>>12650716>Yes. That's literally the point of genetic engineering.No you retard. They won't go:
>"Yes. I would like this exact sequence, at the 14th chromosome please. Insert it exactly after the 11th GCTATCGGTTTGGCTATATAAATTGC."They'd just ask for blond hair, chad chin, blue eyes, pale skin, pink trunk top that says "Ouch!", and muscular body.
>which humans are very clearly not selecting for in a broad sense as we have enough tech to divorce us from "natural" selection pressures.No. As long as natural reproduction is in play, it is not divorced.
It only becomes divorce when your genes don't dictate who you procreate with naturally and just go to a baby printing company to build your baby's genes like legos.
Artificial selection is when we use the natural procreation process to selectively breed a specific phenotype in animals, by semen injection or by locking 2 animals together.
It still does not circumvent natural procreation. It just funnels it. There are still a set of genes that die out and other survive.
>When we use technology to select for traits we think are best for fitting into our environment the distinction becomes meaningless as we are the ones altering ourselves not an outside observer setting up exterior parameters.Do you really think we will select for someone who is not optimized for all traits in an environment?
We would go for the buffest, hottest, smartest, genes we can. Regardless of environment. This is when evolution dies, this is not artificial selection.
The very basic backbone besides how we define the outer looks when modifying genes, is not evolution.
The environment will cease to matter. People won't be able to predict what will happen in their child's lifetime to really optimize it for its life.
This is different from either forms of selection. This is just flat out building your baby like legos. Evolution will transcend to baby printing factories layer that would be selected for with the best genes set to print.
