3 ms·
Can you explain what is incoherent in thinking that in times where you can't survive unless you're mostly physically fit enough to do so without medical interve
by 0x737368 9y ago
Can you explain what is incoherent in thinking that in times where you can't survive unless you're mostly physically fit enough to do so without medical intervention? I understand that most physically fit will be an outlier, but my point is that the average fitness would have been better because of more fierce natural selection due to lack of medicine.
I'm genuinely interested in hearing criticisms about this hypothesis since it's been brewing in my head for a while and I figured the best way to test it is to put under some form of peer-review.
- pharrington 9y agoThe average fitness only increases while the species' environmental is stable. Humans are a famously migratory species that also compulsively reshapes it's environment. (see also: non-human species in human dominated environments experiencing accelerated evolution)
- 0x737368 9y agoI think the misunderstanding comes from me using the term "fit" without actually specifying the precise meaning. I meant it more as having better general health in the colloquial sense(e.g. not having life-threatening congenital diseases) rather than fitness in the Darwinian sense where certain characteristics allow one to prevail in natural selection. Do you have any suggestions on what I could read to better understand the issue at hand and get a better idea of what I'm trying to talk about? Perhaps a good book on the history of ancient humans?