Newsgroups: comp.ai.genetic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!metro.atlanta.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!128.100.1.3!utcsri!utgpu!utinfo!nntp
From: Leonardo Villagran <leo.villagran@utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Beyond Cloning
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: milt.dialin.utoronto.ca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <33158A17.2025@utoronto.ca>
Sender: nntp@utcc.utoronto.ca (News)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: University of Toronto
References: <01bc22aa$e513dc40$a8b4aec7@default> <atticus-ya023580002502970207420001@news.mindspring.com> <01bc2335$1a2c9720$eba2aec7@default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:20:23 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Lines: 70

Rad wrote:
> 
> Andy Walton <atticus@DELETE-TO-REPLY.mindspring.com> wrote
> 
> > Why two "Aryan" males?
> 
> Sperm carries the complete variety of human genes (besides mitochondrial).
> Harvesting eggs from females is expensive. Getting sperm from males costs
> nothing.
> 
> > No method to
> > combine two sperm into one individual exists
> 
> Inject them into an ovum. It should work.
> 
> > Your dismissal of women rejects even their role as mothers.
> 
> Bearing a fetus is not the same as being a mother.
> 
> > You are assuming that a YY embryo would be non-viable.
> 
> No mammal can live without an X chromosome. Many vital genes lie there,
> including the gene for blood clotting factor.
> 
> > Since you have relegated procreation to the meeting of two sperm, I can
> > only assume that the men in your little Utopia would lead lives of
> > homosexuality or chastity.
> 
> My method would produce an equal number of males and females, if the
> proportion of X to Y sperm is adjusted. I assumed that these people will
> marry each other and produce children in the usual way.
> 
> > If you want to "resurrect" the "Aryan religion" (concocted by swarthy
> > little Mediterranean people),
> 
> The ancient Greeks were basically of Nordic and Alpine stock. Their
> religion was similar to that of other Aryans living throughout Europe and
> Asia.
> 
> > how would you explain to your little
> > Neo-Spartans all of the myths surrounding women and goddesses?
> 
> I am in favor of multi-theism as a religion (tho I am personally an
> atheist).
> 
> Rad

It is tempting to take your views to task on the basis of your 
politics, which I find to be deplorable and ignorant.  But let's stick 
to the biology...  What did you foresee as the ecological consequences 
of a sudden, massive population explosion?  Your desire to keep up 
with the Joneses (or Goldbergs, in this case) will put an even greater 
load on the limitied resources available.  The situation is bad enough 
as it is, without developing new ways of mass-producing humans (BTW, 
wouldn't you need one heck of a welfare state to foster all of these 
new children?).  Oh, and in the interests of "objective history", 
while you are correct in pointing out that the ethnic heritage of 
modern Greeks is different than that of the Ancient Greeks, the 
mythology of the Ancient Greeks is Indo-European in derivation, 
specifically, Sumerian, Babylonian and Hittite (let's not forget the 
Phoenecians), all of whom were swarthy short people.  Someone who is 
so obviously well educated in the biological sciences should know 
better than to want to select a population on the basis of something 
so arbitrary as "race".  Increasing heterozygosity (not homozygosity) 
is advantageous from an evolutionary perspective.  
-- 
Leonardo Villagran
University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada
leo.villagran@utoronto.ca
