Have war deaths changed our gene pool?

Question

Our country sent (mostly) men who were genetically healthy, emotionally strong, with intestinal fortitude into battle...losing hundreds of thousands.

With so many healthy men being killed in war, does it increase the percentage of men left at home who are men with genetic defects and mental illnesses or weaknesses?

My question: could the deaths of healthy young soldiers from our nation be the cause of an increase in genetic defects which (might) cause obesity and mental illness (depression) in our young?

Answer 1

A better question. How have Social welfare programs affected our gene pool?

Answer 2

In a very limited sense, you are correct: fallen soldiers are no longer in the gene pool. However, there are a number of problems with your idea. First, it is a caricature of reality; what logicians call a "straw man" argument. During the draft (if you're referring to Vietnam), the SSS didn't specifically hunt down the best and the brightest and ship them off to war. It was more or less a random selection, and if you were "good enough" by their standards, off you went. My father wasn't drafted simply because his number never came up, and he's a doctor.

The draft certainly left behind men with severe genetic defects, deformities, severe psychological conditions, etc... but would women accept these men as mates simply because better stock was unavailable? And was it really unavailable?

Second, consider the example of the baby boom after the second world war. There was a HUGE boost in population, largely due to the homecoming of (your words) genetically healthy young men. If valor and courage are hereditary, the gene pool was overflowing with them in 1950.

In today's climate of voluntary service, you can expect the same percentage of acceptable men (by your definition) in and out of the military. The incentives to sign up today are much different than in earlier years. Just look at the pitch of recruitment officers: A free education after your service is a great opportunity. An emotionally strong young man who already has his college paid for him may never even consider the military. Conversely, a not-so-strong young man who wants a college education but has no way to pay for it, may sign up for just that reason.

Finally, as of yet, no one has isolated a gene for intestinal fortitude (or any other ambiguous character trait you mention), so any complaint about the lack of it in the country's male population would be impossible to prove with science, which is the ultimate proving ground for any theory.

Answer 3

I sense a little bias in your question, and it seems you are against the idea of sending young men to die in battle. While I agree with that sentiment, the answer to your question is "no."

There are two reasons: first, the numbers are just not high enough. Our current military deployment is less than half a million soldiers. Of those, less than 50,000 see battle, and about 3,000 have died so far in the last three years. In the United States, there are an estimated 300,000,000 people. Assuming that half of those are men, then 1 in 150,000 are dying in war. The gene pool is not getting depleted by that few deaths. Car accidents, violent crimes, suicides all claim more victims annually.

The other reason is demographics. You're assuming that the percentage of men in the military that have those qualities is higher than the percentage in the general population. But in fact, the military population is a fairly close cross-section of the general population. So if a guy with "good" genes dies that's bad for the population, but if a guy with "bad" genes dies, that's good for the population. So in the end, it evens out.

Now you're right in that people who have disabilities cannot join the military, but the numbers there are so insignificant that they don't really matter.

The better question to ask is whether we have a moral obligation to keep people with both good and bad qualities alive.

Answer 4

I doubt it because even though many served a great many did not see combat even in WWII. Many guys that were healthy were excluded for stupid reasons so there were healthy genes left behind. You also had lots of children that were too young for WWII and subsequently were too old for Korea. But your question is a valid one.

Many guys end up having physical problems as they age. So even guys that served in combat have problems that show up later. Their youth and physical fitness hide some of the physical flaws during their service.

Obesity and mental illness (depression) seems to come along with poor parenting. Often it seems prevalent in the lower classes. People can and do have children without giving thought to the consequences. Even simple thoughts like do I have money to provide food. Am I mentally prepared to be a good parent.

Answer 5

War does not change gene pool.. For every soldier there must be hundreds of civilians equally healthy. Only Israel supports such notion and claims an independent racial state.