The question is this: Are medical advances actually weakening the human race rather than making us stronger and more capable of survival?

As a species, we tend to attempt to separate ourselves from nature and take the position that we are somehow better than other animals and place ourselves above nature. Our advances in medicine and the greed of pharmaceutical companies has created a pill-oriented culture that promotes prescription medication for even the most minute illnesses, thus stopping humans from developing natural resistances to illnesses or causing bacteria and viruses to mutate and become drug resistant, thus causing injury to the human race as a whole, as our immunity weakens and pathogens evolve.

In "The Descent of Man," Charles Darwin stated:

With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind.

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Darwin's statement was not simply the uninformed rant of a madman with no compassion, but was rather an objective look at a possible future where the human species will be greatly injured by the efforts to prolong the life of the weak of the species, thus causing degeneration of the species at the genetic level.

What are your thoughts on this? Is the good of the few in the short term more valuable than the good of the human race in the long run?

Good inspiration to do thik about it. Thank you!

To an extent I agree but it also seems that nature itself has a tendecy to also adapt. For example the rise of certain viruses that are immune to antibiotics. It seems that it always finds a way to "thin the herd" so to speak no matter how hard our efforts.

NovaAngel said:

Our efforts to check nature actually cause pathogens to mutate.

It's an interesting idea. With questions like this, though, I guess I'm just extremely cautious about how the protocols for our effective "selection" process would be decided and by whom.

it makes the race both weak and strong.

yes, advancements keep the weak alive longer.

however, the advancements keep everyone alive longer, allowing brain power to be put toward other things that make the race strong, instead of the race spending all of its time worrying about how to simply live from day to day.

AaronFantastic said:

Good point. Physical fortitude is not the only -- or most -- important component of the human constitution... especially in an increasingly industrialized world.
[This message was edited Thu Apr 10 5:58:03 PDT 2003 by Lammastide]

Lammastide said:

I would propose that the "increasingly industrialized world" is also highly injurious to the human race, as well as all other forms of life on the planet.

IceNine said:

I would agree as well. But I'd rather live in it than not


IceNine, have you ever read a book about a telepathic gorilla that teaches philosophy through dilemma of the "givers" and the "takers"?

I can't recall the name of the book or the author right now, but this is along those lines.

IceNine said:

There is no equilibrium in evolution; there is always creative destruction. The "increasingly industrialized world" is just another change that will cause adaptation.

teller said:

Many of these adaptations will make themselves known as SARS, AIDS, Ebola, Hanta, Lassa, etc.

AaronFantastic said:

I just found the book. It's called "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn.

AaronFantastic said:

I am going to have to check that one out!



I love telepathic gorillas!!!

IceNine said:

It's a good book. The logic is a bit shakey in some parts, but it does what it's trying to well. And having the info come from a telepathic gorilla is, I think, an intentional invitation to question some of what he's saying. There are blatant points that are red flags, and I think they're intentional. It's written like a work of fiction, told by the gorilla as something of a folk tale. I had to read it for a philosophy class in college. One of the few that I liked. Or could get through without screaming "NO SHIT SHERLOCK"

Yes, I believe humans (even the most intelligent and educated ones) make many decisions without thorough research.

Take for example how they introduce a non-native species, whether plant or animal, and often have wiped out an entire other species or plant because of it.

We build immunities by fighting disease. If we keep preventing our bodies from doing this (like the abuse of antibiotics), I believe that it will have long term effects. Our bodies will adapt to not having to deal with defending itself against what it no longer considered a threat.

Hope this makes sense.

LaVisHh said:

Not only does it make sense, I also agree with it.

IceNine said:

i agree. unchecked industrialization is a wrong turn for this world

XxAxX said:

No doubt. Yet, as Teller mentioned, our new environment will likely bring certain adaptations (albeit not all physical) that will help us survive.

The human animal’s most efficient natural defense has always been its intellect and not its physical fitness, anyway: We aren’t powerfully large; efficiently small; cold blooded; endowed with claws, fur, wings, fangs or stingers -- and just look at what foreign viruses have done to us throughout history. We were getting our butts kicked, we learned how to use tools as a defense. We were cold, we learned how to stoke a fire. We are infected by microorganisms, we learned how to concoct antibiotics -- if they mutate, we'll just have to adapt again to that.

All of our developments have some evolutionarily destructive down side, but I kinda think we’ll continue to adapt.
[This message was edited Thu Apr 10 6:56:57 PDT 2003 by Lammastide]

Lammastide said:

further, because of that intellect, we're the only species on the planet that actively tries to protect the other species from our own. the only one with a consciousness to save species and environments, whether they're suffering because of us or NOT; and sometimes it's not our fault when things happens -- it's the natural order of things, which leads to the question: should we try to save certain species or environments when their destruction or degradation is not at our hands?

AaronFantastic said:

The answer is: No.

I was also going to pose the question of cloning in order to replenish numbers of endangered species, but I decided to leave it for now...

IceNine said:

Furthermore:

I also believe that we will fall prey to more very deadly pathogens as we further our industrialization of the world.

AaronFantastic said:

Hmm… good question.

I’d tend to say no. As cold as it sounds, I think we do this merely for sentimental reasons and we have no evidence from nature that this has any value.

IceNine said:

This brings to bear another notion...

Of course the charge of any species is to survive, but from an objective standpoint, we still are a part of a larger ecology.

Taking that into account, are we even meant to be around forever? Or are we like any number of other species that served a temporal ecological purpose?
[This message was edited Thu Apr 10 7:08:31 PDT 2003 by Lammastide]

Lammastide said:

The human race has absolutely no purpose and there is no meaning to our existence. We humans are simply animals and were not created specially, nor are we favored by anyone other than ourselves, therefore we are not meant for anything other than living until we die out.

IceNine said:

Yeah, but we have each other.

IceNine said:

It runs deeper!

Muse2noPharaoh said:

How so, exactly?

IceNine said:

All in time... BUT as you know im getting ready to scoot off to work!

Muse2noPharaoh said:

Afraid of a good debate, I see.

IceNine said:

Like Hell Texas Otter! Brat!