I'm talking about self-driven evolution. In the past it was selecting for traits which suited the environment of the time, and perhaps that did not include intelligence per se, but the concept remains valid.
I also never claimed that in all of human history we always chose the same traits for beauty, but we have always selected for what we felt like "beauty" was at the time, even if that meant selecting against an "uglier" option. It was never a straight line, and it probably never will be.
Beauty changing every generation may actually be a boon to the process, as well. If the majority of one generation selected for a particular beauty trait then it would lose its appeal, driving diversity as less people selected for it or more people selected alternatives.
We humans are a fickle lot, at least until we find the fickle gene.
You seem to forget that being attractive and having more kids are in no way correlated. Ugly people have kids too.
If you're not saying we're selecting for intelligence or beauty, then what are you saying? You claim "the concept holds true", but I'm not sure what the greater concept you're trying to explain is. That humans are still evolving?
You seem to forget that being attractive and having more kids are in no way correlated.
Attractiveness plays absolutely no role in reproduction? I honestly don't know how to respond to that, I hope you've just phrased it poorly.
I'm not saying we're not selecting for intelligence or beauty, I'm saying we're not selecting for the same intelligence and beauty every generation. A few thousand years ago intelligence was being able to tie a pointy rock to the end of a stick, and that sure played a role in natural selection. "Intelligence" as I intended to convey is broadly defined, it's not just the modern definition of IQ but the skills to survive and thrive in the environment of the time.
Attractiveness plays absolutely no role in reproduction? I honestly don't know how to respond to that, I hope you've just phrased it poorly.
I have not worded it incorrectly. Attractive people may have kids, but so do ugly people, and ugly people have kids with attractive people, too. There is currently no known link between attractiveness and offspring. Your "common knowledge" is failing you here.
But wait, so you're trying to tell me that this sentence:
In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations
Is supposed to have meant this:
I'm saying we're not selecting for the same intelligence and beauty every generation.
And yes, my two sentences are one and the same. A trait is a category, such as hair color. We can select for that trait without always selecting specifically red hair, for example. In fact, at one point we selected against red hair in some cultures [1]. Similarly, as I described earlier, intelligence today is often defined as IQ or literacy while intelligence in the past might have been toolmaking, memory (for verbal history/storytelling), or navigational skills.
That's why I don't see any ethical quandaries about genetic modifications for beauty, because it's highly unlikely to lead to homogeneity and even if it did, if everyone is beautiful then nobody is, which means people would immediately find new definitions for beauty and pursue those instead.
Comments
I'm talking about self-driven evolution. In the past it was selecting for traits which suited the environment of the time, and perhaps that did not include intelligence per se, but the concept remains valid.
I also never claimed that in all of human history we always chose the same traits for beauty, but we have always selected for what we felt like "beauty" was at the time, even if that meant selecting against an "uglier" option. It was never a straight line, and it probably never will be.
Beauty changing every generation may actually be a boon to the process, as well. If the majority of one generation selected for a particular beauty trait then it would lose its appeal, driving diversity as less people selected for it or more people selected alternatives.
We humans are a fickle lot, at least until we find the fickle gene.
You seem to forget that being attractive and having more kids are in no way correlated. Ugly people have kids too.
If you're not saying we're selecting for intelligence or beauty, then what are you saying? You claim "the concept holds true", but I'm not sure what the greater concept you're trying to explain is. That humans are still evolving?
Attractiveness plays absolutely no role in reproduction? I honestly don't know how to respond to that, I hope you've just phrased it poorly.
I'm not saying we're not selecting for intelligence or beauty, I'm saying we're not selecting for the same intelligence and beauty every generation. A few thousand years ago intelligence was being able to tie a pointy rock to the end of a stick, and that sure played a role in natural selection. "Intelligence" as I intended to convey is broadly defined, it's not just the modern definition of IQ but the skills to survive and thrive in the environment of the time.
I have not worded it incorrectly. Attractive people may have kids, but so do ugly people, and ugly people have kids with attractive people, too. There is currently no known link between attractiveness and offspring. Your "common knowledge" is failing you here.
But wait, so you're trying to tell me that this sentence:
Is supposed to have meant this:
?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl#Plumage_colours_as_attr...
And yes, my two sentences are one and the same. A trait is a category, such as hair color. We can select for that trait without always selecting specifically red hair, for example. In fact, at one point we selected against red hair in some cultures [1]. Similarly, as I described earlier, intelligence today is often defined as IQ or literacy while intelligence in the past might have been toolmaking, memory (for verbal history/storytelling), or navigational skills.
That's why I don't see any ethical quandaries about genetic modifications for beauty, because it's highly unlikely to lead to homogeneity and even if it did, if everyone is beautiful then nobody is, which means people would immediately find new definitions for beauty and pursue those instead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Prejudice_and_discrim...
Did you just link to the peafowl to try and show that in humans, attractiveness and offspring are related?