The problem is it not obvious why this is factually wrong.
Well, I mean... no?
Mutations aren't "negative" things. They're just things and in some times and places that mutation is maladaptive, in others they're adaptive, and in many more cases they're just not gonna have a strong effect in either direction.
Its a very rudimentary understanding of mutation as a "wrong" thing that never gets corrected in basic education. Not even an ignorance of science thing, just a basic incorrect definition of the word.
I... I don't think modern medicine is the enemy of natural selection.
Technology and societal development/structure are parts of the environment that a critter lives in. So mutations that were maladaptive in an environment where certain medical technologies or societal structures didn't exist are no longer maladaptive to a degree that a person with a particular mutation would be less likely to have surviving kids.
There's a pretty significant amount of confusion here, I think.
I never said that you said that. What I was telling you is that you misunderstood my statement and that I was talking about the original post which was disgusting modern medicine being the enemy of natural selection.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. 😁
To continue the discussion though, personally I think that are adaptations are largely unuseful in the world that we've created however any issues that we have we are likely to overcome with technology or science so it's fairly unlikely, in my opinion, that modern medicine is the enemy of natural selection.
If anything it's driving natural selection but in a different direction. We're going to have to learn how to adapt to microplastics, carcinogens, forever chemicals, particulate pollution, and excessive heat, to name a few.
(AHA... sorry, wasn't trying to personalize anything in my comment. Didn't take anything personally or thought you were putting words in my mouth.)
personally I think that are adaptations are largely unuseful in the world that we've created however any issues that we have we are likely to overcome with technology or science so it's fairly unlikely, in my opinion, that modern medicine is the enemy of natural selection.
If you want, I do have three logic-based reasons against eugenics:
Eugenics means assigning human values to nature, and therefore our human emotions will determine what our kids might have.
Eugenics is just hyper-domestication. They claim that modern medicine is evil, but eugenics will just domesticate us further and will really bite us in the ass if civilization collapses (CHUDs drool of the day civilization collapses and they can act out their LARP.)
How do we know this won't set a precedent for using eugenics to create an inherit slave class as "the help" and who will get to decide who is and isn't a slave?
the tallest people in pre-modern world were like 5'8" on average
that's now below average in every high-income country
most of that is due to fossil fuels doing our manual labor and large amounts of food, but some of it is also due to medical advances (for instance ivermectin reducing parasite burden)
The problem is it not obvious why this is factually wrong.
It IS obvious why it's morally wrong.
The clarity comes when you actually understand science and realize that we're correcting our genes faster than mutation could ever hope to.
It's sad that nuance is lost.
Well, I mean... no?
Mutations aren't "negative" things. They're just things and in some times and places that mutation is maladaptive, in others they're adaptive, and in many more cases they're just not gonna have a strong effect in either direction.
Its a very rudimentary understanding of mutation as a "wrong" thing that never gets corrected in basic education. Not even an ignorance of science thing, just a basic incorrect definition of the word.
This being "Modern medicine is the enemy of natural selection."
Sorry, should have been clearer.
I... I don't think modern medicine is the enemy of natural selection.
Technology and societal development/structure are parts of the environment that a critter lives in. So mutations that were maladaptive in an environment where certain medical technologies or societal structures didn't exist are no longer maladaptive to a degree that a person with a particular mutation would be less likely to have surviving kids.
There's a pretty significant amount of confusion here, I think.
I never said that you said that. What I was telling you is that you misunderstood my statement and that I was talking about the original post which was disgusting modern medicine being the enemy of natural selection.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. 😁
To continue the discussion though, personally I think that are adaptations are largely unuseful in the world that we've created however any issues that we have we are likely to overcome with technology or science so it's fairly unlikely, in my opinion, that modern medicine is the enemy of natural selection.
If anything it's driving natural selection but in a different direction. We're going to have to learn how to adapt to microplastics, carcinogens, forever chemicals, particulate pollution, and excessive heat, to name a few.
(AHA... sorry, wasn't trying to personalize anything in my comment. Didn't take anything personally or thought you were putting words in my mouth.)
Sounds like we pretty much agree there.
Exactly ❤️
If you want, I do have three logic-based reasons against eugenics:
Eugenics means assigning human values to nature, and therefore our human emotions will determine what our kids might have.
Eugenics is just hyper-domestication. They claim that modern medicine is evil, but eugenics will just domesticate us further and will really bite us in the ass if civilization collapses (CHUDs drool of the day civilization collapses and they can act out their LARP.)
How do we know this won't set a precedent for using eugenics to create an inherit slave class as "the help" and who will get to decide who is and isn't a slave?
I do appreciate that.
Thing is, whatever the argument, everyone is too overwhelmed by the day-to-day to really respond to it logically. No nuance.
genes are pretty irrelevant to most things
the tallest people in pre-modern world were like 5'8" on average
that's now below average in every high-income country
most of that is due to fossil fuels doing our manual labor and large amounts of food, but some of it is also due to medical advances (for instance ivermectin reducing parasite burden)