{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5690", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5690, "subject": "Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "messages": 12, "voices": 7, "first": "2010-08-05T04:52:58+00:00", "last": "2010-08-06T01:53:04+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<0A589998-8CB7-4024-A68A-F47FFB410726@liftingfaces.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2010-08-05T04:52:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wolfe is quoted as thus...\n\n\"I didn't know that anybody was working in the Lamarckian area, today to be honest with you. I think somebody should be because I have never been convinced that Lamarck was wrong.\"\n\nLamarckism states that acquired traits are inherited.\n\nThis led me to a question that may have been covered...\n\nAre exultants a product of Lamarckism? It could explain the lingering height as a physical character trait, and might take less time than Darwinian theology to see an affect.\n\nIf so, were the original exultants genetically modified to be taller, more idealized, and more hierogrammatesque, and their offspring through a few iterations thus took on some of those genetically mutated characteristics into their own genes?\n\n...ryan" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4C5A724D.2070403@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-08-05T08:11:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": "<0A589998-8CB7-4024-A68A-F47FFB410726@liftingfaces.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8/4/2010 11:52 PM, Ryan Dunn wrote:\nWolfe is quoted as thus...\n\n\"I didn't know that anybody was working in the Lamarckian area, today to be honest with you. I think somebody should be because I have never been convinced that Lamarck was wrong.\"\n\nLamarckism states that acquired traits are inherited." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, but \"Lamarckism\" is not a product of Lamarck himself. Inheritance \nof acquired characteristics is an ancient idea in one form or another, \nand Darwin allowed something like it in his idea that somatic tissues \ngenerated heritable \"gemmules\" in response to the development or disuse \nof various organs.\n\nWikipedia says Lamark's contributions were that inheritance of new \ntraits is facilitated by an alchemical process that creates new \ncomplexity, and that existing traits could be adapted to the \nenvironment. This might be what Wolfe means when the BOTNS says that the \ncontinents shape new peoples into the form of the old." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Are exultants a product of Lamarckism? It could explain the lingering height as a physical character trait, and might take less time than Darwinian theology to see an affect." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exultant height seems to be a mixture of effects. Exultants' bastards \nare commonly believed to be taller than the common folk, which would be \nplausible if they were genetically modified \"supermen\". This prevents \ncommoners from posing as exultants, and lets the bastards be readily \nidentified for elimination or co-option before they are fully of age to \nmake real trouble. Ultan is almost certainly one of these supermen, \ngiven his impressive mental, physical, and charismatic traits other than \nhis blindness, and Thea and Thecla are likewise gifted with pleasing \nvoices and faces, deep thinking, and quickness if not strength.\n\nHowever, there is also talk of \"royal jelly\" being used to make them \ntaller still, and this has been speculated to be growth hormones or even \nthe actual glands taken from the khaibits, who don't have to be \nparticularly tall to serve their purpose. This might mean that some of \nthe exultant families were ennobled after the art of genetic \nmodification was lost or banned or simply withheld, and have to resort \nto individual growth treatments as they have not yet intermarried enough \nwith the older \"supermen\" stock. Vodalus may be an example of this kind, \nas he is described as very tall but slender, and only a little taller \nthan Thea.\n\nI've just now come across Master Gurloes' comment on Thecla's ancestry \nin SHADOW, Chapter VII that seems to confirm this: \"'Not just an armiger \nfamily. High blood.'\"" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\nIEEE Student Chapter Blog at\n< http://ieeetamut.org >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jack Smith", "address": "jack.smith.1946 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-05T10:22:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": "<0A589998-8CB7-4024-A68A-F47FFB410726@liftingfaces.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exultants could result from Darwinian evolution alone, without any genetic\nengineering. According to Wolfe, Severian is about 6' or 6'1\", and Thecla\nis a head taller (around 7' or 7'1\"). Male exultants seem to be about 7'6\"\nto 8'. Such heights are uncommon for us, but still within the range of\nthe possible. The tallest NBA player is 7'6\" and the tallest WNBA player is\n7'2\".\n\nImagine a planet colonized by NBA and WNBA players. Given 10 or 20\ngenerations and sexual selection in favor of height, you could get a\npopulation where the average height could be 7' to 8'.\n\nI used to live near David Robinson (7'1\"), the center for the NBA Spurs.\nOnce I was walking past his house and he and his two sons (about 10 or 12\nyears old) were outside his gate. The sons were taller than me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Ryan Dunn wrote:\nWolfe is quoted as thus...\n\n\"I didn't know that anybody was working in the Lamarckian area, today to be\nhonest with you. I think somebody should be because I have never been\nconvinced that Lamarck was wrong.\"\n\nLamarckism states that acquired traits are inherited.\n\nThis led me to a question that may have been covered...\n\nAre exultants a product of Lamarckism? It could explain the lingering\nheight as a physical character trait, and might take less time than\nDarwinian theology to see an affect.\n\nIf so, were the original exultants genetically modified to be taller, more\nidealized, and more hierogrammatesque, and their offspring through a few\niterations thus took on some of those genetically mutated characteristics\ninto their own genes?\n\n...ryan\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4C5AC79A.9020104@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-05T14:15:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": "<4C5A724D.2070403@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Wolfe is quoted as thus...\n\"I didn't know that anybody was working in the Lamarckian area, today \nto be honest with you. I think somebody should be because I have \nnever been convinced that Lamarck was wrong.\"\n\nLamarckism states that acquired traits are inherited." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, but \"Lamarckism\" is not a product of Lamarck himself. Inheritance \nof acquired characteristics is an ancient idea in one form or another, \nand Darwin allowed something like it in his idea that somatic tissues \ngenerated heritable \"gemmules\" in response to the development or \ndisuse of various organs." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, aspects of Larmarckism are making a comeback with the \nunderstanding that our bodies are determined by more than our DNA \nblueprints. The following is a link to an abstract of a study that \nargues that your longevity is significantly determined by whether your \ngrandparents experienced famine in their childhood.\n\nhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/x61m87x016213823/\n\nObviously, if a trait can be acquired across generations based on \nexperiences occurring before the second generation was even conceived, \nthis could --over time-- have an evolutionary effect.\n\nu+16b9" } ] }, { "message_id": "<44A14617-AF21-4283-AB52-E601EF5057E4@liftingfaces.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2010-08-05T14:42:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Does this mean that common folk should be notably shorter then? Severian's height, were he on our planet, in most Western cultures, wouldn't raise an eyebrow high enough to stir thoughts of exulted blood.\n\nI know his high cheekbones also indicates he may be some sort of Urthian bastard royalty, but I still wonder about the size of non exultant people of the Commonwealth.\n\n...ryan" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Aug 5, 2010, at 6:22 AM, Jack Smith wrote:\nExultants could result from Darwinian evolution alone, without any genetic engineering. According to Wolfe, Severian is about 6' or 6'1\", and Thecla is a head taller (around 7' or 7'1\"). Male exultants seem to be about 7'6\" to 8'. Such heights are uncommon for us, but still within the range of the possible. The tallest NBA player is 7'6\" and the tallest WNBA player is 7'2\"." } ] }, { "message_id": "<9051b0a30cec919ade290f46fd6e71d7.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-08-05T15:22:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": "<4C5AC79A.9020104@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Wolfe is quoted as thus...\n\"I didn't know that anybody was working in the Lamarckian area, today\nto be honest with you. I think somebody should be because I have\nnever been convinced that Lamarck was wrong.\"\n\nLamarckism states that acquired traits are inherited." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Yes, but \"Lamarckism\" is not a product of Lamarck himself. Inheritance\nof acquired characteristics is an ancient idea in one form or another,\nand Darwin allowed something like it in his idea that somatic tissues\ngenerated heritable \"gemmules\" in response to the development or\ndisuse of various organs." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, aspects of Larmarckism are making a comeback with the\nunderstanding that our bodies are determined by more than our DNA\nblueprints. The following is a link to an abstract of a study that\nargues that your longevity is significantly determined by whether your\ngrandparents experienced famine in their childhood.\n\nhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/x61m87x016213823/\n\nObviously, if a trait can be acquired across generations based on\nexperiences occurring before the second generation was even conceived,\nthis could --over time-- have an evolutionary effect." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This may or may not be an \"acquired\" trait so much as a flexible\nphenotype. There's also jazz like epigenetics and reversion that can\neffectively undo the adaptation in a small number of generations; we need\nmany generations to be sure. But this may not have been available to the\nauthor at the time of writing." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-08-05T15:35:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": "<44A14617-AF21-4283-AB52-E601EF5057E4@liftingfaces.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Does this mean that common folk should be notably shorter then? Severian's\nheight, were he on our planet, in most Western cultures, wouldn't raise an\neyebrow high enough to stir thoughts of exulted blood." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Commonwealth has poor nutrition and health care by our standards, and\nMaster Gurloes remarks on how this affects the growth of the apprentices\nin SHADOW." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I know his high cheekbones also indicates he may be some sort of Urthian\nbastard royalty, but I still wonder about the size of non exultant people\nof the Commonwealth." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The autocthons (natives) have even worse prospects and are described as\nsmall in several places. Apparently, this allows Father Inire to pass as a\nreally old shaman with rickets or something." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lane Haygood", "address": "lhaygood at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-05T15:38:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": "<9051b0a30cec919ade290f46fd6e71d7.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Lamarckism is making a comeback in the pseudoscience of evolutionary\npsychology.\n\nIt's still just as much crap as Lamarckism is, but the spectre of\nheritable acquired traits just will not die from the popular\nconsciousness, probably because the ideas of \"corruption of blood\" and\nthe \"sins of the father\" are so prevalent within our mythologies. It\nbreaks down along the same inscrutable fault lines as the \"nature\nversus nurture\" debate about how we, and other organisms, learn our\nbehavior. How much is instinct? How much is conditioned?\n\nAs best I can tell, the answer is \"a mix of both\" in unknown ratios\nbecause the kinds of experiments needed to falsify a Lamarckian\nhypothesis are deeply, deeply unethical. The way one feels toward\nevolutionary psychology (and related doctrines) tends to have more to\ndo with how one feels about a range of philosophical issues, from\none's stance on the mind, to the metaphysics of souls, to base\nfactionalism. So I recognize my own rejection of it as calumny\nreflects my own particular biases against such concepts as \"human\nnature,\" a materialist account of consciousness, or phenotypic\nproperties being causally-linked to genetic properties.\n\nBut I think I have darn good reasons to find such concepts\nobjectionable, so via the transitive property of bad ideas, modern\nLamarckisms are vile calumny.\n\nLH" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Wolfe is quoted as thus...\n\"I didn't know that anybody was working in the Lamarckian area, today\nto be honest with you. I think somebody should be because I have\nnever been convinced that Lamarck was wrong.\"\n\nLamarckism states that acquired traits are inherited." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Yes, but \"Lamarckism\" is not a product of Lamarck himself. Inheritance\nof acquired characteristics is an ancient idea in one form or another,\nand Darwin allowed something like it in his idea that somatic tissues\ngenerated heritable \"gemmules\" in response to the development or\ndisuse of various organs." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Actually, aspects of Larmarckism are making a comeback with the\nunderstanding that our bodies are determined by more than our DNA\nblueprints. The following is a link to an abstract of a study that\nargues that your longevity is significantly determined by whether your\ngrandparents experienced famine in their childhood.\n\nhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/x61m87x016213823/\n\nObviously, if a trait can be acquired across generations based on\nexperiences occurring before the second generation was even conceived,\nthis could --over time-- have an evolutionary effect." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This may or may not be an \"acquired\" trait so much as a flexible\nphenotype. There's also jazz like epigenetics and reversion that can\neffectively undo the adaptation in a small number of generations; we need\nmany generations to be sure. But this may not have been available to the\nauthor at the time of writing.\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jack Smith", "address": "jack.smith.1946 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-08-05T15:43:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": "<44A14617-AF21-4283-AB52-E601EF5057E4@liftingfaces.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I believe there are a number of references to Severian being tall, and he's\naround 6' and his mother is probably an exultant. I think Urth's common\nfolk are shorter than people today. But you only have to go back two\nhundred years or so to have average heights 6 or 8 inches less than today.\n This is mostly due to better nutrition. On Urth with its dying sun and\nspent resources, we would expect nutrition levels to be worse and people to\nbe shorter." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Ryan Dunn wrote:\nDoes this mean that common folk should be notably shorter then? Severian's\nheight, were he on our planet, in most Western cultures, wouldn't raise an\neyebrow high enough to stir thoughts of exulted blood.\n\nI know his high cheekbones also indicates he may be some sort of Urthian\nbastard royalty, but I still wonder about the size of non exultant people of\nthe Commonwealth.\n\n...ryan\n\nOn Aug 5, 2010, at 6:22 AM, Jack Smith wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Exultants could result from Darwinian evolution alone, without any\ngenetic engineering. According to Wolfe, Severian is about 6' or 6'1\", and\nThecla is a head taller (around 7' or 7'1\"). Male exultants seem to be\nabout 7'6\" to 8'. Such heights are uncommon for us, but still within the\nrange of the possible. The tallest NBA player is 7'6\" and the tallest WNBA\nplayer is 7'2\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4C5ADE0F.3000307@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-08-05T15:51:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8/5/2010 5:22 AM, Jack Smith wrote:\nExultants could result from Darwinian evolution alone, without any\ngenetic engineering. According to Wolfe, Severian is about 6' or 6'1\",\nand Thecla is a head taller (around 7' or 7'1\"). Male exultants seem to\nbe about 7'6\" to 8'. Such heights are uncommon for us, but still\nwithin the range of the possible. The tallest NBA player is 7'6\" and\nthe tallest WNBA player is 7'2\".\n\nImagine a planet colonized by NBA and WNBA players. Given 10 or 20\ngenerations and sexual selection in favor of height, you could get a\npopulation where the average height could be 7' to 8'." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The initial population would involve such extreme artificial selection \nfrom across a huge pool that I would hesitate to call it Darwinian \nevolution alone. you'd also need genetic screening at the least to make \na go of it to avoid reinforcing the pathological sources of height, and \nit would need to be a pretty hospitable world to make sure big appetites \ndid not have trouble being fed long enough to reach sexual maturity and \nsurvive mate selection.\n\nThere could also be counter pressure from smaller colonists who were un \nchosen and get stuck mating with the poor and the equally short, unless \n the cagers practice wasteful culling. Maybe you could get two groups \nof the few talls and the many shorties who avoid intermariage, presuming \nthe talls retain some advantage they can leverage to offload their \ngreater support requirements onto the shorties in the form of tribute.\n\nBut breeding for tallness and prettiness and good loud voices, without \nlots of residual variation, is hard to work out, esp when human sexual \nselection has always been bent in favor of wealth and power." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\nIEEE Student Chapter Blog at\n< http://ieeetamut.org >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "davidd at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2010-08-05T23:49:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Lane Haygood wrote:\nLamarckism is making a comeback in the pseudoscience of evolutionary\npsychology." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, this is not correct. The basis for evolutionary psychology come \nfrom standard \"neo-Darwinist\" behaviour genetics and sociobiology." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's still just as much crap as Lamarckism is, but the spectre of\nheritable acquired traits just will not die from the popular\nconsciousness, probably because the ideas of \"corruption of blood\" and\nthe \"sins of the father\" are so prevalent within our mythologies." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It breaks down along the same inscrutable fault lines as the \"nature \nversus nurture\" debate about how we, and other organisms, learn our \nbehavior. How much is instinct? How much is conditioned? As best I can \ntell, the answer is \"a mix of both\" in unknown ratios" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sure, but able to be studied indirectly in a variety of observational \ndesigns" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "because the kinds of experiments needed to falsify a Lamarckian\nhypothesis are deeply, deeply unethical." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I presume you are thinking about humans here. There is plenty of evidence \nof epigenetic inheritance, including transmission of behaviours, in other \nspecies. Furthermore, the mechanisms, eg genetic imprinting, are well \nunderstood mechanistically (sections of DNA are marked by addition of \nmethyl groups to cytosines)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The way one feels toward evolutionary psychology (and related \ndoctrines) tends to have more to do with how one feels about a range of \nphilosophical issues, from one's stance on the mind, to the metaphysics \nof souls, to base factionalism. So I recognize my own rejection of it \nas calumny reflects my own particular biases against such concepts as \n\"human nature,\" a materialist account of consciousness, or phenotypic \nproperties being causally-linked to genetic properties." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think Wolfe has thought deeply about this, starting from _tFHoC_, \n_tDoDI_, to the chems, possession, and Horn-Pas-Silk. Specifically, the \nchems have souls and an interest in right thought and action, but their \n*minds* can be completely controlled by others, and they are aware of \nthis. For \"ordinary\" humans, their actions are just as frequently \ncontrolled by society and exigency, even if they have more \nfreedom of thought, so that practically they end up in the same boat. \nMany of his characters do as much good as they can within strong \nconstraints. Those constraints can easily be genetic predispositions to \nparticular behaviours.\n\nFurther, staying on Wolfe, he definitely believes in human nature, and \nthat this will persist indefinitely, and will be seen in other species or \nin robots. A la Lem, you will know when you have a true artificial \nintelligence when it demonstrates laziness, duplicity, self interest, and \na tendency to do other things, such as contributing to news groups, when \nit should be working.\n\n\nCheers, David Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4C5B6B00.3030509@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-08-06T01:53:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Lamarck, Wolfe and Exultants", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is what I thought, and it's a strong argument. But there's an \nequally strong argument that the exultants were modified.\n\nBoth together make more sense than either alone." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jack Smith wrote:\nI believe there are a number of references to Severian being tall, \n and he's around 6' and his mother is probably an exultant. I think \nUrth's common folk are shorter than people today. But you only have \nto go back two hundred years or so to have average heights 6 or 8 \ninches less than today. This is mostly due to better nutrition. On \nUrth with its dying sun and spent resources, we would expect nutrition \nlevels to be worse and people to be shorter.\n\n\n\n\nOn Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Ryan Dunn > wrote:\n\n Does this mean that common folk should be notably shorter then?\n Severian's height, were he on our planet, in most Western\n cultures, wouldn't raise an eyebrow high enough to stir thoughts\n of exulted blood.\n\n I know his high cheekbones also indicates he may be some sort of\n Urthian bastard royalty, but I still wonder about the size of non\n exultant people of the Commonwealth.\n\n ...ryan\n\n On Aug 5, 2010, at 6:22 AM, Jack Smith > wrote:\n\n > Exultants could result from Darwinian evolution alone, without\n any genetic engineering. According to Wolfe, Severian is about\n 6' or 6'1\", and Thecla is a head taller (around 7' or 7'1\"). Male\n exultants seem to be about 7'6\" to 8'. Such heights are\n uncommon for us, but still within the range of the possible. The\n tallest NBA player is 7'6\" and the tallest WNBA player is 7'2\".\n _______________________________________________" } ] } ] }