d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Modern Medicine
123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 54,112
Joined: Jun 11 2007
Gold: 445.00
Warn: 20%
Jul 10 2012 07:55pm
ruining survival of the fittest
Member
Posts: 17,045
Joined: Jan 29 2007
Gold: 6,069.23
Jul 10 2012 07:58pm
Quote (powwpoww @ Jul 10 2012 06:55pm)
ruining survival of the fittest


profitable and the cia good at druging us caugh caugh
Member
Posts: 42,313
Joined: Apr 2 2008
Gold: 90.65
Warn: 50%
Jul 10 2012 08:49pm
Quote (powwpoww @ Jul 11 2012 01:55pm)
ruining survival of the fittest


how so ?
Member
Posts: 33,156
Joined: Apr 8 2006
Gold: 737.50
Jul 10 2012 08:52pm
Why does "the fittest" have to only apply to physical strength and intellectual prowess? The fittest are adapting to their environment to survive as best they can; just like every other species on the planet. Also, population numbers rise and fall all the time, due to predators and overpopulation/lack of resources.
Member
Posts: 16,431
Joined: Jan 27 2006
Gold: 6.66
Jul 10 2012 08:54pm
vs traditional medicine?
Member
Posts: 54,736
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 1,463.83
Jul 10 2012 11:44pm
survival of the fittest isn't as simple as it seems
Member
Posts: 40,915
Joined: Jul 8 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jul 11 2012 07:36am
Quote (Matao @ Jul 10 2012 08:49pm)
how so ?


It's allowing would be fatal dieseases to remain in the gene pool by allowing individuals that would have died before the age of virulity to be given an opportunity to reproduce.

By doing so we're helping to artifically keep a potentially harmful gene set in the gene pool that would have (normally) been selected against.

However, the OP makes a poor case of it, seeing as the real grit of the argument has barely been touched on.
Member
Posts: 42,313
Joined: Apr 2 2008
Gold: 90.65
Warn: 50%
Jul 11 2012 07:50am
Quote (piddywiffle @ Jul 12 2012 01:36am)
It's allowing would be fatal dieseases to remain in the gene pool by allowing individuals that would have died before the age of virulity to be given an opportunity to reproduce.

By doing so we're helping to artifically keep a potentially harmful gene set in the gene pool that would have (normally) been selected against.

However, the OP makes a poor case of it, seeing as the real grit of the argument has barely been touched on.



if the environment allows for viable offspring , then there will be survival
there is nothing artifical about it
and there is no reason to select against genes that survive to reproduce

Member
Posts: 40,915
Joined: Jul 8 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jul 11 2012 11:29am
Quote (Matao @ Jul 11 2012 07:50am)
if the environment allows for viable offspring , then there will be survival
there is nothing artifical about it
and there is no reason to select against genes that survive to reproduce


I'm not sure you grabbed the idea I was putting out, so I'll rephrase it a little bit and see what you think of that.

We're changing the game with modern medicine.

By going against what the universe says about genetics that would have normally been selected against via Natural Selection, we are indeed artifically selecting for the genes.

Granted, we are not doing it for the gene itself. Instead we see an ethics based method of selection that we cling to in an effort to keep our family alive for an extended period of time.

These ethics cause harmful genes to remain in the gene pool if the afflicted individual survives long enough to reproduce, which in many instances, would have not been the case had we allowed it to be dictated by nature alone.
Member
Posts: 42,313
Joined: Apr 2 2008
Gold: 90.65
Warn: 50%
Jul 11 2012 03:36pm
Quote (piddywiffle @ Jul 12 2012 05:29am)
I'm not sure you grabbed the idea I was putting out, so I'll rephrase it a little bit and see what you think of that.

We're changing the game with modern medicine.

By going against what the universe says about genetics that would have normally been selected against via Natural Selection, we are indeed artifically selecting for the genes.

Granted, we are not doing it for the gene itself.  Instead we see an ethics based method of selection that we cling to in an effort to keep our family alive for an extended period of time.

These ethics cause harmful genes to remain in the gene pool if the afflicted individual survives long enough to reproduce, which in many instances, would have not been the case had we allowed it to be dictated by nature alone.


im not sure you grasp my very simple point
your " harmful genes " are only harmful in an environment that selects against it
we dont live in a world without medicine , therefore we dont live in an environment that selects against your " harmful genes "

and unless you foresee a future in which medicine has vanished , those genes will not be selected against , and will continue in the gene pool
natural selection working just fine , as we continue to adapt to our actual current environment , not one we lived in thousands of years ago
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll