Are we 'breaking' evolution?

[jumpr]

Statement:

1. We keep sick people alive, and these sick people have kids. The kids have many of the same genes as their parents, including those genes that select for disease. Thus, those children are likely to get the same disesases as their parents had. This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?
   
2. We also have a consumer culture, one which requires almost no effort on our part in order to get "stuff." Want a big TV? Sit at your desk a couple more hours each day, and your extra wages will get you a bigger TV. Want a nicer car? Fix a few more computers and you'll be able to afford one. There's very little effort involved in acquiring material goods. You certainly don't have to traverse the Silk Road in order to get spices. Thus, weaker, less-motivated people survive with lots of luxury items. In the past, these people would die off due to lack of heat in their homes, or lack of food for sustenance. Now, we're surviving because it's so darn easy to get what you want.

Questions:

• Is medicine breaking evolution?
• Is consumerism breaking evoution?

 

[gigapet]

No.

no.

keep in mind that many of the dudes on this forum will never procreate cuz they can't leave the computer long enough.

less genetically superior people find genius ways to weed themsselves out darwin style. Like our friend in the suicide thread.

 

[JLGatsby]

If by evolution you mean Darwin's natural selection, yes.

I think too many deadbeats in this world are kept alive by our sympathy and "social protection" services.

 

[BillGates]

#1 - I say maybe...

 

[kyzen]

Yes.

Sort of, but not in the context you've described.


EDIT: Not that it matters, I'll be long dead before humans realize how bad they've screwed up

 

[Vortex22]

We keep sick people alive, and these sick people have kids. The kids have many of the same genes as their parents, including those genes that select for disease. Thus, those children are likely to get the same disesases as their parents had. This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?

I was actually thinking about this the other day. And I agree with you for the most part... although there isn't really anything that can be done about it.

 

[DougK62]

You make good points. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[JDrake]

Nice bullet action
1 & 2 - Evolution wtf?

 

[phisrow]

We are altering the selection criteria, certainly; but that doesn't "break" evolution. Evolution is just the change in the characteristics of a population under selection pressures. It will have different results if the selection pressures are different. So we are, likely, having an effect on what the human population will look like, as time goes on; but we'll be doing so because evolution is functioning.

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: jumpr
Statement:

1. We keep sick people alive, and these sick people have kids. The kids have many of the same genes as their parents, including those genes that select for disease. Thus, those children are likely to get the same disesases as their parents had. This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?
   
2. We also have a consumer culture, one which requires almost no effort on our part in order to get "stuff." Want a big TV? Sit at your desk a couple more hours each day, and your extra wages will get you a bigger TV. Want a nicer car? Fix a few more computers and you'll be able to afford one. There's very little effort involved in acquiring material goods. You certainly don't have to traverse the Silk Road in order to get spices. Thus, weaker, less-motivated people survive with lots of luxury items. In the past, these people would die off due to lack of heat in their homes, or lack of food for sustenance. Now, we're surviving because it's so darn easy to get what you want.

Questions:

• Is medicine breaking evolution?
• Is consumerism breaking evoution?

yes. we are. I actually have thought of this several times before

 

[Accipiter22]

p.s. evolution doesn't continue to perfection, only reproductive stability. Remove environmental stressors, evolution stops.

 

[FoBoT]

you may be right

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: jumpr
Statement:

1. We keep sick people alive, and these sick people have kids. The kids have many of the same genes as their parents, including those genes that select for disease. Thus, those children are likely to get the same disesases as their parents had. This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?

1. 
   
   The bigger problem isn't so much "sickness" but people who have inferior intellect and behavior problems.
   
   Poverty breeds poverty partly because of poor genes. Part of it is enviroment, but I do believe naturally dumb people are more likely to have naturally dumb kids, which stems from genes.

 

[jumpr]

Originally posted by: phisrow
We are altering the selection criteria, certainly; but that doesn't "break" evolution. Evolution is just the change in the characteristics of a population under selection pressures. It will have different results if the selection pressures are different. So we are, likely, having an effect on what the human population will look like, as time goes on; but we'll be doing so because evolution is functioning.

Good points. I guess I meant to ask, "Are we weakening the human race?" Evolution will continue, but I always figured that the whole point of evolution is to form stronger species. But in the distant future, we might see some unintended consequences of our manipulation of evolution.

 

[stormbv]

Define "sick people"...

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: jumpr
Statement:

1. We keep sick people alive, and these sick people have kids. The kids have many of the same genes as their parents, including those genes that select for disease. Thus, those children are likely to get the same disesases as their parents had. This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?
   
2. We also have a consumer culture, one which requires almost no effort on our part in order to get "stuff." Want a big TV? Sit at your desk a couple more hours each day, and your extra wages will get you a bigger TV. Want a nicer car? Fix a few more computers and you'll be able to afford one. There's very little effort involved in acquiring material goods. You certainly don't have to traverse the Silk Road in order to get spices. Thus, weaker, less-motivated people survive with lots of luxury items. In the past, these people would die off due to lack of heat in their homes, or lack of food for sustenance. Now, we're surviving because it's so darn easy to get what you want.

Questions:

• Is medicine breaking evolution?
• Is consumerism breaking evoution?

Yes and no.

The technological push for medicine and consumer goods is changing the evolutionary needs of humans. The need for "intelligent" people is becoming the dominant need. i.e. -- Stephen Hawking (physically very weak, mentally very strong) Although humans still need physical adaptation and medicine does screw with that physical evolution, the more adaptable humans (both mentally and physically strong), as a whole will choose or be pushed to mates that are also liken to their genetic makeup.

**EDIT**
But in the short run, it does hurt human evolution. #1 is definitely not good for the human species as a whole, but any catastrophic event, plague, or war should equalize that factor again. I foresee a genetic elitism before a catastrophic event changing this though, which is scary as well. (Gattaca here we come)

 

[AmericanRebel]

# 1 definately

 

[imported_LoKe]

Do illnesses only live in people? Would we be able to find all sick people and "destroy" them? Do you think such a reason justifies murder?

Your US Constitution(?) states that you have the right to life, are you suggesting that right be taken away?

Though I'm no doctor, nor do I know anything about how diseas are spread, I'll say this...

By allowing these people to live, is there not a possibility of them developing an immune system, thus passing it along to their offspring?

 

[torpid]

We are altering selection criteria. But lots of things contribute. Eyeglasses and contact lenses as well as lasik alter selection criteria, after all. Theoretically it is allowing the selection criteria to be about what's "important" for economic and social success, although to someone like me who is cynical this is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[gigapet]

what happens when we are able to extend lifespan 100s of years?

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Evolution was broken, when it was thought of out of that screwed up Darwin.

 

[stormbv]

How do you know that these "sicknesses" that you speak of won't be cured someday? What are we going to do, round up these "sick" people and take them out back and euthanise them?

 

[GasX]

Evolution is neither a strategic nor a directed process. It does not serve to improve things. Evolution occurs as a result of the perpetuation of certain genes through succesful reproductive strategies. Whatever works in the here and now is what will get passed on.

Sponging off the government, living in the projects and having 12 kids is a highly succesful reproductive strategy.

In the case of sick people staying alive, being sick is no longer applying selection pressure to the population - it is therefore (for the time being) irrelevant.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: torpid
We are altering selection criteria. But lots of things contribute. Eyeglasses and contact lenses as well as lasik alter selection criteria, after all. Theoretically it is allowing the selection criteria to be about what's "important" for economic and social success, although to someone like me who is cynical this is not necessarily a good thing.

Exactly

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: joedrake
Nice bullet action
1 & 2 - Evolution wtf?

Natural selection, survival of the fittest.
If we make everyone "fit"/able to survive using medicine, their weaknesses are not weeded out.