I just picked up G: Bio-Tech 4e, with a particular interest in eugenics for an idea that had struck me. Anyway, I wanted to field opinions on a hypothetical situation, particularly those of you with stronger genetics backgrounds than me.
Scenario: c. 1990, a world power starts a eugenics program with the idea of cultivating intelligence operatives and other military specialists via genetic selection, as well as training from infancy. The initial primary goal is to develop counter-terrorist field agents, but those parameters expand as the program expands over time. G: Bio-Tech gives a range for game purposes of improvements that might be had over each generation that this eugenics program takes place. By the time c. 2170 arrives, an ongoing eugenics program would be in its 7-10th generation in vitro (the overlap because there would be pairings across a range of ages based on phenotype attributes-- that is, when one generation hits 18y/o, pairings are made, but the same generation might be used 10 years later if a promising pairing could be made with another genotype-- this, the second generation even would be conceived across an extended timeframe-- this would, of course, multiply over time-- anyway, I digress). Bio-Tech states that (on the stricter end), 1-2CPs in improvement might be seen per generation. More generously, it suggests possibly ONE ADVANTAGE might be gained per generation. I'd like to base this model somewhat realistically, so am fielding opinions-- what is realistic? According to my limited sources, such a program would likely recruit genotypes with high intelligence and a talent for languages, good 3-D spatial/hand-eye coordination, toughness/durability, strong will, and athleticism. In a eugenics situation, wouldn't you start with the best you could find? For example, I'd get the genotype of Steve Young or someone like him (former 49ers QB). He's smart-- got his law degree, and probably has a reasonable talent for language. Obviously has good hand-eye coordination, good at 3-d spatial tasks with his hand-eye coordination (throwing the football), durable, and athletic (ran a 4.5 40 in his prime). I might pair him with a similar female genotype. Clearly, someone like Steve Young is representative of that combo of attributes somewhat towards the pinnacle of what humans have to offer. So my question is-- even if paired with a similar female genotype, what would the normal distribution of genetic pairings (i.e. offspring) look like? Assume that a eugenics program could artificially fertilize 100-ish zygotes and grow them in test tubes. Given that Steve Young and his pair are both at the rarified high end of the distribution, how much do their offspring shift the distribution beyond normal? FrEx, if one pairs a ST12 DX15 IQ13 HT14 Steve Young with a similar female genotype, what is the distribution of their offspring? Yes, some will be Attribute 10 across the board, but that certainly won't be the average. What is more "realistic"? Especially as one sustains a eugenics program over the generations (and certainly phenotype stability will be one of the attributes such a program would look for). For example, I'd be a decent candidate (except that I'm a wimp) because across the generations of my family, we've been blessed with above-average smarts and athleticism--> whereas someone smarter and more athletic that's an aberration in his genetic lineage might not be as desirable... My inclination is to take the Bio-Tech recommendations, but use the attributes of my base genetic stock (that is, the attributes of Steve Young) as the starting point. One would sift the best offspring off the top for pairing with other candidates from the larger gene pool (to avoid inbreeding) and go again. After 10 generations, I get Steve Young plus 10cps for attributes/advantages at a minumum, or Steve Young plus 10 advantages at best... One question that might help-- does anyone know approximately how many generations it takes for a beetle species to go from flight to flightless when placed in an environment that is highly selective against flight, for example? Does that number even come close to modeling a similar circumstances in humans? How quickly would I have almost all 7-foot humans if we only allowed seven-footers to reproduce with each other, and nobody else? Is it 1-2 generations, or 10, or more? I think probably only 1-2, to be honest. But, that's why I'm asking-- and a collection of attributes is a lot more complicated... Anyway, thanks for the insights... -vk _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
