3 ms·

One thing that will be interesting to watch is the long term effect of modern medicine. You can't believe in darwin and think that relieving the selective press

by cm2187 4y ago

One thing that will be interesting to watch is the long term effect of modern medicine. You can't believe in darwin and think that relieving the selective pressure will have no consequences. By saving kids that merciless nature would have naturally killed, I think we are also "breeding" a human species that is inadapted to its environment, fragile. And I wonder if the high level of allergies seen in kids today isn't an early symptom of that.

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
However, with modern high density cities and long distance travel, people are subjected to a much greater number of diseases than in pre-industrial times.
nine_k 4y ago
Humans have a long history of relegating certain bodily functions to technology outside their bodies, to lower the requirements for survival. Frying meat lowered requirements for the intestine, the immune system, and the teeth, compared to eating raw meat. Baking bread lowered these requirements even further: old people who lost almost all teeth could now survive and be useful. Various medical inventions saved innumerable lives, including some people who would otherwise die young, bur who lived enough to make a large impact on culture. Probably this process will continue, producing a more fragile general population with more impressive outliers, and maybe even more (intellectually or otherwise) impressive baseline.
mijamo 4y ago
Isn't that what has been happening since humans have existed? We have to wear clothes to live in most environments for instance, that is a good sign of not being naturally adapted.
Archelaos 4y ago
> ... that is inadapted to its environment, fragile. No. The "environment" of modern humans now includes modern medicine. Of course, if this aspect of the "environment" changes after awhile again, they would be more fragile than the current population in this respect on average. But the same is true for any (ancient) population confronted with new contexts. There is no fundamental difference between man-made environmental changes and natural ones.
mannykannot 4y ago
As this article shows, with evolution it is hit-or-miss whether the response to a pathogen has collateral damage. In medicine, we can be more proactive about it.
UncleMeat 4y ago
Humanity isn't going to develop a genetic resistance to TB in the near future if we just let tons of people die from it. The idea that we are breeding weakness into society by using medicine and that we'd have a superior society by denying medicine to people is both medically wrong and frankly disgusting.
UncleMeat 4y ago
Humanity isn't going to develop a widespread genetic resistance to TB in the near future that wipes out TB if we just let tons of people die from it. The idea that we are breeding weakness into society by using medicine and that we'd have a superior society by denying medicine to people is both medically wrong and frankly disgusting.
saalweachter 4y ago
Genetic diversity is the way to go for resiliency. If a species lives under constant, high selective pressure, it becomes highly adapted for the current environment. If the current environment changes a little -- too hot, too cold, more rain, less rain, a new disease evolves -- then the entire species becomes unfit for its new environment, and it may not survive long enough for new mutations to arise that happen to be better suited to the new environment. If a species lives under weak selective pressure, it will only be weakly adapted to its current environment ... but it is much more likely that some part of it will be varied in a way that protects it or advantages it in the face of a changing environment. If selection pressure becomes harder -- if shit hits the fan -- it may be bad for a large chunk of the population, but it is more likely that at least some part of it will survive. Take potatoes -- you fill a field full of genetically identical potatoes which are perfectly suited to the climate and conditions you're growing in, and you can get just monstrous yields. But if the slightest thing goes wrong, if a new blight takes hold, the entire crop can be lost to the last. The population is strong, but fragile. And that is why eugenics is just so, so dumb, in addition to being, you know, ethically wrong.

by cm2187 4y ago

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago

However, with modern high density cities and long distance travel, people are subjected to a much greater number of diseases than in pre-industrial times.

nine_k 4y ago

Humans have a long history of relegating certain bodily functions to technology outside their bodies, to lower the requirements for survival. Frying meat lowered requirements for the intestine, the immune system, and the teeth, compared to eating raw meat. Baking bread lowered these requirements even further: old people who lost almost all teeth could now survive and be useful. Various medical inventions saved innumerable lives, including some people who would otherwise die young, bur who lived enough to make a large impact on culture. Probably this process will continue, producing a more fragile general population with more impressive outliers, and maybe even more (intellectually or otherwise) impressive baseline.

mijamo 4y ago

Isn't that what has been happening since humans have existed? We have to wear clothes to live in most environments for instance, that is a good sign of not being naturally adapted.

Archelaos 4y ago

> ... that is inadapted to its environment, fragile. No. The "environment" of modern humans now includes modern medicine. Of course, if this aspect of the "environment" changes after awhile again, they would be more fragile than the current population in this respect on average. But the same is true for any (ancient) population confronted with new contexts. There is no fundamental difference between man-made environmental changes and natural ones.

mannykannot 4y ago

As this article shows, with evolution it is hit-or-miss whether the response to a pathogen has collateral damage. In medicine, we can be more proactive about it.

UncleMeat 4y ago

Humanity isn't going to develop a genetic resistance to TB in the near future if we just let tons of people die from it. The idea that we are breeding weakness into society by using medicine and that we'd have a superior society by denying medicine to people is both medically wrong and frankly disgusting.

UncleMeat 4y ago

Humanity isn't going to develop a widespread genetic resistance to TB in the near future that wipes out TB if we just let tons of people die from it. The idea that we are breeding weakness into society by using medicine and that we'd have a superior society by denying medicine to people is both medically wrong and frankly disgusting.

saalweachter 4y ago

Genetic diversity is the way to go for resiliency. If a species lives under constant, high selective pressure, it becomes highly adapted for the current environment. If the current environment changes a little -- too hot, too cold, more rain, less rain, a new disease evolves -- then the entire species becomes unfit for its new environment, and it may not survive long enough for new mutations to arise that happen to be better suited to the new environment. If a species lives under weak selective pressure, it will only be weakly adapted to its current environment ... but it is much more likely that some part of it will be varied in a way that protects it or advantages it in the face of a changing environment. If selection pressure becomes harder -- if shit hits the fan -- it may be bad for a large chunk of the population, but it is more likely that at least some part of it will survive. Take potatoes -- you fill a field full of genetically identical potatoes which are perfectly suited to the climate and conditions you're growing in, and you can get just monstrous yields. But if the slightest thing goes wrong, if a new blight takes hold, the entire crop can be lost to the last. The population is strong, but fragile. And that is why eugenics is just so, so dumb, in addition to being, you know, ethically wrong.