> > Unless your parents were selectively bred like livestock to produce you, 
> > I don't think you can make that case...  :-)
>
> I'm saying that my parents selected each other, and that they did so
> because (among other reasons) each wanted the other's genes to be
> mixed with their own in the offspring that they were planning.
>
> What does it matter that they were selecting to produce their own
> offspring, rather than the offspring of two unrelated animals?That doesn't matter.  What does matter
is that they were going on phenotypes,
and didn't engineer the genetics.  That
example makes a good case for natural
selection, but not for artificial.(do "married people live longer" because
of the benefits of matrimony, or because
acceptable health is one of the qualities
selected for in spouses?)Of course, if there are FoRKs with six
or fewer biological great grandparents
(or who are offspring of Wilt) I should
eat my words; otherwise, the micro/macro
distinction seems much more relevant.-Dave> I guess that the reason that I disagree is that some groups arguing
> against any checks on genetic engineering use that same argument -
> "we've been doing it since prehistory, so we don't need to apply any
> caution today".One can also view that argument as a case
for checks: livestock owners have, over a
period of millenia, altered the genetics
of their herds to be dumber, meatier, and
more tolerant of industrial living, so if
caution is in order, they are some of the
least likely people to volunteer it.
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
