OK this is gonna be a topic that might very well cause some offence, It isn't intended to!

On the health and safety thread that i started people have been giving a good ole thumbs up to the darwinist ideal of let the fittest (read people not stupid enough to put their fingers in sockets) survive. I thought i would extend the argument and see where we go.

A while back i had a conversation with a friend of mine about the state of things, it's a conversation that we seem to keep having and I haven't yet come up with an oppinion on his point of view, mostly because despite his oppinion being extremely radical i can kind of (and I do mean Kind of) see his point.

His point of view is that we as a race are being slowly lessened by medicine. His argument is that baby's are surviving now that would not have done so before the advent of decent medicine. We are, in essence, cheating natural selection. Without natural selection to weed out the bad gene combinations, those bad combinations are proliferating back into the gene pool.

Told ya it was controversial!

I understand that there are religious issues that need to be addressed here, but I am not the man to do that as I am fairly anti-religion. And please don't flame me as I don't agree with him I can just see where he's coming from.

Discuss?

We're not "cheating natural selection". Natural selection is still operating as normal; it's just that the situation has changed. With the high level and prevalence of medicine, we no longer need to be so physically hardy. This doesn't "lessen" us, any more than it "lessened" us when we couldn't climb trees like we used to - it's just not necessary any more.

Disagree. This statement can be true, but only in the circumstances where we are able to afford medical treatment and medicines. Examples of people who would "need" this physical hardiness might include homeless people, travellers (who are ever on the increase due to modern transport as well) and those suffering from natural disaster (New Orleans is a perfect example of this situation, where those who have had their lifespans extended beyond what might once have been the norm were struggling to survive in the city.

I don't however, agree that we are still lessening ourselves as a race. If you follow the Darwinian theory right through to its purest, then we should never have left the trees. Medicine is, in my humble opinion, just another tool that humanity has utilised to further its own evolution. From the moment we started using weapons and discovered fire, we were diverging from the Darwinian world, and to compare our evolution to that of animals around us is just silly, really. We've taken over the reigns of our own evolution, so to speak, so I shouldn't think that natural selection plays a large part of our lives anymore.

The same thought had occurred to me.

I think that on the one hand, yes, we are diluting the 'good' genes in a way that runs counter to darwin's natural selection. In essence, technology has allowed us to replace 'natural selection' with 'unnatural selection', especially in the more right-wing countries in the 1st world. F'rinstance: success today doesn't depend so much on your genes as the circumstances into which you were born. Born into a very rich family, and you'll probably get an excellant education, graduate into a well paid job which will keep you fat and comfortable and not struggling for the rest of your life. And vice-versa. Now imagine being born with a congenital

As to whether we're on the road to being an entire civilsation of short-sighted, bald, wheelchair-bound people, I don't think so. Evolutionary change works on such a grander scale than technological change. We're talking millions of years for evolution to have a visible effect vs. tens of years (if that) for technology to have an effect. By the time we'd see the race 'evolve' in any significant way, we'll have
( a ) blown ourselves up
( b ) blown up the earth
( c ) subsumed into a pure energy form
( d ) constructed a portal into a parallel universe where evolution is outlawed.

There's no "natural" or "unnatural" about it. Technology is just one more factor in it, no more "unnatural" than the effect the trees had on the evolutionary path of the giraffe. Just because we're now responding to the effects of technology more than to trees or other animals, doesn't make this "bad" or "unnatural". It's just a new way things are going.

A few things.

1 - you can't 'cheat' evolution, because evolution has no goals. Since there is no end goal for evolution, we can't be disrupting it's natural course.

2 - Human beings are natural, and everything we produce is natural, in much the same way that ant hills, and beaver dams are natural. We happen to change our own environment the most, so that we can adapt quicker.

3 - Evolution only takes place in populations that have pressure to evolve. Many sharks haven't evolved much for millions of years simply because their design works, there is no need to change. If for some reason, there becomes need to change, then they will evolve, or die. Humans don't need to evolve, because we are an incredibly successful species.

hum hum...
I been doing lots of reading lately... obsessively almost.. I been reading a book called faber's book of science.. the last chapter brought up a lot that seems to fit in with the topic of this thread.

I'll sum it up... There is a maximum number of plants the earth can support, that's because as far as we know the sun isn't going to increase it's output of light anytime soon. The amount of mass of animal (and human) that can be supported on the earth is directly dependant on the maximum mass of plantlife. The fact that the more and humans are coming into existence means that the amount of animals is decreasing. It's an interesting point to note that animals are decreasing on earth at almost the same rate humans are increasing.. strange that.

What that says to me is that evolution can back fire.. if one species becomes so so so sucessful to the point of wiping out and using up the very resources and foods it needs to continue.. you've evolved yourself into a black hole. On another slightly amusing note.. if humans do wipe themselves out in the next 10000 years.. we could very well be the laughing stock of the world. If the theories that scientists currently hold true are accurate humans have been around no longer than 500,000 years.. (most say 200,000). Even humble neandathal man last a few million years before dying out and we famously use him as an example of someone not good enough to survive. We got a long way to go to not go down as the shortest lived species the planet has ever produced (that we know of).

Interesting note... if you converted all the world's plantlife into plants edible by humans.. and removed all animals so that all energy from plants went directly to us. You could theoretically end up with 55 million, million people! The population density at that point works out to a good 10k per square kilometre across the whole planet (including the poles). Stop breeding people! keep your underwear on!

Like we're so advanced and intelligent that we reach a limit and end up destroying ourselves. Ooh. Philosophical.

/semi-spam

Perhaps, but there are alternatives.

Growing food underground (with powerful enough lighting)? In orbital greenhouses? Ocean-wide algea? Growing food on high stepped terrace lattices, making use of hoerizontal space as well as verticle. More efficient food, like some genetically engineered super-moss?

It could result in having to plan and regiment our every day life, but population growth can be managed I think. I think the planet could perhaps support 12 billion people with current technology, though it would require mass irrigation and desalinization projects. Perhaps even efforts to reclaim desert regions, but that will be needed eventually anyway. They are growing all the time.

As for Darwinism... that fell out of vogue over half a century ago. We now by-and-large use the Theory of Evolution. May seem similar, but there are quite significant differences.

With genetic engineering kicking off the ground evolution may enter a new stage, where the species itself can conciously go and improve itself. Some people are horrified by this idea, but I think it will give us the power to overcome much of our weaknesses. We could wipe out many heriditary diseases that to date have no cure.

There was probably a point in there somewhere... *shrugs*

This isn't true - long before it got to that point, either the 'successful' species would starve to death, or something would evolve. This is why viruses that kill are actually less successful - they destroy their host, and thus die. The most successful viruses are the ones we can't get rid of - like the common cold.

Well it has happened in the past when humans have been "smart" enough to introduce species where they shouldn't be, and no natural system kicked in to clean up after us in the past. Not saying for a moment all life would end.
I am talking about us as a species, I think we drain the planets resources more than it can take indefinately. Without major change now.. (not in a few generations but now). I think we'll fubar ourselves and leave the planets to slightly less self aware, but perhaps more balanced ways of life.
That thought doesn't bother me one bit either

Contraversial indeed!

1. From what I have seen, studied, read (etc): Medicine so far doesn't allow bad gene combinations back in the pool. The vast majority of modern (and proposed advances in) medicine have helped us cure ourselves of diseases that are not 'genetically inherited', but are capable of affecting anyone. Scarlet Fever was effectively wiped out in the 1970s thanks to vaccinations - the people it tended to kill weren't genetically weaker or more suseptable to illness - they were often poorer and couldn't afford even basic treatment.

If there is an issue of weakness when looking at medical impact on survival rates then it is usually the weakness inherent in the very young and some of the very old. But that isn't a genetic issue.

Natural selection isn't being cheated here - population control is being cheated. Social control of poorer classes is being cheated - and rightly so as far as I'm concerned.
________

2. As I mentioned above, natural selection through disease doesn't always weed out the weak leaving the strong, nor does modern medicine necessarily promote the continued spread of genetic impurities / bad gene combinations. Most diseases can affect anyone and only a few diseases that aren't treated have the capacity to kill - so disease as a form of natural selection isn't particularly strong.

Modern medicine may save someone, but it is very rare for that person's genes to have been faulty and then passed down to another generation rather than being deselected out of the species. Genetic defects as a lifethreatening disease are few and not commonplace. Problem areas like Haemophillia are rare enough not to affect the majority population in terms of natural selection.

It is also interesting to note modern medicine has only been relatively advanced in the past 50 or so years. Humanity has been around a lot longer than that. If disease was a good form of natural selection then all the weak humans would have been de-selected by now only leaving fit and strong healthy humans who were unsusceptable to disease. Disease would eventually have stopped as weak humans who contract and keep it going would be dead so the disease would be dead. Except that isn't the case is it?

With many genetically inherited diseases - even without medical attention - the patient will not die immediately, often being able to reproduce successfully passing on the bad genetic combo before the patient even needs to see a doctor. Modern medicine can't be blamed for this breach of natural selection, as nature itself isn't deselecting the genetic problem quickly enough.
________

3. Genetic abnormailty isn't always found in one family group, often a parent may be totally healthy whilst a child suffers from debilitating illness. More often than not these kinds of abnormailities that, if untreated by medicine, can kill (naturally deselecting someone) are brought upon by extrenal factors usually involving lifestyle or in some instances climate / local environment, or sometimes just plain bad luck.

Certainly the majority of life threatening diseases we see today can be attrributed to lifestyle. If someone doesn't excersise at all, their body muscle will eventually atrophie. If their diet is unhealthy or they smoke or are exposed to large amounts of pollution, then their immune system is less likely to be able to cope with even a common flu virus - so medicine steps in and keeps them alive. Their children do not inherit a bad gene, more likely they inherit a bad lifestyle - Though there are some cases where a mother smokes or drinks during pregnancy and her children may develop disease due to these factors, which again are not genetic.
________

4. To follow on from your friend's idea - his hypothesis raises an interesting situation:

It is most often the poor who don't have access to modern medication. So it would be reasonable to assume that they are stronger than the pampered rich people; some (or maybe all) of whom have grown weak through generations of genetically inferior breeding - and who have only been allowed to survive and reproduce because of modern medical practices that only they can afford.

However, in the third world where medical supplies are mostly non-existant mortaility rates are so high that the average life expectancy can be as little as 45 years (compared to 70 years on average in the developed world), and infant mortaility can be as high as 2 or 3 children in every 5 dieing before the age of ten. Here we see this so called natural selection at work, but does it mean that the survivors are stronger because of it? Is society / humanity as a whole better off?

Even with so many deaths within the poorest countries it doesn't mean that bad genes stay out of the pool - as many illnesses that are attributable to genetic defects are still found throughout the un-medicined under-developed third world, (for example Sickle-cell anemia is found throughout Africa irrespective of whether sufferers get aid or not)
________

5. It is also important to note that there are recent advances in modern medicine within genetic sciences to firstly identify then eliminate genetically inhereted diseases in future generations (quite the opposite of what you're friend is complaining about) - though this branch of genetic research is still in its infancy.
________

You raise an interesting point here.

New Orleans is proving that people who have grown weak because of medical interference with natural selection are currently getting de-selected now that their medicine crutch is removed.

Very contraversial. And in my opinion flawed on the following grounds:

The people who've remained in the city and are currently struggling the most are the poor - many of whom could only just about to afford to feed and home themselves, let alone go to any doctor or hospital. These are people from communities where medicare is virtually non-existant, and insurance premiums ensure no one gets to even see a doctor let alone treatment. These folks haven't had their lifespans unaturally extended by medicine as they haven't had any medicine.

I would suggest that they are unable to cope because the situation is so desperate, not because they are of genetically impure stock. I defy any human being to try and survive through such hardship.
________

Fair point.

The human race has taken the reins of its destiny - from the moment we started using our brains to deveop simple technology that helped us shape our environment (from fire and flint axes through the ages to the microship and genetic mapping). Some of these 'advances' have helped humanity others have dragged us backwards in terms of civilisation and development.

To stop medical improvement of life would not make us stronger, it would simply kill lots of us off... quickly, starting with our kids and grandparents.

ok I'm going to play a little devils advocate here, please understand that i still do not hold an oppinion on this matter.



good point, well made, but consider the idea that the New Orleans incident is a small symptom of the much larger problem of global warming, if we take global warming to its worst (has everyone seen the day after tomorow?) then we are talking about catastophes that no one can walk away from even the rich.



We may not be evolving at the kind of excellerated rates that are evident during pressure driven periods but, I believe, we are still evolving.
in 1912 the mens 100m world record was 10.6 seconds
in 2005 it was 9.77 seconds

in 1901 the mens long jump record was 7m61cm
in 2005 it was 8m95cm

you could argue that training techniques, better equipment and diets have all improved since the early 1900s but does that honestly account for the full 1 second or 1 and a half meters improvement. and people keep on beating these records!

It was mentioned earlier that the study of genetics, in time, will be able to remove many illnesses/deformities from the species. To throw another set of issues into the bag, some groups representing the 'disabled' (I've never liked the connotations of that term) have said that they are proud of who they are and what they achieve, and see no reason why their physical shapes should be removed from the species. Choosing to remove physical differences is, to them, a form of Victorian culutural imperialism which essentially states 'the correct body shape is X, if you are shaped beyond these parameters then you are inferior'. Are disabled people inferior? I don't think so, and so the point is why get rid of something that isn't a problem?

[As if allowing 'sub-standard' babies to die wasn't controversial enough for one thread...]

Then humanity as a whole needs to toughen up and get ready for some extreme weather related hardship... this can be easily achieved through improvements in diet, excercise and lifestyle. We don't need eugenics to survive we don't need to weed out the genetically weak - as:

(i.) the genetic differences between each and every human are so difficult to categorise it would take several years to actually establish who is weak and who is strong. Simply saying let disease sort out the wheat from the chaff is far to random and unspecific - it will more likely kill off the young before they even have a chance to demonstrate their genetic worth.

(ii.) if we look at the so called genetically weak as inferior we fail to accept that as individual human beings they still have other traits that should be respected by humanity - intellect being the most obvious. Our species will not progress further if the so called weak are elliminated in favour for the strong. Strength alone does not make a good functioning human society. We have developed far beyond the hunter gatherer stage and the progress that society needs to make now will be determined through intellectual advancement; even with the current global warming crisis (it doesn't matter how strong we are, the likes of Katrina will always be stronger - but there is still a hope that we can out smart it or comprehend enough to defend against future hurricanes).

(iii.) If you take the global warming approach - then it is more than likely that the rich will be able to afford the best means to combat the problem, it will be the poor who have to suffer the most and therefore may need to be physically strong enough to survive, and as above they aren't likely to be medically suped up.

i know im not a fit survivor.....which is kind of scary i guess.
i mean, i had strept throat about 16 times. i would have died. it freaks me out. i know that my parents had taken meds too and so had my grandparents and etc....it just kind of makes me feel like i wasnt meant to be though. like, if i wasnt here, the resources i use could be used for 10 poor people!

So far I'm completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that this debate has risen, so I'm going on a purely genetic / economic rationale.
______________

So you, your parents and your grandparents have taken medication in the past? Does this mean that you are in some way inferior to people who haven't gotten ill? When living in tightly packed urban or even sub-urban areas vast numbers of people regularly get exposed to and contract all sorts of illnesses.

You got Strep throat, and if you had been denied medication you might well have died... along with the millions of other kids who get Strep Throat or a host of other viruses, infections, diseases etc. This is not to say that you are weaker than others who would have survived, as there are so many other factors that need to be taken into account when determining why some people (not on medication) die whereas others don't.

As to whether your death (and the deaths of what could be millions of others) would benefit society - I would suggest that whatever strength / luck you may need to survive illness (where illness is a means of natural selection), doesn't take into account the other highly important parts that make you the person you are. Your intellect, the potential to do great things, or even just the basic potential to be an ordinary person working in an ordinary job earning an ordinary amount of money that you then spend... ordinarily --- doing this helps society more than being physically stronger.

If society os to benefit in regards to strength, it will be a lifestyle change that brings it about - not denying medication to people. If people ate more healthily, excercised more and took less stuff that was bad for them, then society could see a marked improvement.

I for one believe that currently evolution is only really occuring in areas of hardship. In the first world, your genes don't really effect the number or likelyhood of you having children (unless your sterile). If your rich and sucessful with a great trim body and grand looks, you are no more likely to have kids than a poor person that's ugly. (though I'd guess one would probably get laid more). It's only in areas of poor education or where contraception just isn't readily available are you more likely to have more children, and only under those circumstances where physical fitness, and genetic health will give you any kinda of advantage in generating the next generation.

Those conditions only really effect the 3rd world or very poor areas.

Please note that the following is based on what I can recall of my Genetic Science studies, and may be out of date / mistaken. I will double check this with my old professors when I see them next.

Evolution doesn't occur as a responce to any specific factor.

We humans evolve through genetic accidents that cause miniscule changes in our DNA that gradually build up over the millenia to become recognisable traits that differentiate us from our ancestors as a new sub-species.

The issue of survival of the fittest is that when a factor that causes hardship to a specie is introduced some will survive better than others if they were lucky enough to have evolved better means of dealing with that hardship.

Eg.

Daisies gradually split into two sub-species, those that have evolved as shorter plants (through subtle evolutionary changes to the plant's DNA) and those that remain taller - they haven't evolved. Then along comes man and his lawn mower and all the sub-species of tall flowers get cut down, leaving the sub-speicies of small flowers to thrive in their abscence (no more tall flower competition).

The evolutionary changes that affect everything with DNA on the planet occur all the time, and unless they are subdued then they will continue and develop into new species. With some species (especially insects) the time taken for evolutionary change to manifest itself can be quite quick... whereas in humans and other more complext lifeforms it can take hundreds of thousands of years for us to even notice that our thumbs are shorter than those of our distant ancestors. So far there is nothing within humanity today to suggest that we can be subdivided into categories of sub-specie - especially not along lines of poverty/wealth or access to medicine or even strength / weakness as strength isn't necessarily an inherited trait (just look at some brothers one very muscular the other not).

Just because there isn't some external factor killing of one sub-group or another it doesn't mean that evolution isn't occuring right now - it happens all the time, sometimes enough genetic change occurs to affectivley lead to a new population, sometimes not.