2007-03-08 22:28:08 · 3 answers · asked by Ting 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Honestly, that depends on how the sickest survive. If we develop techniques to change and repair the DNA so that the problem is fixed at the root, then it is not wasted.
On the other hand, if really sick people are allowed to survive and eventually have offspring, spreading their dangerous (and costly to care for) genetic defect around, then it does hurt society as a whole.
I feel that, even if it does sound like eugenism, very sick people should not have children. It is causing a burden on the rest of society.
Should we let those very sick children survive, through extraordinary therapeutic means? Now, that is a delicate debate, balancing humanity's value against humanity's goals.
The real answer -- if it exists -- to this is less a biological question than a philosophical one.
2007-03-08 22:42:36 · answer #1 · answered by Vincent G 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Natural selection is a dispassionate process that insures the sickest are eliminated.
Among humans the trait is not so stringent,but it does prevail.
It's a subject that no doubt will be filled with emotion,but the logic of nature is obvious.
2007-03-09 06:38:59 · answer #2 · answered by Billy Butthead 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That may be the "direction" of future human evolution with ever more ways to keep the sickest alive.
2007-03-09 09:23:56 · answer #3 · answered by Joan H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋