Gene Pool Decline: Are we Becoming Bad Survivors?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 май 2018
- The Rest Of Us on Patreon:
/ therestofus
The Rest Of Us on Twitter:
/ trouchannel
The Rest Of Us T-Shirts and More:
teespring.com/TheRestOfUsClothing
Kurzgesagt's CRISPR Video
• Genetic Engineering Wi...
Mikme Microphone
www.mikme.com
Thanks to my Gold Patrons:
friuns
Leilah Ruan
Frantisek Sumsala
Will Tachau
YouExec.com
Cesar E. Lopez
Hannes Ott
Duncan Kennedy
Paul Pivaru
Jonathan Rieke
Remy Rojas
Poor Newton. Those were some GOOD genes gone wasted.
President Togekiss only half of his gene.
@Blugale Doh still though, one half of 200 IQ added on to half a mother's IQ = one smart dude
Woofie Play It isn't complete though. Mutation can occur or certain error within the genome.
I know, I wasn't serious about that, but still that son of Newton would be damn smart
You do realize he probably had some form of autism?
Although autism is not just genetics, it still plays a factor
I do not remember subscribing to this channel
edit:
I can see why I subscribed
I remember the one about surnames being the first one I watched
Cringe
Ew
A little note about eyesight in humans:
In the last century eyesight seems to have gotten worse in humans far faster than would be expected if it were some genetic factor. So it seems to be an unfortunate byproduct of modern human lifestyle.
Yes, in fact bad eyesight starts off as eye strain caused by too much close-up vision. When the muscle cannot fully relax anymore because it's tensed up so much, the eyeball elongates over time to compensate. Luckily, it's reversable. Check out Endmyopia.org for information on how to do that!
It is both. The narrator is incorrect when he overemphasizes the gradualness of evolution. We know that under the right circumstances a substantial amount of evolution can happen in only six to eight generations, because we have observed it in wildlife under strong selection due to environmental changes. Genetic deterioration can also proceed quite rapidly in captive breeding populations if they are sheltered from both natural land artificial selection.
I know that it's a meme to make fun of Isaac newton for not having a girlfriend, but keep in mind that he shared a home with a man for 20 years and later had a 'friend' write him this: "the reasons I should not marry will probably last as long as my life", and this "I could wish sir to live all my life, or the greatest part of it, with you." So he was probably just gay.
I just built it in as a light hearted joke, but you are actually completely right.
Nowadays it's almost as if every genius that ever lived is suddenly portraied as gay...
Not necessarily due to being gay, probably more the fact that not having kids to take care of or a partner that takes part of your attention, gives you a lot more time and energy to perfect your chosen career...
Painting people without kids or an opposite-sex partner as gay, is probably a great exaggeration, to paint earlier societies in today's colors.
How do you get from "a long list of reasons" to "he's just gay?" Look at all the unmarried people in contemporary society--the numbers are record setting. Are they all just "gay?" Part of the reason why Newton did not marry may be due to his very unsociable personality.
@@annabani2574 Having a gay or single sibling could let the sibling that actually kids to have more resource for their kids so it lets them have more kids without worrying about the quantity and quality of the resource thus continuing the bloodline.
It wasn't bad luck for Newton. He wasn't interested, that's all.
one theory stated above is that he was gay and lived with a man. It was dangerous to disclose this during his time so it was not publicly known.
Someone like Newton is above reproduction, his accomplishments will live forever. The rest of us can only hope to make a difference by making more of ourselves and hopefully one day some of our decedents will do something worthwhile.
very likely...especially considering the fact that gay people generally have a higher intelligence than the rest of the population
there are many gay devout christians, so im not really sure what you're getting at. Clearly, he is able to understand it, otherwise he would not have called it a theory. You seem to have a pretty low IQ though, so I can understand why you hate the gays
Valhalla or Bust you know you really sound like a closeted homosexual? Lot of energy defending a mans sexual preference...very strange indeed
Im ending my chain
no i rolled a dice
lo0ol
mahamudra mahamudraa okay your ancestors have breed and survivor for over thousands of years to get you here today, and now your just going to end it!? You're a disgrace
I'm going to end it because medical problems and also I hate children
Just think, you're ending a 4 billion year long legacy
Adaptive pressures have changed but that doesn't mean we aren't under any at all. Not everyone survives and not everyone breeds. In specific ways we're under more pressure than ever. There was a time once when all someone needed to make a living was a strong body, but those days are coming to an end. The value of unskilled labor is at an all time low and that's a trend that's going to continue. Genetic engineering will disproportionately benefit those of higher social status, so the key to a person's genetic future is going to be getting themselves some of that social status, by whatever means necessary. Even in an egalitarian society without prejudice this would be true, moreso in fact.
Limey Lassen maybe, automation of low skill labor is driven in large part by minimum wage; remove that and low skill labor jobs will be all that's left in 20 years.
What traits are being selected then?
Gabosh being poor apparently
True egalitarianism is dead now anyhow--the spread of agriculture slowly killed it. There is simply no longer an environment for it.
Selective pressures can vary from societies, but, generally, in our technological growth and automation, less body power is being selected and more brain power is sought after. Those who are smarter tend to get better jobs and bring home greater income, which mates are attracted to for their capacity to provide a stable environment for their children. We also tend to favor people with charisma and their capacity to make us laugh to make us feel safer and reduce our anxieties.
If you were wondering, the reason why more mutations are bad then benign is that there are two types of mutation at the DNA level, frameshift and substitution.
Substitution is where a single base is changed, however sometimes this doesn't actually change the protein being produced, so no effect.
A frameshift is where one it more bases are added or removed, causing every base to be read into different 'packets' or codons, causing a completely different protein.
PKMNtrainer Mann I really need, can you explained DNA and RNA? Any book recommendation.
Blugale Doh I can try, can't recommend any books but can explain.
DNA: DNA is stored in the nucleus and is a permanent genetic store. Is double stranded with the bases A T C G.
RNA: RNA is used to create proteins from the DNA, singular genes of DNA are copied into mRNA, which leave the nucleus to ribosomes.
Differences:
RNA is normally linear (single strand) whereas DNA is two bound by hydrogen bonds.
RNA uses the ribose sugar in its structure whereas DNA uses deoxyribose.
RNA uses the base U instead if T.
Hope this helps.
Aren't (uncorrected) frameshifts less likely?
Substitution can sometimes, but rarely, result in a change to the final protein or enzyme being produced. DNA is degenerate, meaning that multiple codons can encode for the same amino acid (64 codons but only 20 amino acids), but a single base change can change a single protein which may ultimately result in a small change in the tertiary structure of the protein or enzyme. If this change occurs to the active site of an enzyme, the enzyme may become in active.
Just like this video. Overly simplistic and misleading
Do you think major wars might contribute some what to decine the quality of the gene pool? Since strong healthy men were selected to go into battle and (a lot) died and unable to pass on their genes.
I always knew that a lot of our medical advances “baby” our genome into weakness.
Dear all, I really hope you enjoy my newest video! Can't believe it's already been 2 months since my last one - trying to speed things up. Honestly! 😅
Editorial comment on the video: I know that I've touched on a more edgy topic than usual in this one. While it was mostly intended as a fun and interesting brain teaser (I tried to point out all the asterisks and caveats regarding the statements I make), I see a lot of respectful discussion in the comments (and unfortunately a few not so respectful one). So I'd like to leave a comment myself: our goal as a common humanity must be to minimise suffering and achieve self-actualisation for as many people as possible. And as much fun as it can be to ponder about a possible regressive evolution, it really is not a threat to those goals. The real threat to well-being and self-actualisation are policies, which cause them - meaning any discriminatory policies against anyone, based on their nature. As far as gene editing tools and other technology in this area can help us towards the goals named above, I think they should eventually be free to be used by the ones who chose to do so.
Quality > quantity
Go as fast as you can without losing quality.
Honestly, the quality is what makes the videos great.
I agree with Felix. I have recently unsubscribed from so many channels, that started out with unregular infrequent uploads. Then they started to put out more content, maybe because they became able to hire animator or such. And the quality declined tremendously as a result. Don't fall into that trap. Be like George R. R. Martin: Even though your deadline is surpassed by several years; in the end, everyone will be thankful since we know the end result is as close to perfect as can be.
Each time that you upload a video and it's not about business, you break my little heart more than any women has been and will be able to do .
I remember finding you around 7,000 subs. Your videos are still amazing ☺
There has been recent research that good eyesight is correlated with childhood exposure to bright sunlight (i.e., time spent outdoors), explaining why Chinese children's eyesight has taken a nosedive in recent years as they spend more and more time indoors studying for placement exams.
this is maybe just semantics, but wouldnt blind cave fish actually have an advantage, since eyeballs are more vulnerable and prone to infection?
Mike Nees that is how Mutations pass on. If it helps out alot, it will be the gene that will most likely survive
totally! I'm, just responding to the author's claim that the blindness has "no advantage"
The study he referenced indicated the lack of predation that allowed the passing on of gene mutations.
Depends on the cause for blindness.
If these are fish that have eyes but no sight- than it’s a huge disadvantage.
However, if the blindness is counteracted- or perhaps caused by- frontward plating- armor- it could be a huge benefit.
Whether or not a cavefish can see has little to no impact on its survival in a dark cave, therefore the blind fish are not killed off, and are free to reproduce and spread their genes. If all the cavefish end up being blind, it is not necessarily an improvement of the gene pool.
Excellent video. Thanks for making it.
This is a amazing video, your understanding of the topic is fantastic! You hooked me onto the rest of the videos, keep up the good work!
This was so helpful! Thank you so much for explaining it in every day terms. I was wondering why I'm so short and have worse eyesight than others in my family!
Really interesting, and I have been thinking about the same issue myself, we have taken away almost everything that causes natural selection, and after a while it could become a real problem that people who cant even survive without healthcare or excessive help in their everyday can bring on their genes. Especially if society were to collapse some day.
Interesting. I love your content please keep your interesting videos and your good style
very well made video and I loved the split second humors you put here and there. also I was particularly amused by creative depiction of progress of civilization; tiger to cat, cave to hospital and fish to sushi made my day!
Bro I have always thought of this but never knew how to explain it, you did perfectly well.
+Provocateur Sout isn't a word...
No he did terribly, this is like the 1930s Social Darwinist understanding of human genetics not the actual scientific understanding.
Humans have different selection pressures from the ones we used to have, but that doesn't mean we don't have selection pressures. Humans are probably evolving faster now than ever before, simply because a big change in the environment leads to a faster pace of evolution. We have no idea what we will evolve towards because we have no idea what our environment will look like over the next million years.
@Provocateur South America isn't that bad, actually.
@@oliverwilson11 humans are mutating farster not evolving faster. We might have different selection pressures but that doesnt change the fact that there are no major wars no hunger no poverty. every one can finish a game on easy difficulty harder one takes skill.
@@diobrando5746
Again this is the 1930s Social Darwinist understanding, and not actual genetics.
If genetic factors affect how many children people have, there will be evolution. An obvious example today is that any genetic factor that makes a person less likely to use contraception is likely to be selected for. Evolution isn't about "difficulty" or "skill".
Yes, the genetic factors affecting the number of children people have (this is what "selection pressures" means) are completely different now from in the past. Famine and murder and infectious disease aren't as prevalent. It's precisely BECAUSE of this that evolution is likely to be faster now than ever before. Infectious disease resistance has been a survival advantage forever, so any further evolution in this direction has diminishing returns at best and significant costs at worst (e.g. autoimmune disease). But when something begins to be selected for that previously wasn't, as happened in some parts of the world a few thousand years ago with the ability to digest milk in adulthood, then evolution can move in that direction quickly.
Faster than ever before doesn't mean fast. Evolution is still imperceptibly slow on the timescale of human civilisations.
I don't know if i should feel happy or sad...
no
same
you could try to learn this topic from other sources, i can tell you some of this stuff is wrong.
Sad
sad.
Great video man👊🏽
oh my god.....this channel is too good....too good....i got so interested that i sat down and watched all of the videos of the channel at once...and this is just the fifth channel im subscribing in many years of daily youtube watching...keep this channel going mate
8:00 Minor nitpick: Another possible cause is that nonfunctional eyes cost less resources (building the eye, and brain effort to interpret the ocular signals), so for the situation where the fish isn't gaining anything from having functional eyes, those fish in the population that were more blind didn't have to eat as much, by at least a slight margin, to survive and propagate their genes. Each time you need to seek something to eat, you risk the chance that you don't find anything, and also the chance that to fall to predators that take advantage of your feeding behaviours, etc. Even needing to go eat a few less times in a lifetime can be a significant boon to your germ-line's survival rate.
Where are your vids? I miss them 😢
Bro its nearly an year and no upload? I love all your videos.
100 years ago.. (or so) Anyone who had a severe allergy to things such as bees, or peanut oil.... died.
BUT with our medical technology, (specifically antihistamines) has made those people be able to pass those genes on.
Hence the dramatic increase of these allergies, and an increase in the severity of them.
@0:30 😂 You've gotta warn people when you do that. I almost choked on my food.
Genetic engineering is the answer
Szabó Tamás
I dought that will be a good solution in the long run, if anything goes bad, we're all screwed
Correct
The problem is psicology and ethic with stuff like human engeniring Who are you if you were programmed? To what level should we modificate ourself without losing out identity as a society and species? Is a "better" human and a "standard" human equals? What is a abnormality and what is Just a particolarity is your behevior and freeminded way of being original and out of the box or deviant?
What is a flaw and what is just a charateristic is being left heanded a Little nothing or a handicap because the world is right heanded so forth and so on...
I'm not saying that we shouldn't cure auto immune and genetic flaws just that we should be very careful...
Fire is useful and good jumping in It not so much
Szabó Tamás Azt hiszem hogy gusztustalan!
How about engineering people from preconception to be specialised for certain tasks... Firefighters with thicker skin. Nurses lower cortisol production. Gynaecologists with smaller fingers. Etc..
Where did you go bro come back your videos are really good!
great video dude, good job!
Very cool concept. Another way of putting it is that the more advanced a civilization the less each individual needs to be as strong since there are more conveniences that take away the limits that once drove a man to become something better and overcome them. When everything is handed to new generations, much like children being spoiled, a lack of hardship and limitation gives less impetus to keep improving and so society can decline. Therefore the even more meta challenge is to learn how to keep progressing regardless of how advanced and convenient it gets, to be able to be self-motivated even when there is no pressure.
Although selective pressures started lessening since the start of agriculture I don't think it was drastic. Bad eye sight even 500 years ago still probably meant you were removed from the gene pool. I'd say only in the last 100 years have these pressures really been taken off. But in 50 years or less we will have solved the problem with genetic engineering.
Andy Feng was the selection pressure really that high?
I mean if you're nearsighted you still can work with tools at close distance. If you're farsighted you still can use a bow or do duty as a watchmen. As long as you're useful society will not reject you. Especially if the marriage system ensures a 1:1 partner ratio.
DolphinsWIthIgloos Even a hunting Society has gatheres and close combat specialist (guy with big club). Also a lot of people that work on and with the hunted meat or do things like pathfinding.
As for Marriage it goes both ways, woman like alphas if there are abundance of resources, but betas if there is a lack.
Also rape was still a reality.
Great video!
I feel something was left out, though. Evolution leads to survival of the fittest - that is the ones that best fit their environment. Once that environment included wild animals and fighting for food. Now it includes a man-made environment with much different requirements. Great eyesight is not as critical, but the ability to communicate and cooperate is.
Current society is much bigger and more complex than old ones, and navigating is a challenge. Many healthy and fertile people, who would have thrived thousands of years ago, end up in prison or at least rejected by society. The pressure is different and, to be honest - lower than before, but it is still present in some form.
So humans may evolve to become creatures that are docile, cooperative, and highly capable of navigating through complex environments. Humans would also trade strength for more brain power as intelligence would become more and more favorable in terms of running increasingly complex societies.
Genetic engineering scares me. Not the common fear the we will make superhumans, but that we'll make over exaggerated humans. The human pug.
Is mutation a deliberate "randomised" factor? as in, would natural selection not select in favour of the perfect blend of "randomisation" to "accurate copying"? Or is it just "this is the best system it can be, and we are evolving towards making perfect copy's? I Strongly feel its the first since the second just seems like it would dead-end and create less advantage over time.
The gene stagnation is called “genetic drift” by the way.
More specifically genetic load. Drift doesn't always mean genetic decline.
This is why genetic engineering is such an important step in humanity.
I don't understand why so many people are against it.without genetic engineering the human race will collapse in a few generations.
Imagine a world where everyone is not ugly or fat and smart af
@@Submersed24 Who would be smarter, or fitter if everyone is those things? I think humanity works better when people have differences not identical clones
I wouldn't trust corporations and the elite with genetic engineering.
Lololol ilumiti subliminal message at the 10:00 the eye with a downarrow next to a baby with a down arrow I got you there :)
The examples given might not have been the best ones. Newer studies are starting to suggest that lack of sunlight at an early age is affecting eye development which is causing a lot of vision problems. It might not be a genetic thing after all, but our tendency to stay indoors studying or looking at screens instead of playing outside. Also, I know less about the fertility thing, but surely one of the problems is that a lot of women are postponing having children to further their careers and/or spend more time finding the right partner? Past a certain age, it's a lot harder for women to conceive, and that's not genetic either, it's just standard biology. There are a lot of other factors at play in both these examples than just genetics. Perhaps there are better examples that could demonstrate regressive evolution. It definitely seems like something that should be happening, I'll give you that.
I know. That’s exactly the reason why I was always careful to say “might” and “among other things”. It’s most likely a combination of many factors.
No uploads since May 2018, it's already July 2019.
Please don't be dead.
Not dead, just running a company I started and sadly don’t have any time for YT
Nah, not speculation. We look back 150 years ago and almost every living American was fit and healthy. Now we have people who want being obese to be a cultural norm.
Half the children dying of polio and the wide spread deaths due to syphilus say hi
That has to do more with inviroment
Wall-e was not right. The declining gene pool also affects the IQ of the population. It may end up that our technological growth isn't fast enough to compensate for the drop in IQ, companies of high tech may go bankrupt because they can't find personnel competent enough to keep up with the quality standards, meaning the standards will drop down. Eventually, the high tech may regress over time.
ive read somewhere that is contradictory to what you said, we have good eyesight which is linked to wars before modern weaponry, archers needed good eyesight to shoot, and archers stood at the back, while barbarians with bad eyesight would be the first to charge in, the first to charge in would die while the archer, staying at the back would live, reproduce, and pass on good eyesight.
Couldn't this explain why we aren't seeing alien civilizations? The more an alien society advance, the less selection pressure they experience, and thus, as said in the video, the bad mutations will progressively outnumber the good ones. And then they inevitably destroy themselves for whatever reasons after thousands of years because of regressive evolution.
Or maybe we are the most advanced civilization in the galaxy
Kinda like what we are doing now with immigration
yes. Theres no progress.
Don't you think that advanced civilizations can use gene editing to prevent this or even improve their genotype?
This video was soooooooo good, you're like the European (Austrian?) CGP Grey; keep up the great work man!
As much as I enjoy technological evolution, for now I do support a sort of gene pool "purification" (not the skin color/ mass murder tipe). People with noticeable genetic problems, in my opinion, *should* be encouraged not to have children and, if possible or desiring, adopting healthier children otherwise.
I just think it might be better to keep high-quality genes around.
You have changed my mind on gene selection in embryos, great video!
Very good video. And I don't say that often.
n
i cant be alone in worrying that crispr wont actually be used to better humanity. i feel like it’s much more likely in our society to be used a tool for biological warfare or possibly even genocide. the idea of crispr and genome editing in general scares me because of this, especially in this political climate... am i alone in thinking this way?
Theocles Saturn In fact in nations that could actually do this, things are looking better than before. Wars were the standard not too long ago.
Crispr is only going to work on things that are not yet born. If you want to kill things, a bullet is faster, cheaper, more consistent, and works on everything. It would be a more reasonable concern to worry that governments will use this tech to develop superhuman soldiers that are conditioned from birth to be unstoppable killing machines. But that is also dipping dangerously close to conspiracy theory levels of paranoia. It's fine. Crispr is unlikely to cause you or your family any harm for the foreseeable future.
+Kathy Kat
And theoretically, we could have all nuked each other in the Cold War already, mooting most of the argument entirely. But the point stands that we haven't, yet, so apparently humanity's sane enough to stick around to be having this conversation. Let's keep going for as long as we can.
As a proud Autistic-spectrum son-of-a-bitch who never had a say in the daily Ritalin dosages fucking my already deviant grade-school-age brain's development, I'm happy to declare that 'human equality' is a shitty and overrated value, and moreover, does not coincide with reality. Moreover, the notion that say, men look like women, or that one race looks like another, or that the differences are purely superficial, is 'visibly' not the case and frankly a little bit silly and backwards. It's a nice fantasy to assume we're all as buff, healthy, or clever as one another from birth, and just make divergent choices, but it's a fantasy. I'm ADHD with Asperger's and Chronic Depression, meanwhile, one of my friends has a degenerative muscular disorder that's likely to leave him crippled in later life, and has already crippled his dad. Gene therapy could prevent this, for them. As for me, I don't know the specifics, but I plan to be an IRL furry, if I can live long enough to see that possibility open up.
Ultimately, there are, already, people who are smarter, stronger, or healthier than you and definitely I, as well as those who have more problems than us. We've already drawn our lots and lost the lottery, and you're complaining about being given the chance to not only play it again, not only to win it, but to win it and pick your prize. Anything the wealthy and well have that you lack, you already lack. Picture a world where we elect not to be equal, but equally *empowered* to change our biological situation. To be *different*, in ways that we have *chosen*, rather than by accident.
Look at it this way: We currently have races, sexes, disabilities brought on by birth, injury, or exposure to improper medications, poor nutrition, and the like. Any one of these, a person is stuck with already, whether they choose to be, or not. Even the 'clever' people have won a lottery that someone else lost. Imagine having a means to elect to change that, and having everyone have access to that means to change. You can't look at one side of the coin, without disregarding the other--we weren't living in some kind of utopia beforehand, nor will we be living in one in the future, but we've got a tool here, that can be used for good, if we have the sense to use it for good.
Somebody saw rampage
Goldie Tamamo I think your final sentence denies the entire premise of your comment- we have a tool only as evil or good as the men who use it- and let’s face it: chances are the ones using it will be the Military or the Politicians. Flip a coin; it matters not which side lands up.
i can think of one good thing, imagine someone having a gene that makes them less sporty but they also have immunity to HIV or something like that (no idk if this is an actual thing i m just giving an example) and they may not be passed on otherwise but because they are, we keep the genes around, they could be good at some point,
also regressive genes
some people have genes in them for things but these things are not actually active, they are just carriers (i'm thinking cystic fibrosis here) , so when they have kids they may actually activate the genes and be good/bad w/e your sorting system values at the time
That whisper at 4:07 scared the shit out of me
I felt attack cuz my partner and I both have bad eyesight lol. But this was a great video.
Sok Eyesight isn’t that important in modern society anyway plus the optician industry is employing lots of people 😂
-Person who also has a bad eyesight 😅
It's important its good enough with glasses for seeing the computer screen clearly and for driving.
If i ever have kids I may well look into gene editing as theres quite a few things id want to improve including eye sight.
Pikachu Love uh kinda too late for that hahah
don't worry, a lot of what this dude says is wrong. He just throws some facts here and there, not everything he says is true.
IS0T0P3_90
They didn't say eyesight in itself wasn't important, they said that in modern society, it doesn't have to be good, especially naturally. You can live a perfectly content life with not so good eyes, and if you can't, there's always glasses.
Brother where are you
Do you have any citations on this? I'd like to read more about it.
about 9:50 should the last sperm number read "mobility"? or what do you mean with "motility"?
The technical term for a sperm’s ability to move is ‘motility’
Don’t even forget about epigenetics fam
Good point, but for this video it would have probably gone too far. In fact epigenetics would deserve whole stand-alone video!
Hmm. I wonder what kind of genes do Jake Paulers have 🤔?
a good summary, but if I may suggest you didn't really cover some key points:
1) our intelligence (which created that technology) is a strong genetic selector for survival, sure its only a percentage of the population, but as a society we drag the rest along with us. So this is a trait which is still highly selected for
2) what is "beneficial" as a selector may not be good ...but depending on the environment may be a survival gene cite sickle cell anaemia and malaria
3) many organisms (such as Ants) are highly successful as a group but would (must) fail alone (most are sterile), they are prodigious modifiers of their environment and in many cases specialists at even providing food (via fungi for instance) to provide them with either food supplements or indeed essential vitamins as needed which are not provided in the outer environment.
So its complex.
Lastly its all to easy to play into the hands of "Eugenicists" ... so just be careful there.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Best Wishes
intelligence is strongly selected for? this goes against both research and observable reality.
youre just coping. the future is brown and 85 iq
Great video!
this video deserves at least 10 million views
What about the Flynn Effect? Most countries have iq bound socio economic hierarchies and women still select on this factor. Since most of our capabilities are now based on mental faculties, selection pressures might have receded to implicit phenotypes
There are a few problems with this
1 not only women but men also select by intelligence, in fact men do it in equal proportion, otherwise our neocortexes would be different as in most species while in ours they aren't
2 the Flynn effect makes people achieve a greater potential, but the overall genes have not changed over time, in fact with the exception of the intellectually impaired, it's probably reasonable to assume that everyone has basically although small differences exist the same potential, it's a matter of nurture, so it has a minimal effect on intelligence
However, there is a thing that you are right about, we're getting smarter as 96% of all genetically intelectually compromised fetuses get aborted, that's why despite having kids later and later, there are fewer and fewer down syndrome kids
@@alezar2035 Maternity was virtually guaranteed throughout history though, meaning men’s pressure elicited on women is definitely reduced as selective powers are predominantly evoked by females. Furthermore women do have thicker cortices than men, with the prefrontal lobe developing especially quicker, although I’m not familiar with any adaptive heuristics concerning (neo)cortex thickness. If this is just your guess about the workings of selection in terms of smarts, it seems weak.
Contemporary genetics research suggests 80% of g being inherited. Not sure where you get your ideas from, however, nurture interventions generally appear lackluster, if not outright impotent in comparison, yet in fairness nothing is truly certain at this point.
@@Sheeshening while maternity has been guaranteed, so has paternity, since the dawn of agricultural society, every male and every female have almost guaranteed to be able to pass their genes, look at abrahamic religions, the pressure exerted my males is equal to that of females when the society expects every single one of their to have children, this is very important in most societies, we no longer have the sexual selection of early humans and most cultures for the last 6000 years have put a lot of emphasis on every male being able to have kids
Secondly, the fact that the difference in hormones between the sexes makes a difference in puberty and the speed at different stages of brain development, does not mean that the neocortex is statistically the same in males and females, yes there are very slight statistical differences as for the most recent analysis, however they are wide enough for most female and male brains to overlap completely, as our species is remarkably similar in intelligence between the sexes in every aspect there is to it, this has been observed in Trans individuals whose brain corresponds to the opposite sex and requires certain hormones the body can't provide, thus dysphoria, yet the neocortex is always OK, there are no problems of compatibility there, and many choose to remain of their previous gender even if their functional sex has changed
Regarding intelligence, it's a metric that is very hard to cuantify and depending on the definition and experiments conducted, you can arrive to any percentage of nurture, that's why there is such disparity in every intelligence paper, ranging from 20 to 90% with their methodology being correct, however it seems like, most general intelligence aspects are almost guaranteed and offer little to no variation between individuals, which makes sense from an evolution standpoint, since you don't need a few genius to survive but a very high intelligence average, the former are developed through the cultivation of abstract thinking, although as I said, this is not standardized as intelligence can be redefined however you wish
@@alezar2035 well that’s mostly false, the tremendous gap reached far beyond 6kya, with the alignment being a more recent thing of the last millennium. Either way, average men are still rated far below average by women, displaying intrinsic differences beyond superficial cultural themes. This is surprisingly unknown, given the transparent nature of our differences.
Most female and male brains don’t overlap at all. It takes a lot of work to make a look at brains that have
1:42 I'm not even a math nerd and even I got the joke XD
Another great video. Thanks!
This is the greatest channel of all time.
Danish? Actually I feel like I've heard this guys voice before on another RUclips channel.
Your best video to date. Simply excellent. I was laughing with absolute glee by the end of it. Very rare that somebody carries their thinking all the way through and looks at what can be systemically encouraged (namely technological growth/development) to prevent, revert, and otherwise improve potential social and biological stagnation/regression.
Thanks, much appreciated - I put a lot of work in this one.
I Agree, I watch so much RUclips, that I rarely encounter something that provides me with new information. This however, was an exception.
Mikael Wendt
Well, not to push anything political (as I don't really consider this to be so), what I suggest people expose themselves to is the philosophical, structural, economic, and moral ideals of a Resource Based Economy. The film which I feel serves as a good starting place/introduction is Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (free on RUclips and also on Netflix). With every passing day, science and technology is pointing more and more in this direction, and there's more and more material to absorb which clearly shows this kind of trajectory as something needed to be embraced.
Hope you take a moment to check it out :)
I have planed to watch that for some time now, thank you for reminding me :)
Mikael Wendt
Nice :)
Its funny you showed blue eyes during the sight portion because blues are actually the result of a mutation and unfortunately a worse one because they are more susceptible to light and thus easily damaged by it, and yet blue eyes are still rather common
I wonder if things like Attention Deficit Disorder, Allergies, Autism, and other conditions we have only recently begin to see emerge are the result of this reduction in selective pressures caused by advancing societies???
The concept of natural selection is a bit misrepresented here. It's not about a hierarchy or who is 'the best'. It is about who has the best adaptation to a specific environment.
Humans might be losing the genetic traits that helped them survive in a world without civilization, since they are for the most part not living in such an environment anymore.
Some of the traits that helped us survive in a hunter-gatherer society, such as good eyesight and athleticism, might be seen as desirable by many and they might be (re)implemented with genetic engineering (as implied in the video) - but other traits that formerly helped us to survive can be regarded as quite counterproductive in today's society.
Ever wondered why before a job interview or an important exam many of us suffer from stress and anxiety almost worthy of a life-death situation - even though a calm focused state of mind might be much more useful in that situation?
Ever wondered why most people are very easily swayed from rational and informed decisions as soon as they are under peer pressure?
Ever wondered why a substantial part of international politics diplomacy is still based on threats and mutual assured destruction even though any world war would likely mean near total annihilation of our civilization?
Having an adrenaline rush in dangerous situations, adhering to a group, threatening and attacking perceived enemies with lethal violence: All these traits helped our ancestors survive in the environment that came before civilization.
The question is whether these traits are adequate to our new main habitat. A very difficult question, since we don't know whether civilization will be a longlasting and expanding phenomenon or a short-lived aberration quickly ended either by our own actions or by a major natural cataclysm.
Beyond those heavy mutations that are obviously hampering with an individuals immediate survival chance, it is not so clear whether a mutation is 'good' or 'bad'. Only time will tell.
Super Partes only time will tell if mutation keeps on being in the hands of randomness.
But that's not the case with engineered evolution, if we are going to do this ourselves we need to have a goal, no? How's a better eyesight for a start? Yes, it hasn't really had a goal yet, but that will change, and I suspect selection will start happening in a different aspect, some humans will select different options than others for themselves, some of those will help them a lot more than the other options, selection becoming a part of the market instead.
Super Partes btw, I do agree that some options are better than others, it seems to me that selecting your partner by physical fitness alone (height, muscularity), which...some, people do, instead of more modern problems (like intelligence or wealth, which is easier to get if you are smart so) is more akin to genetic suicide.
The goal should evolve as the environment does, that's literally what adaptability means.
But what do I know.
I will not have childrens, because I don’t want to pass my genes.
And even if I wanted to have childrens, I couldn’t... #virgin4life
Zorg so it's just that you can't
@@AlessPlayingLikeaPro Lmao that was a little harsh but yeah that's what they meant
This was an amazing video! Great!
We're going to need this new genetic engineering tech to overcome any "great barriers" our population encounters in the future.
So that myth about babies came with storks are fake?
No, of course not! Some are even delivered by flamingos!
russell dunning hahaha
Zomaikel z
I feel like a failure now
Tim van de Goor why
Good, do something about it.
AndersGenaamd I can’t really do anything to fix a chronic untreatable illness :/
I understand but does that mean you have to feel like a failure? No. It's a feeling. You still can be a winner in other places so try to find them.
I feared the ending. But then it was optimistic ! Thank you
if it's true that I'm the result of however long it took to get to me, then I think there was a mistake somewhere... I tend to hate life and pretty much get depressed when I'm bored. heck, even writing this is enough to keep me from getting bored... like fidgeting with my hands is enough to keep me from getting depressed and it's also the same reason I get bored easily. I hate that part of me, the part that straight up analyzes the situation and complain about what doesn't feel right instead of appreciating the fact that something else there feels just fine. guess if I ever have kids later in life, I'd at least know what they would be trying to say when they start acting like me. I know asking for shit like getting mugged by hundred people at night is something that I should never ask for... but life is too boring as it is for me. I need something like that to cure my boredom and unappreciative view of everything if it doesn't end up the way I wanted it to.
Evolution never stops. Even today natural selection is taking place. The problem is how we view evolution today. We see evolution as specific trait that need to be boosted(eye sight, speed, strength etc), by that logic a gorilla would be more ''evolved'' than a human. I don't see any time soon a gorilla driving a car, in the other, I doubt any human can wrestle a gorilla in the wild bare handed. My point is, if a certain trait isn't improving, it simple means we don't need it in our current environment. If our strength is decreasing, it means we don't need gorilla like strength in our environment. If our eye sight is decreasing, it means we don't need eyes like hawk. Those traits were simple product of our past environment. Basically we are perfect to our current environment and evolution will keep improving us to our CURRENT environment. Whether it be social skills or better learning skills, or perhaps something third, regardless it is our current environment that determines our evolution. Therefor we shouldn't judge our current state with the criteria of our past environments. I highly doubt Ghengis khan would win any nobel peace price in our environment, like wise, we wouldn't be having the same fun in the mongol horde as they had. Evolution is determined by the environment and isn't a RPG leveling stats.
Do you know what devolution means? The meaning of devolution: Moving of power or responsibility from a main organization to a lower level, or from central government to local government.
Yeah, perhaps it is happening in some countries or organizations, but it has nothing to do with genes ^_^
Evolution never stops, no matter what. Some animals become bigger, other becomes smaller, both are part of EVOLUTION. As I said before, evolution isn't a leveling stat, like in games. What matters for evolution is that you survive. As long you survive, it doesn't matter if you're big or small. Literally nothing matters as long you survive. And it is a big misconception that humans aren't evolving today. In fact, they're evolving in a very fast speed today.
DSM0305 evoliution is like a program, a kinda shitty one, you can easily trick it to make creatures weaker or stronger, dumber or smarter. We dont need strength, but we do need intelligence, which is something that is falling, these people dont need it, but the future generations will!
Its quite a good program, if I had to say it myself. As you said, we need intelligence, both current generation and the future. And that where the evolution comes and plays its part correctly. The statistics shows, that the average IQ of people is increasing all across the globe. The people who are making the IQ tests, are deliberately making them harder as the times pass on, because they want the average IQ to stand at 100 points. If people from modern society took an IQ test, let say from 1930, they would be considered genius and score quite high at the test. So as you see, the nature will always make the animal, in this case, humans more suited for the environment they live ind.
"If people from modern society took an IQ test, let say from 1930, they would be considered genius and score quite high at the test."
Cite?
I thought most mutations are benign?
Yeah, it's just that most mutations that actually have an impact are negative.
Depends really, many substitution mutations ate benign as they code for the same amino acid, but if a base is deleted it's very different... Look up frame shift and substitution mutations.
Plus sometimes entire genes or chromosomes are duplicated or removed.
> _Plus sometimes entire genes or chromosomes are duplicated or removed._
Well d'uh, but e.g. Down's syndrome is a dead-end anyway.
Ungoogleable o_O Just making a point that mutations happen at every genetic level, not just the level we think.
I was just about to comment about CRISPR and less than a second after that, you mentioned it. Haha
I can actually read minds retrospectively
Great microphone ! I recognize your voice ! GODSPEED and try to stay out of “ trouble” ! 😘😁
Exactly the reasons why I do not want kids. It's too selfish to pass on all my genetic errors to the gene pool. I think it's best I die alone!
Pikachu Love You can always adopt!
Take it a step further and start killing obese and ugly people starting with me
You don't have to die alone. Adopting children and finding a spouse is fine just don't have sex without some form of contraception or destroy the possibility of conception by removing your uterus/getting a vasectomy.
Jack Blackthorn Because bringing a child into your home is the same as watching a black guy bang your wife.
Obesity isn't genetic. It's just caused by people eating too many carbs and sugar, both of which provoke hunger, don't fill the stomach efficiently and don't allow for efficient nutrient absorption.
Greens, EVOO, meat, eggs, fish, black beans (1 serving a day or less), non-microwave popcorn (1 serving a day or less) are all filling, high in nutrients and digest slowly, but efficiently. If people ate more of these and less garbage, they would not be part of the growing obesity statistic.
Another thing a lot of people don't do: intermittent fasting. Science has proven this is also good for you. You don't need breakfast in the morning, you don't need 3 meals a day and carbs are not the most important food group. Those are corporate-sponsored lies we've been told for decades, now.
Interesting ideas. I dont really get what you meant though around 4:12 when you say we are playing the game on easy settings. I think even you disagree with this.Its not easy because we are creating less fit offspring. And just because we dont have natural selective pressures like tigers, we have monetary and social pressures that have pushed the average mother age way too late. Tinder is also not an example of a positive. Its another negative, where people have what they think is unlimited choices and skews their views of a positive relationship. I disagree with a lot of what you are advocating.
Good point. Btw I’m not sure what you think I’m advocating?
I didnt agree that you are advocating that it is easier for humans to reproduce and have children now. I disagree. I would argue that life would be simpler and easier 100 years ago. (obviously there was no Penecillin and things like that but i am discussing in regards to ease of life and ability to raise children on a fixed income). You are also taking a very negative look at mutation. Yeah bad mutations like reduced eyesight have proliferated but what about the ones that have created Usaine Bolt speed or increases in brain capacity? There is really no way to tell if we are "bad survivors" because there can always be a freak bottlenecking event that can kill large amounts of people or small events in peoples lives that can make changes to fertility that could not be foreseen.
read500 you are on easy mode, in the old meta you were not likely to reach your current age, now you are not likely to die until your 70s.
The reproductive side of things definitely got a de buff as the average natality is lowering on developed countries, but this only exacerbates the gene pool problem because only a few people want to burden themselves with kids and the rest are people dumb enough to accidentally have them.
there is a lot of evidence about how our lifestyle is the reason of the bad eye sight, so we should not blame genetics for that so easily.
Also, alpha male? There is a lot of assumptions and beliefs in this video.
It IS easy mode.
Statistically speaking, if you lived 200 years ago, you would have been a serf or working your body to the bones in the coal mines.
Half your children would die before the age of 5 and you'd die at the age of 30 because your longs are filled with coal dust.
Yess Austria 🇦🇹 rocks muscle 💪
very helpful video, thanks for all your hard work, it pays of for me my friend
most random mutation's produce neutral results (no change) as the mutations can occurs out of the reading frame for a gene.
I will be a genetic engineer i hope i get a chance to engineer a baby
Seems like a great career. It will be the future anyway. Look up Transhumanism. It's our next stage. When we have 100% control over DNA. :)
reading that at first it sounded creepy but now it sounds awesome
David Taeyong Fucking hell you want designer babies
David Taeyong personally, I dont really like the thought of "designer babies" but whatever
Rebeka Nickell Well i think if it is regulated it can be good, we shouldn't go overboard. The biggest reason why we need to do it is because we have stopped natural and sexual selection, and therefore evolution isn't working right, so we are regressing and becoming more incompetent. A good example is loss of eyesight. It started to deteriorate when we started doing agriculture and has been deteriorating ever since, we have to do something about it.
This thesis rests on the assumption that something has "evolved to perfection", and underestimates the idea of "random mutation". Evolutionary pressures for humans also still exist, and some new ones even pop up that we have never had to deal with before (from mass wars, nuclear fallout, antibiotic super-resistance, etc.). Not everyone lives in highly developed, "technified" societies. The idea that a gene pool is getting "smaller" because of lower evolutionary pressure is also flawed, as there are more unrelated human individuals living at the same time than ever before; gene pool size is defined in terms of unrelated individuals, not lower evolutionary pressure.
We truly evolved through a randomized process not really geared toward a specific end besides reproduction of genetic material. There are plenty of mechanics around how creatures end up following that "directive", but none without a direct connection to environmental factors. We haven't stopped evolving, just like no other species has stopped evolving (until it's completely extinct): we all come from the same single ancestor, after all. We're just one version of it, just like everyone else...
tlamatini well, yes
I don't think it is about "being evolved to perfection", it is simply that there are some characteristics that would be seen as more desirable than others from our current point of view, I think we can all agree that getting worse eyesight sounds like a generally bad idea.
So we are aiming to a current goal and as we move on we'll know more stuff and that goal may change with time.
That's just the byproduct of making evolution a concious decision instead of a randomized option, we are starting to take evolution and put it into our own hands, and as such it needs to start having an actual goal.
Great 1,000 granddad - hunts woolly mammoth
great granddad - survived war and the great depression
Well done! Excellent video!
It's ridiculous how we can handle gene pool decline with eugenics done right instead of technology we don't have yet, but still consider everything that sound like eugenics to be "unethical".
We can't really handle it though, we think we can but we don't know what is good for human survival in the long run. We would pick traits based on our own societal and cultural bias to be passed on, and that might not be what ends up being best in the end. The issue with eugenics is: Who decides and on what basis? Are you going to be deciding? Is your neighbour going to be deciding? Is the government going to be deciding? Do you feel comfortable with having an authority that decides your genes shouldn't pass on, but instead the guy living next door to you gets to pass on his genes?
It just appears to be case, on the surface.
1. Bad Eyesight - It simply means those bad eyesight doesn't cause an early death due to unable to find food or being eaten/killed by a predator. The weakness is less becoming of a threat to their existence. Yet, like everyone else, there is still "pressure" for them to perform in society as good as others with good eyesight. Your fish eyesight explanation is slightly flawed. The fish without eyes simply means it is not necessary for survival which saves them energy/food. Eyesight is not necessary for finding food or avoiding death. Like all living things, we remove traits that aren't useful.
2. Infertility - I think it is not about IVF at all. Take the sexual preference of people who are not straight. Just based on natural selection, you'd expect them not to exist as only a fraction of them reproduce. Cutting it short, natural selection seems to be preferring a society with these people as they contribute much to the society. High reproduction is also less of a need in the modern world; people who don't reproduce is not a detriment to society.
There's an interesting talk on gay people stemming from genes, as in we all have a gay gene in us (or all mothers have a gene able to produce a gay child) and that, as you say, natural selection does indeed favour them at certain times; such as when the mother is experiencing heightened levels of stress through child bearing, or if they have already had 3/4 males born. They say this is likely because gay people are naturally more intelligent and caring, with the extra benefit of like not competing for shit, and so they are meant to bring the family unit together. It's only relatively recently that they have been ostracised, for most of history it was seem as natural as im sure they felt the benefits much more when competition to survive was fierce.
It, apparently I assume, would have reduced fighting within family units and thus make it more likely for them to pass on their genes.
Don't hate the gays lmao natural selection gave us them to take care of our children while we go to work 😂
zodiacfml Are you sure are eye sight is actually getting worst? From what I've seen, more people are becoming extreemly near sighted rather than far.
I was born with a terrible syndrome that has caused multiple mutations throughout my body, very fortunate to be alive.
As much as I would want to have a child of my own, I know that there's a high probability of them having the gene expressed, and if not then recessed in possible descendents.
Adoption isn't a bad thing, and if I find the right partner and they're okay with the decision, I'm all for it then having a child of my own.
I know from friends and other family members that adoption is just as good as your raising a child and your giving towards a life that doesn't deserve not to have some sort of parent figures.
8:33 - I died 😂😂😂
Fertility drop is relatively a good thing, it prevents over population.
Philly 737 not how it works
Elaborate
For now it may be a good thing, as overpopulation is becoming a problem. But very long time forward it may actually become a big problem again if too many people have become infertile. And we never know if our modern civilised society will last
Genetic Engineering = Homo Evolutis
If Not... Hello Idiocracy
It is regrettable that every time this problem is discussed, people always say, "CRISPR will save us!" Aside from the fact that every country thus far examined already has very restrictive laws against germline human engineering, there are also obstacles to substituting technology for natural or artificial selection that are so formidable that is is seemingly impossible to imagine how tech could possibly keep pace with the deterioration of the genome. It is not hard to understand the reasons why, yet unfortunately it takes way too many words to explain in a youtube comment.
Back before WW1, there were already many people who understood the dangers of breeding in the absence of selection to cull the lower quality specimens, perhaps because so many people still lived on farms or had grown up on farms, and that was why the eugenics movement was born. Now we not only have given up on addressing the problem, even though it has gotten much worse, but most people don't even seem to understand what the problem was that the eugenics movement sought to address. Nevertheless, just because we do nothing, does not mean that nature will do nothing, but by the time technology can no longer compensate for the decay of the genome, we will be sad and pitiable species and nature's culling will be ruthless. As William Hamilton wrote (google him if you don't recognize the name), "The hospitals are coming."
It's funny how I spontaneously started thinking about this exact same thing a couple of days ago and now RUclips recommends me this video xD.
Yea Google knows more about you than you think... 😉
I'm down for gene-editing and cloning.
Bring it on, China!
China really likes to violate human rights.
of which might be violating limits to greater discoveries
Google Acc wait you mean those white people who made the human rights or those who ended slavery in most of the world?
Just asking which of them we should discriminate against solely based on their skin color.
So you do not differentiate by race but by the color of the skin? Or do you base your prejudgment on the color of the skin and the birthplace?
And you do that in order to find the stereotypical "certain people"? And all these "certain people" are suspected to have a mental illness?
That suspiciously sounds like the way many people viewed the world before a certain group of "certain people" invented "certain thinking" and "certain ideas" in order to leave the middle ages behind.
Also, more then half of the white people live in Europe, don't group everybody together.
Okay, well if that is so I guess I go tell the white people. Last I have seen them they were busy building up civilization as we know it for 300 years. Or maybe they are back fighting an other big war. Or maybe they have gone building more churches in Europe and ignoring anything that can not conform to their religion. Funny how many things they have done in the last 500 years. They have been all over the place. Like if the color of their skin had nothing to do with anything (while their genetics only played a minor role) but the current mindset of their culture and the behavior of other cultures would fundamentally dictate their behavior.
But I mean that is nonsense, after all if that would be true we could have a nice conversation about the decline of the western world, the degeneration of the population and how it mimics the fall of rom, the rise of China by skillfully altering its own social structure and how that rise and fall could and probably has/will happen to every civilization on the planet.
Kind of sad, this could have been an interesting conversation but since everything is dictated by skin and genetics or the place of birth we will never have that conversation or wonder how a bunch of mentally ill retards ever rose to power in the first place.
Eugenics ftw
Arathorn Dezeus Eugenics does not work
Blake Blast according to who?
Thanks for giving me more cancer
According to logic. If you get rid of certain people due to a few negatives, you get rid of the positives they bring to the table too. Plus, the thousands of jobs that would be lost from losing the people who are typically considered underhanded and from those who work towards helping them will subsequently crash the economy.
edgy teen.
Eugenics would certainly work...given proper implementation and enough time. Artificial selection (eugenics in a sense) has given rise to such wonders as corn, sweet apples, dogs capable of herding sheep, and chickens who can lay eggs nearly every day. There is no reason to think such practices would not work on humans. In fact, as this video pointed out...civilization has already begun to alter us, it just so happens to be for the worse.
In order to sustain a civilization long term, those best at running and maintaining it must be selected for on a continual basis. Unfortunately, our current system seems to be doing the exact opposite, resulting in fewer providers, and ever more takers. Perhaps compounding the problem, advancing technology and automation is expected to displace most (if not all) low skill workers in the near future...which also happens to be the fastest growing demographic.
I really see no advantage in allowing the sickly, low IQ segment of society to outpace (reproductively) the healthy and/or high IQ population that provides for them. Without counter measures such as eugenics or crisper...such a system would seem destined to fail.
There is another mitigating factor you didn't mention. Human population is huge and ever growing, so even if selection pressure is lower, the gene pool is increasing. Another thing is that inbreeding is much lower than before, more people are born from parents from diferent races, countries, etc...
Bad eye sight is probably also increasing because of our artificial lights, LED/LCD computer screens, etc...
The Cave Tetra DOES have an advantage with no eyes, in that it can then use the energy those eyes would have taken up, and divert it into something more important for cave life.