2007-07-05 17:26:39 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
evolution/ or God, depending on piont of view, allows for us to have the abilty to think and learn in a way of no other creature on this earth. our brain is to us as claws are to bears lions and such or speed is to deer and antalope. thereby healing the sick is acceptable as a deer out running a wolf.
2007-07-05 17:46:09 · answer #1 · answered by Jay Argentina 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not really. Natural selection is about passing on favourable genes. If someone is too sick and/or old they can no longer pass on their genes. So by helping sick and old people we aren't messing with natural selection, we are just doing our best to make their lives better. Just because someone cannot pass genes along anymore does not mean they have no more worth.
2007-07-05 17:29:41 · answer #2 · answered by Lady Geologist 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.
In 99.99999 percent of cases, lifesaving medical treatment is needed by and given to people who are too old to reproduce; therefore it has no influence on future generations.
Where lifesaving treatment is given to people of reproducing age or younger, there is a 50 percent chance that the result will be an improved gene pool rather than a diminished one. So in evolutionary terms it's a wash.
2007-07-05 17:36:09 · answer #3 · answered by aviophage 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but our morals, values, and society in general views what we do know as a good thing. We cant be coldhearted enough to just let people die, otherwise we wouldn't need doctors, and people wouldn't be living past thirty. We would of collapsed as a society long ago if, as a rule, we didn't try to save people.
2007-07-05 17:34:00 · answer #4 · answered by Vito C. 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The novel "Sophie's World: A Novel About The History Of Philosophy" ponders that very idea very briefly. Alberto [the philosopher in the story] seems to think so too in that we are making what doesn't kill us stronger, and that we won't be able to thwart disease forevermore, and our self-imposed inability to fight pathogen on our own will be our downfall.
2007-07-05 17:34:37 · answer #5 · answered by gloria 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but odds are 50% of us would not be here without it. Did you ever get sick as a child? There was a REAL HIGH mortality rate for children at the turn of the 20th century.
2007-07-05 17:30:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Who says sick people should die?
There are lots of great leaders and scientists who had illnesses early in life. Think about what you would do without if they had died.
2007-07-05 17:29:41 · answer #7 · answered by chameleon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
natural selection, survival of the fittest, are rules for animals. Human evolution evolves not only in physical aspects, but also a moral aspect, as we evolve from humans into humanitarians.
Hitler, rapist, murderers are human beings.
Jesus, Gandhi, mother Teressa are humanitarians.
2007-07-05 18:05:43 · answer #8 · answered by Ashamed2beHuman 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope were advancing medical science so folks such as yourself don't fall victim to natural selection.
2007-07-05 17:29:07 · answer #9 · answered by Army Retired Guy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
how do you know who is supposed to die and who isnt? and if they are willing to pay for the care, then isnt their right as a human being to seek help for themselves?
and doesnt it help the economy if they are putting all their money into health care?
isnt it human nature to survive? and if medical miricals and **** are what it takes for someone to survive, isnt it just their nature to seek out and take that help?
2007-07-05 17:30:22 · answer #10 · answered by Kim N 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋