilla

[UncleBuddy]

But I think we can all agree that the commericalization of Chirstmas is a mixed blessing at best.

(Please get my Simpsons reference)

-'rilla

What you talkin 'bout, everyone?

[bigred]

I think the three of you should get a room.

[gabe]

But I think we can all agree that the commericalization of Chirstmas is a mixed blessing at best.

(Please get my Simpsons reference)

-'rilla

got it!

[TylerK]

But I think we can all agree that the commericalization of Chirstmas is a mixed blessing at best.

(Please get my Simpsons reference)

-'rilla

What you talkin 'bout, everyone?

Beat me to it.

[Ayce]

On an evolutionary timescale the prosperity of the developed countries over the last 100 years is irrelevant. Note that even today the majority of the human population do not have the standard of living that you are referring to.

In any event there are concerns in the medical community that our current antibiotics are losing their effectiveness and unless we can come up with alternatives there is a high probability of a series of global pandemics within the next two decades.

We're all doomed, doomed I tell ye. Grin.

(Of course I have certain biases since I am an ecologist with a wife who works in the pharmaceutical industry.)

[Tonsilitis]

Darwin gone wrong. The best don't live longest, the worst are the ones that survive to repopulate.

It's true of our species as well. Our best and brightest go forth to improve the world, maybe spawn a child or two...while trailer trash continue to shoot out puppys like howitzers.

Another bright and happy moment brought to you by UB!

This is social, not biological, and therefore is not relevant to Darwin's theory. Furthermore, suggesting that this idea is valid is morally reprehensible. Do you see why?

Can't say I do. We, as a species, have a particular soft spot for protecting the weak among our own. No other species is caple of this, as a result our species continues to populate with those who are less intelligent, less strong and less productive.

I think you are making the common mistake to not include the social and intellectual aspects of our species in any discussion of Darwinism. Our intellect and higher intelligence is what we evolved to.

Thread rapidly approaching Godwin's Law...

I think Tyler is right that this position approaches that of the early 20th century Eugenicists -- the notion that there is a sense in which socio-economic distinctions are somehow genetically preordained can't help but give on to the notion that scientific social engineering is possible. That is, if (having completed the genome project, etc.) certain genetic qualities are reliably predictable, and if certain genetic qualities are socially undesirable, it follows that ambitous social engineers ought to be able to eradicate the undesirable genetic qualities from the population.
This was, of course, the foundational theory of the Eugenics movement, but it contains a fallacy with important implications for the underlying argument.
Assuming for the moment that something like intelligence is both quantifiable and genetically determined, then a Eugenicist could control for low intelligence by altering the genetic makeup of human embryos. In effect, then, the ambitous Eugenicist could eliminate social distinctions predicated on intelligence. This would be good for society right? Otherwise, why do it? The problem is, it would be disasterous for society, and this is what all schools of thought that embrace the idea of top-down social engineering fail to appreciate.
Take, for example, college admissions. If there were no (meaningful) disparities in standardized test scores or high school GPAs, how would any college differentiate between applicants? On one hand, you might say, what a utopia this would be. Everyone could go to Harvard and Harvard Law School. But they couldn't, because Harvard's not big enough for everyone to go -- so what's the solution? Distinctions between applicants would have to be made on bases other than intelligence or previous performance. While it might be nice to think that eliminating differences would forever level the playing field, the practical effect would likely be to roll back every advancement that has been made to date toward establishing a pure meritocracy in this country. If distinctions on the basis of merit no longer exist, and if distinctions must nevertheless be made as a matter of practical necessity, then it's inevitable that distinctions will be made on less savory characteristics such as race, socio-economic background, gender, national origin, and so forth. Not too troubling for a facist regime, but for a society that thinks merit is the only truly neutral yardstick by which people can be fairly measured, the elimination of merit as a selection criteria threatens to unravel the social fabric. I'll leave it to you guys to think about the other areas of society in which the success of Eugenics would be more devastating.
The point is that even if there is some biological or genetic predetermination of intelligence, or some other socially relevant identity characteristic, and even if we could reliably manipulate that characteristic scientifically, it is incorrect to conclude, as Eugenics does, that we OUGHT to undertake that manipulation.

Ok, I think this was a weird first post, but I couldn't help myself. I think this forum is great, I've been reading it for months now, and I wanted to jump in. So, hello and thanks for all the great discussion.

[Humphrind]

Really long post... Lotsa big words... I'm know my stuff...

Umm. We were just talking about fish.

Welcome aboard.

[gabe]

I think Tyler is right that this position approaches that of the early 20th century Eugenicists -- the notion that there is a sense in which socio-economic distinctions are somehow genetically preordained can't help but give on to the notion that scientific social engineering is possible. That is, if (having completed the genome project, etc.) certain genetic qualities are reliably predictable, and if certain genetic qualities are socially undesirable, it follows that ambitous social engineers ought to be able to eradicate the undesirable genetic qualities from the population.
This was, of course, the foundational theory of the Eugenics movement, but it contains a fallacy with important implications for the underlying argument.
Assuming for the moment that something like intelligence is both quantifiable and genetically determined, then a Eugenicist could control for low intelligence by altering the genetic makeup of human embryos. In effect, then, the ambitous Eugenicist could eliminate social distinctions predicated on intelligence. This would be good for society right? Otherwise, why do it? The problem is, it would be disasterous for society, and this is what all schools of thought that embrace the idea of top-down social engineering fail to appreciate.
Take, for example, college admissions. If there were no (meaningful) disparities in standardized test scores or high school GPAs, how would any college differentiate between applicants? On one hand, you might say, what a utopia this would be. Everyone could go to Harvard and Harvard Law School. But they couldn't, because Harvard's not big enough for everyone to go -- so what's the solution? Distinctions between applicants would have to be made on bases other than intelligence or previous performance. While it might be nice to think that eliminating differences would forever level the playing field, the practical effect would likely be to roll back every advancement that has been made to date toward establishing a pure meritocracy in this country. If distinctions on the basis of merit no longer exist, and if distinctions must nevertheless be made as a matter of practical necessity, then it's inevitable that distinctions will be made on less savory characteristics such as race, socio-economic background, gender, national origin, and so forth. Not too troubling for a facist regime, but for a society that thinks merit is the only truly neutral yardstick by which people can be fairly measured, the elimination of merit as a selection criteria threatens to unravel the social fabric. I'll leave it to you guys to think about the other areas of society in which the success of Eugenics would be more devastating.
The point is that even if there is some biological or genetic predetermination of intelligence, or some other socially relevant identity characteristic, and even if we could reliably manipulate that characteristic scientifically, it is incorrect to conclude, as Eugenics does, that we OUGHT to undertake that manipulation.

Ok, I think this was a weird first post, but I couldn't help myself. I think this forum is great, I've been reading it for months now, and I wanted to jump in. So, hello and thanks for all the great discussion.

haha welcome aboard!

this thread was meant as a very dumb joke, but an intellectual conversation grew from it...who da thunk it?

[a500lbgorilla]

this thread was meant as a very dumb joke, but an intellectual conversation grew from it...who da thunk it?

I blame television.

Also, welcome aboard Tonton.

-'rilla