From fork-admin@xent.com  Thu Jul 25 11:09:51 2002
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D890440D2
	for <jm@localhost>; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 06:09:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:09:07 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6P07Z416420 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:07:35 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 4FD5B29415E; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost.localdomain (pm3-8.sba1.netlojix.net
    [207.71.218.152]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8970F29414D for
    <fork@xent.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dave@localhost) by maltesecat (8.8.7/8.8.7a) id RAA07560;
    Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:06:49 -0700
Message-Id: <200207250006.RAA07560@maltesecat>
To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Subject: Re: [Baseline] Raising chickens the high-tech way
In-Reply-To: Message from fork-request@xent.com of
    "Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:35:03 PDT."
    <20020724213503.29233.28244.Mailman@lair.xent.com>
From: Dave Long <dl@silcom.com>
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@spamassassin.taint.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
    <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:06:49 -0700



> > 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


