Modern Medicine is making the human species weaker

[jdoggg12]

Agree or disagree?

I agree. There is really no 'thinning of the herd' in our species from a genetic standpoint. If we make the huge strides to save everyone with every genetic weakness aren't we going to be making ourselves weaker and weaker as those weak links continue to breed (a la the movie Idiocracy) (and yes i know that movie was extreme, i'm just talking about the general premise, on a genetic level)

I know that it's kind of a paradox though, b/c since we have the medicine/knowledge to treat illness/retardation/genetic flaws we can help those people. But doesn't it seem that in the long run putting a bandaid on it will only increase the frequency of sickness or genetic weakness?


Debate

 

[Mo0o]

Natural selection was greatly curtailed after the establishment of civilization.

You can also argue that we're merely sacrificing one kind of strength for another. Without civilization science and technology could never have reached the levels it's at now. We're sacrificing natural immunity for engineered immunity. Plus humans now are healthier than in history (even counting the fatties)

 

[her209]

[Population of people with access to modern medicine] / [Population of the world] = Some small number

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: her209
[Population of people with access to modern medicine] / [Population of the world] = Some small number

True, but....

[population of china + india]/[population of the world]=some large larmber

They are both making ridiculously fast gains in tech/medicine... so your argument wont last long

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: her209
[Population of people with access to modern medicine] / [Population of the world] = Some small number

True, but....

[population of china + india]/[population of the world]=some large larmber

They are both making ridiculously fast gains in tech/medicine... so your argument wont last long

yah, and to her209, a majority of hte population has access to MUCH more medicine than it did even 50 years ago. I don't know how anyone can vote No to that pole (i accidentally did, but one other person has as well). There's no more selective pressure on us so we inherently fall behind as other microbes & species continue to evolve. I've actually pegged modern medicine preventing weaker males from dying off as the #1 reason for the decline in semen production in the modern male

 

[SpecialEd]

given the rate that humans reproduce, I highly doubt you can measure any significant genetic improvements or regression in our population over the past 500 years or since modern medicine has taken hold.

I also highly doubt there will be any significant difference in the next 500 years.

so no, its not making the human species weaker.

 

[chambersc]

I agree, OP. This is why I like wars/battles.

 

[SagaLore]

Its okay. Instead of survival of the fittest, we're becoming a species through survival of the smartest. We're already beginning to fix genetic problems through technology.

 

[eits]

:thumbsup: for chiropractic

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: SpecialEd
given the rate that humans reproduce, I highly doubt you can measure any significant genetic improvements or regression in our population over the past 500 years or since modern medicine has taken hold.

I also highly doubt there will be any significant difference in the next 500 years.

so no, its not making the human species weaker.

Are you taking into account the increasing resistance of microbs to our medicines coupled with our decreasing bodily resistance to them? (as a result of antibiotics doing all the work for us)


I refuse to use antibacterial soap or wash my hands oftem b/c by decreasing my contact with germs, i decrease my bodies' immunity to them... so when i DO come into contact with them, my body is ready for it.

 

[AlienCraft]

I've heard a herd before, but never have I heard a heard.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
Agree or disagree?

I agree. There is really no 'thinning of the heard' in our species from a genetic standpoint. If we make the huge strides to save everyone with every genetic weakness aren't we going to be making ourselves weaker and weaker as those weak links continue to breed (a la the movie Idiocracy) (and yes i know that movie was extreme, i'm just talking about the general premise, on a genetic level)

I know that it's kind of a paradox though, b/c since we have the medicine/knowledge to treat illness/retardation/genetic flaws we can help those people. But doesn't it seem that in the long run putting a bandaid on it will only increase the frequency of sickness or genetic weakness?


Debate

I agree with you.

I have pretty poor eyesight, and that's mostly due to the invention of glasses. Who'd want to have kids with someone who's as blind as a bat? But with the invention of glasses, having very poor eyesight is no longer a hindrance. You'd simply wear glasses to compensate. But if you took my glasses from me, I wouldn't be able to drive, recognize people, read signs, etc. And my glasses aren't even that thick.

But I think the cause of the problem will soon become the solution to the problem. With advancements in medicine, we're now beginning to understand which part of DNA is responsible for what, and we're beginning to alter DNA itself. I think eventually, designer DNA will weed out most bad traits like poor eyesight, genetic diseases, etc.

 

[irishScott]

Some, but not all. As far as passing on defective genes, there are still many mentally retarded/incapacitated people out there. While they might be perfectly good people, it's unlikely that many of them will have kids simply due to society.

Also, nature isn't perfect when it comes to immunity.

Nature decided Africans needed to be immune to malaria. Guess what it thought of: Sickle Cell Anemia.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Some, but not all. As far as passing on defective genes, there are still many mentally retarded/incapacitated people out there. While they might be perfectly good people, it's unlikely that many of them will have kids simply due to society.

Also, nature isn't perfect when it comes to immunity.

Nature decided Africans needed to be immune to malaria. Guess what it thought of: Sickle Cell Anemia.

Nature didn't "decide" anything. Sickle cell anemia is a genetic defect that happens to make you immune to malaria, so it may be selected for.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: irishScott
Some, but not all. As far as passing on defective genes, there are still many mentally retarded/incapacitated people out there. While they might be perfectly good people, it's unlikely that many of them will have kids simply due to society.

Also, nature isn't perfect when it comes to immunity.

Nature decided Africans needed to be immune to malaria. Guess what it thought of: Sickle Cell Anemia.

Nature didn't "decide" anything. Sickle cell anemia is a genetic defect that happens to make you immune to malaria, so it may be selected for.

I doubt he meant that nature actually "decided" anything. I took it as meaning that nature played its course, and this is the result.

Sort of like if you take a million insects and put them in a box and spray them with Raid. You'll kill almost all of them, but there will be some which for some reason or another are resistant to the Raid. Let those insects breed and fill the box again, then spray them again. This time even more will survive, since the genes of the survivors of the last round of spraying were passed on to this generation. Repeat the process enough times, and eventually you'll get a box of insects that are mostly unaffected by the spray.

 

[SpecialEd]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: SpecialEd
given the rate that humans reproduce, I highly doubt you can measure any significant genetic improvements or regression in our population over the past 500 years or since modern medicine has taken hold.

I also highly doubt there will be any significant difference in the next 500 years.

so no, its not making the human species weaker.

Are you taking into account the increasing resistance of microbs to our medicines coupled with our decreasing genetic resistance to them?


I refuse to use antibacterial soap or wash my hands oftem b/c by decreasing my contact with germs, i decrease my bodies' immunity to them... so when i DO come into contact with them, my body is ready for it.

washing my hands has nothing to do with my genetics. They were passed to me from my parents and don't change through out my life. All I'm saying is that modern medicine probably won't have a major impact on human evolution in the short run.

I do agree that living in a sterile environment can significantly weaken your immune system. Our immune systems operate to a certain degree on a "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" system.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: SpecialEd

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: SpecialEd
given the rate that humans reproduce, I highly doubt you can measure any significant genetic improvements or regression in our population over the past 500 years or since modern medicine has taken hold.

I also highly doubt there will be any significant difference in the next 500 years.

so no, its not making the human species weaker.

Are you taking into account the increasing resistance of microbs to our medicines coupled with our decreasing genetic resistance to them?


I refuse to use antibacterial soap or wash my hands oftem b/c by decreasing my contact with germs, i decrease my bodies' immunity to them... so when i DO come into contact with them, my body is ready for it.

washing my hands has nothing to do with my genetics. They were passed to me from my parents and don't change through out my life. All I'm saying is that modern medicine probably won't have a major impact on human evolution in the short run.

I do agree that living in a sterile environment can significantly weaken your immune system. Our immune systems operate to a certain degree on a "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" system.

It doesn't have to do with your genetics, but antibacterial soap IMO is under the 'medical' umbrella. We use it to avoid getting sick - by using it, it **could** keep a person from becoming deathly ill b/c their weak immune system cannot fight off (insert bug here).

And it DOES make the microbs stronger b/c the ones that survive your washing are now stronger.

 

[BigJelly]

If anything, birth control in the western countries is making the human species weaker. The more advanced cultures are having less kids while the 3rd world countries never stop having kids. Basically reverse natural selection.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: SpecialEd
washing my hands has nothing to do with my genetics. They were passed to me from my parents and don't change through out my life. All I'm saying is that modern medicine probably won't have a major impact on human evolution in the short run.

I do agree that living in a sterile environment can significantly weaken your immune system. Our immune systems operate to a certain degree on a "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" system.

Sure, not with your genetics, but it increases the chance that possibly inferior genetics will be passed on to future generations. Maybe your genes predisposed you to dying of some disease you got through dirty hands, so you "shouldn't" reproduce, from nature's point of view. Hell, I shouldn't, several times over. I nearly died of some intestinal illness when I was very young. I threw up anything, even water. My pediatrician told my parents that if I didn't get on an IV within several hours, I'd likely die of dehydration. Nature tried to put me out of the picture, but failed because of medical science.

The hand washing thing is also a bigger issue than just antibacterial soap. Knowledge of basic hygiene is enough to screw with nature's intent. Oops, just get cut by a sharp stick in the woods? Keep it clean, it won't get infected as easily, and you won't die. Some bacteria, with the help of a tree just tried to kill you, but failed because of our large brains and knowledge of cleanliness.

Reproductive medicine is something that directly tampers with nature's last resort of genetic filtration. Those who, for some reason such as maybe sperm that can't swim straight or eggs that won't allow normal fertilization, can't reproduce seek alternate methods of having children with their own gametes, containing DNA which nature has deemed inadequate or flawed enough to warrant exclusion from the gene pool.

Is it a good thing? Maybe more flawed genes are making their way into the collective pool. Maybe more medical attention will be required as a result. I'd argue that we can still be more productive as a species with the longer lifespans and improved quality of life that medical science can provide.
If not, the market will eventually correct itself, medical research funds will decline, treatment options will begin to vanish, and lifespans will decrease, until the market attains equillibrium.

 

[moshquerade]

pretty much, but the creation and discovery of modern medicines/medical procedures counteracts a lot of the weakness.

 

[Balt]

Topic Title: Modern Medicine is making the human species weaker
Topic Summary: It destroys the 'thinning of the heard' effect....

sigh

 

[AMDMaddness]

Anyone see the realy stupid movie called idiocracy? The whole movie is based on the assumtion there is no thining of the weak/stupid so the worlds population gets more dumb as time goes on. Stupid movie I might add dont every buy it unless its less than the rental fee of course.

Pete

 

[BD2003]

Sure, not with your genetics, but it increases the chance that possibly inferior genetics will be passed on to future generations. Maybe your genes predisposed you to dying of some disease you got through dirty hands, so you "shouldn't" reproduce, from nature's point of view. Hell, I shouldn't, several times over. I nearly died of some intestinal illness when I was very young. I threw up anything, even water. My pediatrician told my parents that if I didn't get on an IV within several hours, I'd likely die of dehydration. Nature tried to put me out of the picture, but failed because of medical science.

"Nature" created man, and man created medical science. The distinction between the two is completely arbitrary - one is no more natural than the other in reality, only in our perception.

The hand washing thing is also a bigger issue than just antibacterial soap. Knowledge of basic hygiene is enough to screw with nature's intent. Oops, just get cut by a sharp stick in the woods? Keep it clean, it won't get infected as easily, and you won't die. Some bacteria, with the help of a tree just tried to kill you, but failed because of our large brains and knowledge of cleanliness.

Reproductive medicine is something that directly tampers with nature's last resort of genetic filtration. Those who, for some reason such as maybe sperm that can't swim straight or eggs that won't allow normal fertilization, can't reproduce seek alternate methods of having children with their own gametes, containing DNA which nature has deemed inadequate or flawed enough to warrant exclusion from the gene pool.

Nature has no intent and there is certainly no such thing is a *flawed* gene. It is what it is - it can be beneficial or detrimental depending on the environment (ie sickle cell), or it could just be vestigal (appendix). There is no separation between man and nature - man is nature, nature is man, and everything we do and create, no matter how aritificial it may seem, is part and parcel of nature and evolution.

Is it a good thing? Maybe more flawed genes are making their way into the collective pool. Maybe more medical attention will be required as a result. I'd argue that we can still be more productive as a species with the longer lifespans and improved quality of life that medical science can provide.
If not, the market will eventually correct itself, medical research funds will decline, treatment options will begin to vanish, and lifespans will decrease, until the market attains equillibrium.

Its neither good nor bad. It is what it is. If the genes you speak of as *flawed* are surviving just fine in the gene pool, then by what measure can you consider them flawed?

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: Balt

Topic Title: Modern Medicine is making the human species weaker
Topic Summary: It destroys the 'thinning of the heard' effect....

sigh

Dude.. are you a spelling nazi... i'm bored at work and typed fast. Way to contribute.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Some, but not all. As far as passing on defective genes, there are still many mentally retarded/incapacitated people out there. While they might be perfectly good people, it's unlikely that many of them will have kids simply due to society.

Also, nature isn't perfect when it comes to immunity.

Nature decided Africans needed to be immune to malaria. Guess what it thought of: Sickle Cell Anemia.

"Nature" also decided the white man living in africa should die of skin cancer without sunblock.

You win some, you lose some.