Doesn't modern medicine kind of ruin the whole concept of survival of the fittest?

Answer 1

Not really. I've heard this argument before, but the point that is missed is that humans have evolved to use culture to adapt to their environment.

For example, instead of evolving bigger teeth, chambered stomachs to accomodate eating grains, we use mills and fire (cooking) to process food we would not have otherwise been able to eat, instead of evolving fur and blubber, we make clothes, etc.

So no, this is part of human evolution.

wl

Answer 2

modern day medicine doesn't ruin the survival of the fittest....it actually strengthens it,but makes it more complex.

present day science, had shown that exogamy ;individuals who breed with more exotic partners will have healthier offspring due to the benefits of outbreeding Simply,the drive to reproduce with individuals genetically different from oneself may derive from an innate drive to seek the healthiest combination of DNA possible for one's offspring by outbreeding.

So, selecting the right partner,leads to survival of the fittest..
example being cystic fibrosis when a couple of primarily European genetics have children, breeding with an african might cure the problem.

Also, survival of the fittest doesnt mean, the fittest pre se , as resistant to a disease or a condition. But. rather a person who has the ability to mutate genitically , when a resestant strain appears.

so survival of the fittest and natural selection will never cease to exist.

Answer 3

Nope. "The fittest" only means whoever's best suited to an environment. We've certainly broadened that category, and thank goodness. I think humanity's rather enriched for having, say, Stephen Hawking around. There are still selection pressures on us even now. There are still people who completely fail at the mating thing for whatever reason, or who fail so badly at parenting that their kids never have kids. Those aren't the same pressures that faced our prehistoric ancestors, of course, but they're there nonetheless.

Answer 4

No it doesn't. Survival of the fittest is simply being attracted to someone who you think you would have healthy, attractive kids with. Most people don't need medicine until well beyond their child bearing years. Speaking in evolutionary terms - if you've had your kids, you don't really matter anymore. So what if you live until you are 90? It makes no difference.

Answer 5

No, it simply means that resistance to diseases that have been cured by modern medicine no longer gives a competetive advantage. At one point, the ability to outrun a hyena was much more important to survival than resistance to smallpox, but then the environment changed, and slightly slower people with better immune systems were now better adapted to the new environment.

Answer 6

Medical advances do go against the concept of survival of the fittest. Evolution is simply a matter of selecting for genes that are most adaptive to current environmental pressures. By curing fatal diseases and correcting physical malformities, genes that would normally be weeded out of the gene pool are allowed to continue on to the next generation. This is why the prevalence of many diseases is much higher than is was 100 years ago. These diseases existed in the past, but those with them normally died before being able to reproduce.

I don't mean to sound cold hearted or unsympathetic for those with possibly fatal diseases and conditions, I was just answering the question as objectively as possible.

Answer 7

Modern medicine?.....
Have you noticed the disclaimers....
Some of the side effects are worse
than the health problem....
The fittest should think twice before
grabbing a bottle of medicine.

Answer 8

Yeah. Look at it this way,

deer are becoming stronger faster and having better vision because the ones without those things are more likely to die or get hit by a car. Therefore, the best fit for survival deers will reproduce, making better and stronger deer.

Not look at humans who can wear glasses and contacts.
If those weren't invented EVER, you'd literally see no one walking around with glasses or contacts because everyone would have 20/20 vision.

Answer 9

I dont think that it does. We are finding ways to overcome obsticles.
In prehistoric times, if someone got hurt they would still try and find ways to heal themselves so that they could live longer. If we didnt find ways of overcoming sickness we would not be around for very long and rampant disease would wipe out most of human life.

Answer 10

Absolutely. If we were in prehistoric times I would have been eaten by something a long time ago. I can't see two feet in front of me without my glasses.