evolution?

Question

if darwin was right then should we not stop saving people from cancer, heart failure and the likes so that our species can do what nature intended, survival of the fittest? are we not diluting our species with sub-par and detramental people?

and never once did i say kill them off, simply let nature take its course.

Answer 1

Actually, evolution makes less a moral case for withhoding medical treatment and more of a case for eugenics, genocide, etc. Since there is no higher moral authority and the only law is the law of survival of the fittest, then those with more power should have the right to remove those that prevent them from passing their superior genes on to the next generation.

Similarly, if evolution is true, then we are continuing t oevovle into a superior species. As such, those who do not meet our definition of "superior" should be done away with in order to free up valuable resources for the superior race.

Answer 2

Well that would be the logical conclusion now wouldn't it. Course that doesn't take human emotions into account.

I personally think cancer is just the new plague of our time. All through out history and even in Biblical times, there have always been plagues that were on large scales and catastrophic. I think cancer is the one for this age. Newly risen as the Bible puts it. In Hebrew it is called "devils" and literally means "a demon, as malignant; to swell up; to devastate; to waste." I think it's more than just a disease. But one would have to look at the topic not in the carnal natural sense. Anyways, that's my two cents.

Answer 3

"Anyone with any amount of intelligence knows the value of these things.
I say repeal these laws and let the stupid die off the way nature intended them to die; stupidly."
This illustrates one of the reason why I laugh at the Darwin Awards. According to Darwinian theory, if one dies and fails to contribute the gene pool, it doesn't matter whether the failure is due to stupidity or some other factor, all that matters is that one died without contributing. Thus, to be consistent, they would have to give mock (and mocking) awards to such as people who died in the line of duty or while trying to save someone else- regardless of how nobly or self-sacrificial the death was- as long as they didn't contribute.

"If god created us then why did he create us to be so fragile?"
This assumes three things:
1) we retain the original design with which human beings were created without genetic drift;
2) that designing us with less "fragility" wouldn't compromise some other desired design feature (for example, if God gave us huge exoskeletons to make us more damage resistant, such exoskeletons might make us less mobile, which would entail other drawbacks); and,
3) that even if such a modification could be achieved without a counter-prevailing drawback to the species itself, it might create an ecological imbalance should the species become too successful at finding food.

Answer 4

Actually, you are correct in that we are interfering with natural selection. We have replaced evolution, in some circumstances, with better technology. Not saving people with genetic problems would help clear up the gene pool. If we stopped saving people from cancer, humans might eventually develop an immunity to it or internal mechanism to fight it. Cancer would be tough, though, since it is not a genetic issue (so we currently believe). In addition, it often occurs after an individual has reproduced.

Answer 5

Weeelllllll, let's see. We have evolved to the point that we are able to cure certain diseases, treat other disease to stop their progress and increase our life span.

We have also evolved to the point where it is important to us as a species to look after those that may be deemed 'sub-par'.

Aren't we doing what we have evolved to do?

If we reverted to a lower level of evolution, then we would STILL be looking after our needy - take a look at apes and you will see that they too help those that are less able than themselves. In fact, there are many examples of animals helping their more needy compatriates, down to ants taking 'fallen' ants back to the nest.

And, just as an aside, who will judge who is 'sub-par' or 'detremental' to the species?

Answer 6

Technically, we shouldn't save them because they're the weaker members and need to be got rid of to progress.

But I have 2 family members who have died from cancer and cancer-related complication and 1 who had a heart attack in his late 50s, so I'm going to support the fight to cure them.

Evolution will continue, but defective genes will carry on. Then again, they would have done anyway because the carriers could reproduce before dying, so its not really a big difference.

Answer 7

That is absolutely correct. It's cold but so it life. We are actually evolving backwards. Stupid people have more babies and people with diseases are also having children. Retards would not survive long enough in nature to reproductive age. That is why you cant reproduce when you are young so you can prove yourself by surviving to a certain age.

Answer 8

As a matter of fact, we are.
Legislating things like seat belts and helmets for motorcycles only allow the stupid to survive. Anyone with any amount of intelligence knows the value of these things.
I say repeal these laws and let the stupid die off the way nature intended them to die; stupidly.

Answer 9

Evolution does not make any moral claims about "what is good for evolution." We don't have a moral obligation to promote survival of the fittest, and nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that.

Also, the intellectual capacity to perform medicine is a form of adaptation.

Edit: John C, you forgot the part about "May Darwin have mercy on your soul."

Answer 10

Does not follow. Evolution (which is now a proven fact) will continue, whether or not society attempts to hurry it along. But evolution applies to societies as well as to species, and any societal system will have rules as to how its individuals should act for the interest of society as a whole. (That applies to ants and bees as well as to h. sapiens.) Since intelligence is the defining characteristic of h. sapiens, we attempt to preserve it by protecting human life when practical to do so.