Re Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest...
2007-03-20 18:57:01 · 10 answers · asked by LUCKY3 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
ARTHUR N: Thank you! Yes, your answer was very helpful.
PETERNAL: This is worthy of further research, I will follow up with this. Thank you!
2007-03-23 10:43:06 · update #1
It is certainly a consideration. I can't really say certainly because it is too easily argued that our ability to overcome such issues could be a example of our evolution.
I do think fertility drugs and other treatments are, at the very least, morally wrong. There are just way too many children suffering and in desperate need of loving families. But, then, I think perfectly able parents who choose to give birth because they think it more important that the child share their genes are every bit as selfish as those who pay thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars to create in their own image.
All children need love, not just those that bear our genes.
2007-03-20 19:10:42 · answer #1 · answered by ophelliaz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Or perhaps a better question is have we progressed to the stage where we can interfere with our own evolution?
Yes they are in a way interfering with our evolution, but would our species, our civilisation be better off with out the 'weaker DNA'. The answer is in the most part yes, however what of those few who have changed history for the better (or the worse) and who childhood has been saved by medicine. Maybe not on a grand scale but on a small scale.
Although this is not on the topic of your question, I am reminded of the movie Lorenzo’s Oil (based on a true story). In this movie the main characters sons body couldn't process normal fats and so he slowly died. The father searched and searched and finally came up with a way to save him. Now those same oils are in trials to try and stem the relentless march of such diseases like Parkinson and Alsimers. What would happen if his father had just given up like so many before.
So can we say that saving the weaker is detrimental to our race, no. Who knows what may happen and what they may do. I recommend that you watch the movie GATTACA, it is about a future where genetically enhanced humans run everything and one non-gentech wants in. It illustrates my point beautifully.
Hope this helps.
2007-03-20 19:48:36 · answer #2 · answered by Arthur N 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our genes have evolved to the point the point where they can correct their mistakes by making us make fertility drugs. My guess is that this is neither the beginning nor the end of evolution.
Evolution is not complete until immortality is achieved and replication is achieved at an infinite rate. Whether evolution will succeed at this goal is not within our power to forsee, it is only through us that it will attempt to achieve it.
2007-03-20 20:18:28 · answer #3 · answered by Discoduck33 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The success of evolution is a non sequitur. Evolution is a blind process which has no aims or objectives and therefore cannot be successful or unsuccessful.
2007-03-20 23:12:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
To strengthen their gene pool, certain American Indian tribes had the custom of having young children spent 24-hours out in the wild, and if they did not return, no one felt guilty about it...
2007-03-21 20:54:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
if anything fertility drugs speed up the evolution of humans.
It is a huge thing......several babys bon to one woman are surivialist to the extreem
2007-03-20 20:58:48 · answer #6 · answered by clcalifornia 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES...the more we enable the weaker DNA to procreate the longer we have to wait to evolve into a stronger species.
2007-03-20 19:05:02 · answer #7 · answered by shogun_316 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
everything we do "toys" with evolution. its part of evolution to change the rules as they were given us
2007-03-20 19:33:33 · answer #8 · answered by BANANA 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not as much as alcohol
2007-03-21 08:40:19 · answer #9 · answered by Doctor Robotnik 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, but don't all drugs.
2007-03-20 23:48:33 · answer #10 · answered by ladykitcha 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋