4 ms·

I'd like to see a survey about opinions on keeping people alive using modern medicine. The survey would have a filter for people who believe in evolution and su

I'd like to see a survey about opinions on keeping people alive using modern medicine. The survey would have a filter for people who believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. How is the cognitive dissonance around it resolved?

michaelhoney 2y ago
Tell me more about the dissonance you see. “Survival of the fittest” just means that in a challenging environment, those who can adapt will survive to go on and have children. If you are saying that modern medicine keeps some people alive through to parenthood who would otherwise have perished: yes, that’s true. We have made our environment less challenging.
- anonymouskimmer 2y ago
  I'm not the GP, but a social Darwinist would presumably be in favor of medical extension of life (for those who can access it), while a moral evolutionist would presumably be against it. I think there is the possibility of a philosophical dissonance here in some of the Randian types.
snakeyjake 2y ago
"The fittest" isn't "the strongest" or "the mostest toughest" it is "the best at procreation in the environment in which they live". Assuming that people being kept alive by modern medicine are better at procreation, they are indeed the fittest. Of course most of the people being kept alive by modern medicine are old as hell, though, so they are hardly the childbearing or rearing type. So now I'm confused as to why you brought it up?
- anonymouskimmer 2y ago
  I think this: > The survey would have a filter for people who believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. Just means that the survey would ask that question. I'm guessing that GP wants to check whether those who believe in the Darwin awards as well as the moral justness of evolutionary pressure killing certain people earlier that other people, would be more opposed to using modern medicine to keep people alive. Maybe? It really depends because modern medicine is part of social Darwinism, even though it is against evolutionary biological survival of the fittest. So I could see this going multiple ways among this subset of people. I'd expect the richest of them to believe both in medical extension of life (and fertility treatments) as well as believing that only those who can personally, or societally, afford such intervention should get it. This may be the dissonance GP is mentioning.

michaelhoney 2y ago

Tell me more about the dissonance you see. “Survival of the fittest” just means that in a challenging environment, those who can adapt will survive to go on and have children. If you are saying that modern medicine keeps some people alive through to parenthood who would otherwise have perished: yes, that’s true. We have made our environment less challenging.

anonymouskimmer 2y ago
I'm not the GP, but a social Darwinist would presumably be in favor of medical extension of life (for those who can access it), while a moral evolutionist would presumably be against it. I think there is the possibility of a philosophical dissonance here in some of the Randian types.

snakeyjake 2y ago

"The fittest" isn't "the strongest" or "the mostest toughest" it is "the best at procreation in the environment in which they live". Assuming that people being kept alive by modern medicine are better at procreation, they are indeed the fittest. Of course most of the people being kept alive by modern medicine are old as hell, though, so they are hardly the childbearing or rearing type. So now I'm confused as to why you brought it up?

anonymouskimmer 2y ago
I think this: > The survey would have a filter for people who believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. Just means that the survey would ask that question. I'm guessing that GP wants to check whether those who believe in the Darwin awards as well as the moral justness of evolutionary pressure killing certain people earlier that other people, would be more opposed to using modern medicine to keep people alive. Maybe? It really depends because modern medicine is part of social Darwinism, even though it is against evolutionary biological survival of the fittest. So I could see this going multiple ways among this subset of people. I'd expect the richest of them to believe both in medical extension of life (and fertility treatments) as well as believing that only those who can personally, or societally, afford such intervention should get it. This may be the dissonance GP is mentioning.