Has modern medication thwarted evolution of human health?

Question

Antibiotics, medication, and longer lived lives seem to be a trend during the past 50 years.

Compared to the last several thousand years of human life, no effective medication helped humans survive as such. Only the healthiest of the healthy had a chance, which meant healther offspring in the long run.

Our future offspring is "too many", in proportion to our longer survival rate. Which means we need to have less children.

We are on a path of weaker people, tinkering with Mother Nature. Sure, it normal to help the sick, but to force a brain dead siamese-twin baby to live 10 years on a machine is insane. Mother Nature would not allow that. OKAY, bad example, but you gotta see some point of what I am saying here.

At some point, our bodies may become "lazy" to heal itself. In history, the peasants were always healthier than the rich. For many reasons, such as exercise, and eating "dirty food" or "more natural food", boosting the body's immune system.

Answer 1

To a certain degree you are correct, and to a certain degree incorrect.

It is true that modern medicine (not just medications) does help many humans survive and reproduce who might not have done so without medicine.

I myself would have died at about six months old had it not been for some surgery done on me as a newborn to correct a defect in my digestive tract. So I may go on to have children that have that same defect.

But on the other hand, a "brain dead siamese-twin baby" is not going to produce offspring, even if we do keep it alive. I.e. the question of whether to keep it alive has nothing to do with evolution.

However, the biggest point is that evolution can't be "thwarted". It is not something that has a goal or a purpose.

Yes, in the long run this may cause humans to lose some of their natural ability to fight disease on its own ... but I hope you're not suggesting that we stop advances in medicine. When we are sick, we heal each other if we can. That's what we do.

Answer 2

Yes I suppose it has thwarted evolution of human health. However, the scale of evolution is not really a very short cycle, instead, it is a cycle that is millions of years in length.

In the lieu of such a cycle, modern medication has been a substitute for the genetic defences, adding an extra resource to the bodies defences.

But, I suppose that what you say is true. People who would have been dead without medication are alive, and by doing so weaken the gene pool. Genes not fittest survive into descendant generations and while the fittest do the same, the gene pool is not cleansed or weeded by natural selection.

Answer 3

Don't forget we've helped the evolution of dangerous bacteria with people misusing antibiotics. I expect there will be a pandemic sooner or later as a result of bio-terrorism or just bad luck that will kill millions of people, maybe hundreds of millions.

Its only a matter of time with todays international travel. Don't forget - large populations help evolution, not hinder it. That way there can be more selection and you'll still be left with a population of people with the right mutation (whatever it might be) that can continue the species.

Answer 4

YES!! I believe that, in general, modern medicine has thwarted the evolution of the health system of the human body!! On the average, most people can no longer rely upon their own immune system to fight most diseases (whether it be the common cold/flu, or something worse). Who knows where our immune systems would be if we had not developed all of the modern medicines that we have today?

Answer 5

nicely, i might hesitate previously employing the words "interferes with" or "hampers", as those recommend that evolution has some variety of *purpose* or specific *effect*. It does not. yet, definite, medicine surely *impacts* the technique of organic decision after we are able to lengthen the lives of persons with genetic themes who might have died previously reproducing. yet *no one* (which incorporate you) is arguing that that may no longer a stable element to do. that's what people do ... we intervene with nature each and all of the time to lengthen or develop our lives. If a wooded area hearth started by employing lightning threatens a city, we don't in simple terms enable it burn simply by fact that's "nature" taking its course; we combat the hearth. If the organic technique of abrasion threatens to convey a rock slide down on a village, we shore up the mountain facet (if that's attainable). If shall we quit hurricanes or earthquakes or vast asteroids, we'd, no hesitation. Evolution is in simple terms an outline of the place we got here from biologically. no one feels any legal accountability to bypass away it unfettered if we are able to make people's lives extra appropriate. ---- P.S. to Panacea ---- The tortured good judgment with which you flip an attack on evolution right into a screed against "liberals" is somewhat a brilliant feat of paranoia. The final 2 sentences are astounding. you somewhat do have confidence that the elementary want that drives each and every little thing "liberals" do is a few deep-seated desire to *kill* people for no obvious reason, and that evolution isn't something yet a "liberal" invention to justify their murderous evil procedures. thank you, *thank you* for providing one in each and every of those clean photograph of the variety of excellent judgment you could desire to have confidence in creationism.