Seems like a dumb question, but think about it, according to natural selection, the week must die, if only to prevent their passing their defective genes onto the next generation, if that's true, wouldn't our current medical system, aimed at increasing the lifespan of people, some with genetic disorders, keep people with "non-benifical" genes alive long enough to pass these genes on? Could this lead to an amplification of cancer and other chronic illnesses? Just a thought.
2006-12-05 12:53:19 · 6 answers · asked by IHTFP 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Medicine
Very thought-provoking question. It can be approached from a dozen different angles at the very least.
Lots of people think of humans as the very highest expression of evolution, the point at which natural selection reached its fullest potential. I say humans are just one more evolutionary branch that will ultimately go the way of most of earth's creatures; we'll disappear. Superior intelligence is an evolutionary experiment that will fail and medicine, by keeping the ill-adapted alive and able to leave ill-adapted offspring, is a factor in the failure.
Don't we all watch on television the desperate measures hospitals go to in order to save a deformed and brain-damaged child and say to ourselves "Just make the poor thing comfortable and let it slip away like Nature intended?"
2006-12-05 13:25:46 · answer #1 · answered by upmary49878 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know, I have a thought about that myself before...very good question. And yes you are right. According to Darwin's laws, we are working against natural selection with our high levels of medical care. There are many people w/ genetic defects which were formerly incondusive to life now surviving well into adulthood, resulting in more childrearing w/ the genetic defect. Are we weakening the human gene pool, yes...but, at the same time we are creating jobs in the health care field and offering a high quality of life in spite of genetic dysfunction. I personally think the overuse of antibiotics pose a greater short term risk to humans than the weakening of the genome.
2006-12-05 13:06:46 · answer #2 · answered by ♥austingirl♥ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe you are right. Although all species go through natural selection at some level humans are not going through "natural" selection at a huge rate. Bad news about that is that we will not adapt "naturally" or physiologically to the environment. Good news is that we really don't need to. The gene flow of humans is far greater than any other species. We have a great veriaty, so that if we need to go through natural selection, we will be fine.
2006-12-05 13:03:18 · answer #3 · answered by mikzilla0 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question. No simple answer. It must have a detrimental long term effect in a global sense - and a doubling of the worlds population in the last 40 years is proof of it - but on the other hand, who's going to turn down life saving treatment if it's available?
2006-12-05 13:03:19 · answer #4 · answered by Stevie L 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
'Older' people do not pass on their genes... sex and reproduction occurs in 'younger' people. Helping a 50 year old live to 80 does nothing for or against evolution of the species. Actually, since wisdom grows with age, you might argue that it contributes to the evolution of the species.
2006-12-05 15:12:07 · answer #5 · answered by Doctor J 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know... people are living longer and longer.
Many people live more productive, healthy and comfortable lives with medication.
It depends on a person's opinion, but I myself am a big fan of drugs. :)
2006-12-05 12:58:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋