General subjects with a focus on philosophy, morals, epistemology, basic income, the singularity, transhuman
The Short End - For Real
Published on August 28, 2004 By Phil Osborn In Pure Technology
So, a woman inherits some nasty genetic defect that blocks production of some key protein. What happens? Typically little or nothing, because that defect is only expressed in 50% of her cells. Most of the time, the same is true for us men.

However, if the defect is on the X chromosome, of which (most) women have two copies, but (most) men only have one, then the men who inherit it will typically die, if they even make it to term, while the women will live And (most) women do not have a Y chromosome at all, so they will never see a defect on that chromosome.

My point? Is life unfair? Not. Turns out there's a reason operating here. You really don't need all that many men... In a typical primitive tribe of the kind that our ancestors lived in for a few million years or so, you only need enough men to fight off the wild beasts and the nasty neighbors. And, since most women died young of childbed fever or other complications of being continuously pregnant from 12 years old until death, you really needed some ways of dealing with the surplus men anyway.

So, the nasty bad mutant genes that wouldn't be expressed in women - or not to the same degree, would get eliminated altogether on the male side, by their early death. At the same time, women were scarce and at a premium, as they died anyway by their mid-thirties, so you wouldn't want to test new genes, good or bad, on the mothers, not when you've got all those useless extra males running around causing trouble. Thus, the males, as usual, are the genetic test beds. They take the risks, both behaviorally, and also genetically.

However, this only works if the new gene is on the X or Y chromosome. Otherwise, it hits women just as hard in most cases. Ideally, any new unknown variants of a gene would show up first on the Y chromosome, so that only men would be affected. Then, if it passed muster as an improvement, or at least not a serious flaw, via recombinations, the gene could drift over onto any of the other chromosomes, where both sexes would benefit.

Since this would be the ideal, the logical questions to ask are: Is this ideal realized in actual nature? And, if so, how? And, if we how how, then what implications are there for internal management of genes that might impact other areas?

Could there be a mechanism by which new genes are somehow recognized as such and systematically shunted to the X or Y chromosomes for testing? And, once a gene has made it there, is there a way that a kind of "aging" tag system could be employed by the cell to give it the seal of approval? This would certainly be nice, if the case.

Comments
on Aug 28, 2004
Good article. Excellent reason to go into bio-engineering. But unfortunately almost all polical figuers in the modern day are against any type of medical modifications to genes on humans. They do have a point but at the same time think of all the possiblities that could be produced!
on Aug 28, 2004
Nice article! Especially as I came into it thinking you would be defending your sexual preference! you get the Insightful.
on Aug 29, 2004
This is the kind of thing that I wake up thinking in the middle of the night. Usually I forget it, as I'm too lazy to write it down. Anyway, I suspect that genetic modification is out of control, politically, at least long run. For example, since the original work came out publically on the "marathon mice," regarding the muscle growth enhancement via genetic modification, there have been a plethora of news pieces appearing about expected grey/black market uses of prototype versions of the same process by atheletes, made more interesting in the light of the Olympics and all the furor over drugs.

I'm absolutely confident that these guys you see in Tijuana, straight from Venice Beach, with the biceps the size of douglas firs, will pressure the same doctors who provide them with the steroids to give them the shots of the viruses that make even more muscle, or the same amount with little relative effort. Add in all the people with muscle wasting problems due to age or other medical difficulties - the process worked on the mice regardless of age, and most of the hip fractures, etc., that the elderly are prone to are due indirectly to muscle failures, not bone weakness alone. So, there is going to be a HUGE incentive for whatever and whoever can bring out a product.

Along similar lines, I am totally certain, that, barring the collapse of technological civilization as such, we will see ethnic shots or pills any day now, and certainly within ten years. Your skin color will be a matter of style, rather than inheritance. I personally would prefer being black, all things being equal (so to speak), as it gives a substantial protection against UV damage.

The disgusting thing is that at some point all the work that we health nuts put into our bodies may turn out to be wasted effort and the tobacco addicted couch potatoes may outlive us on by virtue of the money they have earned that buys them genetic fixes for all the problems created by their irresponsibility. Those of us who worked out religiously will only have our worn-out joints to show for it, while the rich will parade around in the latest custom genetically enhanced body.

If you don't think that's likely, consider that mainland China now reports not only a multi-billion dollar cosmetic surgery business has sprung up overnight, but they actually have contests for the best surgically enhanced body. This future is starting to get interesting again.Link

on Aug 29, 2004
Thanks. So far as I know, nobody is looking into this, so I figured I ought to bring it up. A couple decades back, I kept telling people that I absolutely refused to believe that most of the DNA was just useless junk, but nobody was looking there because of the common wisdom. Now we know that there are entire unsuspected systems of metaDNA programming that depend upon the short RNAs produced by the "junk."

Similarly, W. Donner Denkla gave - around 1980 - what appeared to me to be a rock solid argument for the existence of a "death gene," that set a maximum lifespan for a given species. He was ignored because of the common wisdom that death genes would never happen because genetic selection only applies to individuals, which also turns out to be false. I couldn't find anyone in the bio-research community of the time who was interested in trying to replicate Denkla's research. However, about the same time, the first evidence of telomeres was being reported, and they turn out to pretty much satisfy Denkla's criteria.Link