Quote:
Ignoring any moral implication I just remind of a simple fact: diseases and defects that are genetically transported, will progressively effect the racial gene pool. So when you medically treat persons with such defects and now they survive until the age when they can multiply where before they would have died and nature would have run natural selection that way, this has, over generations, an effect of the general gene pool.
The number of people with bad eyes who need to wear glasses, is increasing for example. While short sight is not necessarily something that would doom the individual to die in the "wilderness"  , it nevertheless illustrates how the presence of a genetic characteristic - bad eyes in this case - results in this characteristic spreading in the gene pool. That with too bad eyes you would die in the wilderness because you can no longer kill your prey or see where your field is, is minor in this example.
But the number of hemophiliac persons is increasing, too. This is because in modern times they have more often children carrying the genetic defect as well, where as in earlier times they simply died before they could have had children.
Just a reminder of biological facts, I do not make any moral judgment or moral comment here. Just want to remind you that nature is totally unsentimental and does not know man's ideas of morals and ethics.
|
It's an interesting point of view, but I would like to add two observations to that:
1) Evolution itself theoretically eliminates those unfit to live in certain environments and promotes the best adapted to survive and procrate, thus pushing their genes forward to the next generation. We should however bear in mind that today's environment for 99% of the humans is not the wilderness, but a civilization. Hence, those physical and health limitations are largely irrelevant, as they would tend to eliminate individuals that can actually be the fittest for today's environment (F.e. imagine a very talented engineer that is hemophiliac). In that sense, you can't say that we are acting against nature; nature just eliminates those unfit for an environment, and hemophiliacs and people with bad eyesight have no problem at all with our current environment.
2) That said, despite intelligence being the main or more relevant characteristic to succed in our modern environment, the people with lower IQ are not eliminated by nature, nor tend they at least to have less childs. In fact, it is quite the opposite, as low levels of culture are usually associated with bigger families in societies where children mortality is low (In those with high children mortality it's a different matter). Here is were we are supposedly acting against nature, if one follows your reasoning. We can solve the illnesses and physical limitations with technology and medicine, but we can't make an idiot be an Einstein. Does that also effect the racial gene pool in terms of average IQ of human kind?