Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the placenta evolved from an ancient virus (2020)

whyy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 130 posts

Re: How the placenta evolved from an ancient virus (2020)

#31

Post by pfdietz »

badosu wrote: post #9
ta8645 wrote: post #3

It's a little odd to consider the idea that fighting off modern viruses today, might actually be impeding human evolution in some way we can't foresee.

It is required some process of natural selection for mutations to be selected against, do we know how this occurs with the modern homo sapiens?

Unless you think our ancestral biology is perfectly adapted to the modern world, evolution will be acting. Indeed, evolution is probably occurring on humanity at a breakneck pace right now, because our environment has changed so radically.

Re: How the placenta evolved from an ancient virus (2020)

#32

Post by vlovich123 »

jmyeet wrote: post #28
mlcrypto wrote: post #14

Kinda morbid thinking about all the failed mutations as laying eggs evolved into the placenta

Here's another sobering thought: you represent an unbroken chain from the universal common ancestor of successful reproduction going back billions of years and probably trillions of generations (given that many of those were as a single-celled organism). Every one of those generations a success. So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success. Here's another: you have 2…

Humans are social animals. It’s myopic I think to only evaluate based on reproduction and genetic propagation. For example, most bees and ants are not involved in reproduction but they are all involved in helping the species survive into the future. So even if you don’t reproduce you have a critical role to play in society (helping it stay cohesive, helping productivity, helping through your work efforts, helping your friends and family raise children who can help humanity survive and be good humans themselves etc)

Re: How the placenta evolved from an ancient virus (2020)

#33

Post by vlovich123 »

ta8645 wrote: post #21
omeid2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a future mutation was necessary to save humanity Even in that scenario, it is very simple, we protected the people today and use vaccines to induce the necessary mutation. The moral choice in my book is to always err on the side of the living than "potential of the living".

That's your personal calculus, and fair enough. World leaders might make a different decision though. For instance, the British military planners allowed soldiers to die on the battlefield, who they could have saved, in order to protect the secret that they had cracked German encryption during WWII. That was a place where the needs of the many, were deemed more valuable than the lives of the few. I'm not judging one…

That isn’t as hypothetical a situation though as what you outline which is preventing a mutation now that may be important tens, hundreds of thousands of years or maybe even millions from now. There’s so much time for technology to evolve to make it likely that any negative effects can be countered through that as technology can deal with problems on a much shorter time scale than evolution can.

Re: How the placenta evolved from an ancient virus (2020)

#34

Post by vlovich123 »

ta8645 wrote: post #19
boredgargoyle wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are probably thousands (and my guess would be much more) viruses that that dance on the information playground that is our genome, metagenome, and the genomes of the organisms we host. Fighting a few of them is probably not going to be a significant issue. Having more individuals around by itself would also lead to mutations which the environment may select for in the future. By itself there is no such thing as…

You're really missing the point -- there's no way to know the future. Maybe your optimism is warranted, but maybe we stamped out a virus that would have given us a superpower. The argument is _not_ that we should change our strategy of doing the best we can with the information we have. Just that we should have some humility about what we can and can't actually predict, or say with certainty.

Our superpower is developing technology. It’s unlikely evolution could ever outperform that as it operates on much slower time scales for adaptation. So any viral mutation now will only really manifest at population scale after hundreds of thousands of years whereas technology can do it within years or decades.

Re: How the placenta evolved from an ancient virus (2020)

#35

Post by mrphoebs »

vlovich123 wrote: post #32
jmyeet wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another sobering thought: you represent an unbroken chain from the universal common ancestor of successful reproduction going back billions of years and probably trillions of generations (given that many of those were as a single-celled organism). Every one of those generations a success. So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success. Here's another: you have 2…

Humans are social animals. It’s myopic I think to only evaluate based on reproduction and genetic propagation. For example, most bees and ants are not involved in reproduction but they are all involved in helping the species survive into the future. So even if you don’t reproduce you have a critical role to play in society (helping it stay cohesive, helping productivity, helping through your work efforts, helping you…

I doesn't seem like the above commenter was making a value judgement.

Re: How the placenta evolved from an ancient virus (2020)

#36

Post by Loughla »

vlovich123 wrote: post #32
jmyeet wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another sobering thought: you represent an unbroken chain from the universal common ancestor of successful reproduction going back billions of years and probably trillions of generations (given that many of those were as a single-celled organism). Every one of those generations a success. So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success. Here's another: you have 2…

Humans are social animals. It’s myopic I think to only evaluate based on reproduction and genetic propagation. For example, most bees and ants are not involved in reproduction but they are all involved in helping the species survive into the future. So even if you don’t reproduce you have a critical role to play in society (helping it stay cohesive, helping productivity, helping through your work efforts, helping you…

Genetic line =/= role to play in society.

Those are different things.

Re: How the placenta evolved from an ancient virus (2020)

#37

Post by vlovich123 »

mrphoebs wrote: post #35
vlovich123 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are social animals. It’s myopic I think to only evaluate based on reproduction and genetic propagation. For example, most bees and ants are not involved in reproduction but they are all involved in helping the species survive into the future. So even if you don’t reproduce you have a critical role to play in society (helping it stay cohesive, helping productivity, helping through your work efforts, helping you…

I doesn't seem like the above commenter was making a value judgement.

> So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success.

I’m responding to this and saying that’s not an accurate way to frame it. I’m saying you are participating in evolutionary success even if you don’t reproduce. For example, a more social family where there are siblings that don’t reproduce and instead invest in the success of the reproductive sibling’s offspring is still evolutionary success and would be being selected for through your whole families reproductive success as a whole rather than your individual success.

The argument being made here is similar to the argument that sterilizing would result in removal of genes from the pool - it doesn’t work because gene selection is very complicated and doesn’t solely rely on individual reproduction.

Re: How the placenta evolved from an ancient virus (2020)

#38

Post by lostlogin »

jmyeet wrote: post #28
mlcrypto wrote: post #14

Kinda morbid thinking about all the failed mutations as laying eggs evolved into the placenta

Here's another sobering thought: you represent an unbroken chain from the universal common ancestor of successful reproduction going back billions of years and probably trillions of generations (given that many of those were as a single-celled organism). Every one of those generations a success. So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success. Here's another: you have 2…

> At some point this number exceeds the number of organisms that were alive at that time so there are likely one or more individuals in the past who are direct ancestors to everybody

Wouldn’t this common ancestor be a certainty? Otherwise aren’t you betting that there were similar mutations in different lines?

Re: How the placenta evolved from an ancient virus (2020)

#39

Post by ta8645 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #34
ta8645 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're really missing the point -- there's no way to know the future. Maybe your optimism is warranted, but maybe we stamped out a virus that would have given us a superpower. The argument is _not_ that we should change our strategy of doing the best we can with the information we have. Just that we should have some humility about what we can and can't actually predict, or say with certainty.

Our superpower is developing technology. It’s unlikely evolution could ever outperform that as it operates on much slower time scales for adaptation. So any viral mutation now will only really manifest at population scale after hundreds of thousands of years whereas technology can do it within years or decades.

You're doing a lot of work to continue to miss the point. The point is not that we should embrace viruses in order to reap the benefits. Just that it is _POSSIBLE_ that a virus would turn out to be very beneficial to humanity, in the long run. We know this to be a fact, because of the article we're reading above.

The only point I'm hoping people will take, is that we shouldn't be so quick to make categorical statements about the future; like we know exactly how things will play out. I don't know for sure. You don't know for sure. The experts don't know for sure.

Re: How the placenta evolved from an ancient virus (2020)

#40

Post by vlovich123 »

ta8645 wrote: post #39
vlovich123 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our superpower is developing technology. It’s unlikely evolution could ever outperform that as it operates on much slower time scales for adaptation. So any viral mutation now will only really manifest at population scale after hundreds of thousands of years whereas technology can do it within years or decades.

You're doing a lot of work to continue to miss the point. The point is not that we should embrace viruses in order to reap the benefits. Just that it is _POSSIBLE_ that a virus would turn out to be very beneficial to humanity, in the long run. We know this to be a fact, because of the article we're reading above. The only point I'm hoping people will take, is that we shouldn't be so quick to make categorical statemen…

No, you’re assuming a counterfactual that isn’t necessarily true. If the virus hadn’t come along, humanity as it stands today may not exist but whatever animal was infected could potentially have kept reproducing / another virus would accomplish what happened anyway. Those are far more likely scenarios.

You’re taking an impossible to prove hypothetical that would require omniscient level reasoning and predictive powers to prove or disprove - it’s not a productive line of reasoning and you’re falling into the exact same trap you’re accusing others of doing. The WWII example is also highly flawed because that one was experts making strategically reasonable calls. Worrying about some hypothetical virus that in the distant future is critical is not strategically reasonable - it’s science fantasy.

Post reply on HN