[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

First, I excluded any moral perspective in my posting already in my very first four words by which I opened my posting. If you know better what I did, then I cannot help it.

I am aware what you wrote, the thing is that you bring in morale in terms of judgement dressed as biologic facts. When one makes a decision what genetic defects are ok and what not, one makes a judgement call = morale.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Second, I wanted to draw attention to a medical conseqeunce of modern medical treatement, and that is that by doing so we reduce the evolutionary mechnaism of survival of the fittest. We indeed weaken our gene pool that way, whether we like to realise that or not is not the issue here: we nevertheless do. That is a problem that compares to the growing life expectancy due to modern mdeical treatement: it increases costs of the medical system, and sees eiother health system collapsing, or trewatement that is efféctive more and more only affordable for the rich, while the poor do not get it. Talking of 2- or 3-class medicine here. Also, with the share of old population becoming bigger and the share of payiong young population becoming smaller, there are financial problems to which so far nobody has an answer.
All these trhings are factual problems that nobody adresses and noboy can solve so far. Many diseases that are genetically transferred from generation to generation, withion families, thus are spreading, that is a fact. As a race, the homo sapiens in general that is, we become weaker and sicker. That has nothing to do with eugenics or rtace theory. It must be allowed to point out an implication that has a controversial reputation without getting accused of being a racist or in defense of eugenics. Again, I made that clear from all beginning on that I ignored the moral perspective on it all.

The mechanism you refer to is survival of the best adapted. Otherwise the human species wouldn't have survived this long: we have no biological features that are outstanding, the only thing we are good at is adaption.
Here you also bring in the aspect of weakening the gene pool, weakening = judgement. What makes the human genom weaker, especially when regarding the fact that most of us are not fighting anymore in a hostile environment all day long?

The overpopulation issue has many aspects:
With so many people on Earth like never before, genetic deficites are better absorved than in a tribe with 20 people.
The young population becomes smaller only in 1st world countries, in a global scale we never had this many young ones before. So what do do? infinite growth can't be the sollution, somewhere there must be a point when we have many old ones.
You refer later to Diamond, I would like to draw your attention to "Guns, Germs and Steel" ("Arm und Reich" in german), especially the things about pack immunity, he writes about it regarding domestic animals as well as regarding humans. The fact that we live so crowded together today, makes the human species in fact more immune to diseases. Even without modern medicine, an outbreak of the plague would certainly be outstanding in terms of losses, but nowhere as devestating in terms of percentages of the population which are affected as it was in medieval tuimes.
I'm not promoting overpopulation by this, btw, just bringing in some aspects.

Originally Posted by Skybird

And on the old being treated in earlier times. [...]

I am also aware of that, that's what I meant by that they were fed if possible

Originally Posted by Skybird

And then I recommend the chapter on the genocide in Ruanda, in the book "Collapse" by Jarred Diamond. There he shows a demographic analysis of the population age structure, and shows that there was a huge rivalry betweern the poseessing old generations qwho could live off their possessions,w hile the young oines had no place and ressources left for themselves to found families, and that this inner tension formed an inner dynamic of highly destructive energy that decisively contributed to the outbreak of the killing.

This sounds quite interesting, I have Collapse on my night table, didn't made it yet to read more than the chapter about the settlers in Greenland - but I hope that I'll have more time in the next weeks to read it.

Originally Posted by Skybird

So, wars also were a way by which demographic pressure was solved.

the war which set the European people most back, in terms of population (growth) was the 30 Years' War - even then there was a slight pop growth. The reason for it rooted certainly not in demographic pressure...

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your implication of the "edle Wilde" who does not do brutal things to the old and cared for them so much better than we do, is a bit one-sided, I would say. From all eras and continets you can find many examples illustrating the opposite.

lol, where did I imply that I have these hippie thoughts about the morally higher natives?

Originally Posted by Skybird

And when I look at the conditions in some of our contemporary "Pflegeheime", then I remember many examples from the media (and my own experience when I did my practicals at hospitals) that have taught me that my life may become of a kind that I may want to conclude that the price for living any longer may become too high and that it is better to make a certain decision by myself instead of leaving it to fate and random chance alone.

Regarding your previous facts, about the how old ones in history, cynically speaking, we could say that they can take one for the team
No, I get what you mean, but the treatment of old ones in our society has nothing to do with the gene pool.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Thinbking about my intial posting with a little bit more of sober mind and a little bit less of sentimentality, is of the essence. The implications I point at, are real, they are problematic, and so far they are unsolved.

Thanks, I am sober now! I'm sure you mean a rational mind, so no offence taken. I have no sentimentality for old times, I was pointing towards the fact that we have evolved and live in a society and not in the jungle anymore. (I'm not sure about the last sentence, now that I read it)


btw: I won't be able to answer you untill Sunday, so don't think that I back off from the discussion when I don't answer eventually...