|
In my biology class this week, my teacher brought up a very interesting point during lecture. We were discussing Darwinian Natural Selection in the AP Biology seventh Edition textbook, (Chapters 22 and 23 for those of you who are interested) and me made a very thought-provoking statement.
Simply put, he stated that some could argue that modern medicine today is heavily weakening our species as humans, because those of us who are not fit (bad health, for example a genetic heart defect), are still able to survive and breed to create more like them. In comparison, if we allowed for natural selection to kill of the weaker of us, the human species as a whole would benefit because only the most fit would survive and be able to breed.
So, using modern medicine today, are we hindering the evolution of the human species?
I am personally torn between the two sides, so I would like to know what the community thinks!
|
natural selection really doesnt matter anymore... only thing important in our age is how well your brain functions
would you let Stephen Hawking die because hes in a wheelchair and cant move? he did more for humankind than most other "fit" people
|
Modern medicine makes our species as a whole stronger than natural selection ever could.
That's really all there is to argue about it.
|
Once everybody gets a cybernetics body, natural selection won't matter anymore. It will be all be a game of intellect and psionics powers. We're a bit beyond animal evolution, we evolve through technology.
|
Natural selection takes place over too long a time period to matter. By the time we as a species can evolve genetic engineering will be commonplace.
|
Very good point but when natural selection makes Man have the inteligence to create tools to help him overcome (to a certain extent) Nature itself then we don't need to apply 'Natural Selection' to our species. We now fall under the 'Man Artificial Selection' category.
|
Yeah...no. I like still being alive.
|
On February 20 2011 00:32 Joe12 wrote: natural selection really doesnt matter anymore... only thing important in our age is how well your brain functions
would you let Stephen Hawking die because hes in a wheelchair and cant move? he did more for humankind than most other "fit" people Without running to google or wikipedia, can you tell me what Stephen Hawking actually did? Or do you just know he is in a wheelchair?
|
|
Your and/or your professer/teacher made a critical error when connected the two ideas. When you use the law of natural selection you also hold that humans are natural. This seems obvious but it is very common to not count tools/ideas created by humans as natural. Humans have a unique ability to create tools and an advanced memory to boot. Thus, we hold that the use of modern medicine is a natural phenomenon. When you consider all of these abilities almost all humans are far more fit than there competition food for (other animals and humans); causing them to be fit enough for them to survive. This differs from every other animal because sickness or old age is insurmountable for them.
In short, modern medicine is natural, therefore sick humans using medicine to survive proves them to be natural fit to beat out the competition for sustenance.
|
On February 20 2011 00:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2011 00:32 Joe12 wrote: natural selection really doesnt matter anymore... only thing important in our age is how well your brain functions
would you let Stephen Hawking die because hes in a wheelchair and cant move? he did more for humankind than most other "fit" people Without running to google or wikipedia, can you tell me what Stephen Hawking actually did? Or do you just know he is in a wheelchair?
He contributed a lot to the fields of theoretical physics and cosmology/astrophysics. For example, he provided a theoretical prove that black holes exist by proving one of several singularity theorems in general relativity. He also published lots and lots of papers (providing research) on other subjects in physics.
He also was similar to Carl Sagan in that he helped people understand physics and the universe by publishing popularistic books on physics and astronomy.
|
At least the herd is still being thinned of Christian Scientists and people that believe in homeopathy
But seriously, even if people are alive and reproducing that wouldn't be able to if not for modern medicine, thats probably not a detriment to humanity. Modern medicine isn't going anywhere, and if its able to help one generation it will be able to help the next. The possibilities of what someone can do can't really be objectively determined by determining if they were meant to breed. What if someone like Norman Borlaug hadn't been born because of an issue like this?
|
On February 20 2011 00:25 dVdtSpeeD wrote:In my biology class this week, my teacher brought up a very interesting point during lecture. We were discussing Darwinian Natural Selection in the AP Biology seventh Edition textbook, (Chapters 22 and 23 for those of you who are interested) and me made a very thought-provoking statement. Simply put, he stated that some could argue that modern medicine today is heavily weakening our species as humans, because those of us who are not fit (bad health, for example a genetic heart defect), are still able to survive and breed to create more like them. In comparison, if we allowed for natural selection to kill of the weaker of us, the human species as a whole would benefit because only the most fit would survive and be able to breed. So, using modern medicine today, are we hindering the evolution of the human species? I am personally torn between the two sides, so I would like to know what the community thinks!
Complex sympathy and empathy are also traits having been selected by natural selection. Therefore, letting our weak people die would in fact make us regress as a species.
Darwin never specifically endorsed (social) eugenism but he never rejected the idea. His opinion on the matter wasn't very clear.
+ Show Spoiler +[Darwin wrote Natural Selection as affecting civilized nations. ... But some remarks on the action of Natural Selection on civilized nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr W.R.Greg, and previously by Mr Wallace and Mr Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the mained, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (133-4/138-9; first page numbers to the 1st ed., second to the 2nd ed.)
+ Show Spoiler +[Darwin wrote Natural selection follows from the struggle for existence; and this from a rapid rate of increase. It is impossible not to regret bitterly, but whether wisely is another question, the rate at which man tends to increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to infanticide and many other evils, and in civilised nations to abject poverty, celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent. But as man suffers from the same physical evils as the lower animals, he has no right to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for existence. Had he not been subjected during primeval times to natural selection, assuredly he would never have attained to his present rank. Since we see in many parts of the world enormous areas of the most fertile land capable of supporting numerous happy homes, but peopled only by a few wandering savages, it might be argued that the struggle for existence had not been sufficiently severe to force man upwards to his highest standard. Judging from all that we know of man and the lower animals, there has always been sufficient variability in their intellectual and moral faculties, for a steady advance through natural selection. No doubt such advance demands many favourable concurrent circumstances; but it may well be doubted whether the most favourable would have sufficed, had not the rate of increase been rapid, and the consequent struggle for existence extremely severe. It even appears from what we see, for instance, in parts of S. America, that a people which may be called civilised, such as the Spanish settlers, is liable to become indolent and to retrograde, when the conditions of life are very easy. With highly civilised nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of natural selection. The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through natural selection as one of the most important elements of the social instincts.
|
Yes we are making the human race less fit every generation. There is also discussions about this in fiction sci fi books and new colonies in space. The darkover series has several mentions of survival or not depending on medicine.
Which means a large portion of humanity can't survive without medicines. If those are removed they die. So if society crashes then we get a purge. As long as society manages to continue working they survive and fulfil the requirements for natural selection in their environment.
Once technology reaches true genetic engineering/screening this is a moot point since these conditions won't occur any more. It might take a few generations for it to gain a large enough social acceptance though.
|
United States40776 Posts
Natural selection does not necessarily create more advanced lifeforms, it instead favours random successful mutations. It is important to distinguish between success and advancement. If left to its own devices evolution could easily lead to less advanced, albeit more successful, mutations.
|
Is not modern medicine the exception to natural selection?
Who knew your questions relevancy could be revealed by another.
for speacial ppl, "modern medicine" is the answer on how to avoid or control natural selection, therefore there is no x vs. y in this case.
|
Darwin used the term natural selection to describe the process by which organisms inherit traits to better adapt to their environment. While not inherited on a genetic level, modern medicine does just that, help us adapt better to our environment. "The weaker die" is not, in fact, what his interpretation was about.
|
On February 20 2011 00:55 Dont Panic wrote: Your and/or your professer/teacher made a critical error when connected the two ideas. When you use the law of natural selection you also hold that humans are natural. This seems obvious but it is very common to not count tools/ideas created by humans as natural. Humans have a unique ability to create tools and an advanced memory to boot. Thus, we hold that the use of modern medicine is a natural phenomenon. When you consider all of these abilities almost all humans are far more fit than there competition food for (other animals and humans); causing them to be fit enough for them to survive. This differs from every other animal because sickness or old age is insurmountable for them.
In short, modern medicine is natural, therefore sick humans using medicine to survive proves them to be natural fit to beat out the competition for sustenance. But doesn't modern medicine/technology reduce the need for average Humans to be naturally smart or strong?
|
Lol you don't understand evolution if you don't understand how modern medicine fits into it.
Think of modern medicine like a tool. Like a rock or a thick branch. In the past, humans who did not have a tendency to use such tools did not prosper as well as their fellow primates who did.
Would a human with the intelligence for making or affinity towards using basic tools have been weaker without them? Yes. But that doesn't matter.
All that matters is that an animal live long enough to reproduce. However he does it is generally captured as successful genetic tendencies that are passed on.
In this case, intelligence and use of modern medicine ensures survival for many. That tendency lives on in offspring.
Evolution doesn't care about those details. Live to reproduce, that's all that matters to it.
|
Your teacher is right, but I believe that advances in gene therapy will eventually eliminate this problem before it becomes serious.
i.e. you can get your genome sequenced, your doctor will identify any deleterious mutations you and your partner possess, and they can treat your zygote to eliminate them. Obviously we're a ways away from that now, but I feel that (worldwide religious takeover aside) it's inevitable.
|
|
|
|