is "saving " some people from dieing from genetic dieseases degradeing the human gene pool (as they have children and pass the genes on ) seems to go against "the survivial of the fittest" notion .
2006-11-25 21:53:52 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
What you're referring to is eugenics, and no, I don't think it's the solution. Just because some genes may be detrimental now, it is impossible to know if they will become valuable as evolution continues - "bad genes" may become "good genes" in some cases. Look up China's Eugenics law to get a better sense of what eugenics is.
2006-11-26 00:19:50 · answer #1 · answered by Niotulove 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've often wondered that.
Humans are the only ones that do NOT kill off the 'weak'.
I have a family member whose first born had pku...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria
a genetic disease that, left untreated can cause brain damage.
Due to their being "Irish Catholic" they had three more children who have the same disease. And when they grow up and reproduce.....???? Why??? By the way....They were told by their doctor after the first child that there was a 99% chance that any more children would have the same disease.
2006-11-25 22:04:43 · answer #2 · answered by COOKIE 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On the other hand, we as humans don't kill others just to save the gene pool and follow the Darwin line. We'll always have them with us, as we'll always have the poor and the impoverished.
2006-11-25 22:10:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋