What’s your opinion on this? Is curing hereditary diseases on a genetic level a scientific possibility? If so, why there’s a focus on supressing those diseases or their symptoms?
Is this reducing the quality of the entire human race’s gene pool? Due to medical science, the strongest are no longer the only ones to survive today
Wow, that question check a few fascist boxes.
Not saying it shouldn’t get asked. But at least the answer should tackles than dimension.
Edit: negation
I figured so and was reluctant at first to post this but I can see quite some differences with fascist clinical methods. The Nazis exterminated people with hereditary diseases that were thought to stain the supposedly pure, Aryan blood. I don’t think this is what the article was implying as a solution. Implicitly, the author is implying that maybe we shouldn’t be treating those diseases in the way we are right now.
The article doesn’t discuss what a perspective such as “the survival of the fittest” implies and mostly validate it.
Moreover some point are a bit weak the academic says sth like “there are more asthma in western societies, I think those are people with weak immune system” . first he’s has no empirical evidence second asthma is highly correlated with pollution I don’t think it’s an interresting indicator.
It’s possible to fix genetic disorders, but it’s untested as of now. It has been tested actually, but with mixed results because cancer insertions.
From a pure evolutionary science perspective, so, without even having to get into the human ethics of it, this argument is BS. The gene pool is only one part of a population’s fitness and by no means the most important part. The most important parts are mortality rate and reproduction rate, and gene pool is just one factor among many that can influence those. AKA you care about the ends, not the means for determining the fitness of a species/population in evolutionary biology.
In other words, if people aren’t dropping like flies and are reproducing such that its numbers won’t dwindle to extinction range, that means the species is fit evolutionary speaking, and the actual reasons behind that are irrelevant from an exclusively survival fitness perspective. If the reason is because of advanced medicine and not necessarily a “healthy” gene pool, who the hell cares?!
Let’s use an animal example. Say there are two species of rodents in an arid, fire-prone grassland. One species is kind of dumb and will walk straight into bushfires without a second thought, but their skin are very thick and they can survive walking right through burning grass. The other species is a lot more delicate, they would die immediately if they got too close to fire. But, they’re smart and they avoid fire at all costs. If both species have similar mortality and reproduction rates, does it matter that one is physically strong and the other is physically weak, if they get by in their environment just the same?
Actually, an even simpler example would be social pack animals vs solitary animals, example: wolves vs foxes. Social pack animals, wolves, will almost always take care of sick members, bringing them food and comforting them so they recover. Solitary animals, foxes, don’t have that kind of support, and have a much higher chance of dying as soon as they fall ill. For the same mortality and reproduction rates, you’d expect the solitary animals to have better immune systems and lower rates of illness than social pack animals, but, again, if they’re doing equally well in the ecosystem, does it matter? Actually, in this case, real world data shows that social pack animals tend to have better survival rates and are more resilient than solitary animals, everything else being equal, and yes, humans are considered social pack animals.
I totally agree with what you said. And these were initially my thoughts but I fiddled with them a bit. Medicine is surely sustaining our reproduction rates despite its diverse implications on the gene pool. But how will this affect us when this medicine and healthcare are unavailable? Many globalized and consumerist third world countries are unstable and when they fall into turmoil those services like healthcare, imported foods, infrastructure become unavailable or at least limited. Admittedly, you can shift this into a matter of global inequality and historical oppression. But what the cases of global collapse? We could hypothetically regress maybe decades if not centuries due to either human or natural causes. We may at least have a fallback which is our genetic construct. But it’s difficult to maintain it when most of us embrace a sedentary lifestyle that inhibit our useful instincts.
I found those links interesting https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186805-the-solar-storm-of-2012-that-almost-sent-us-back-to-a-post-apocalyptic-stone-age
People who ask these questions should answer this one: If you or the people you’re close to were on the bad end of the spectrum (which they conveniently never think they are), are you willing to die or watch your friends and loved ones die for the sake of the “”“ideal”“” human race? If you’re not willing to end up getting the shortest end of your own deal, then shut up.
I just think we shouldn’t have got to a point where we’re infested with many diseases that could’ve vanished with natural selection. Leaving everyone to die or worse to exterminate them is absurd and ineffective, we gotta first fix the way healthcare and medicine should treat the ill.