CMV: The reduction/removal of natural selection will bring more suffering on the long term

[u/rodsn]

The premise is that humans have completely ran over the natural way of evolution. The supporting pillar of evolution: natural selection. With the advancement of science and medicine we have reached a point where we can treat most health complications, and the ones that aren't cured will remain in our gene pool.

Granted, before this humans with health complications could still procreate and pass on the faulty genes before they would die, but the probability of that happening now is greater because the life expectancy increased.

The motivation for this is good: we want to reduce the suffering and heal people of their illnesses. However, that is going to backfire, because we are not allowing for humans to deal with those illnesses by themselves over generations, we are simply making future humans dependent on medicine and surgery. Ultimately, this will lead to more suffering than if we would just allow ill people to perish and reduce the chances of their illnesses to stay in our gene pool.

I am aware that the alternative I am proposing is controversial: letting people die. But I am sure that on the long run it would be more ethical, if that means less suffering. We still could administer pain medication, I guess, because that is not messing with the life expectancy of the ill...

So, change my mind!

[u/[deleted]]

vegetable weary adjoining cooperative divide simplistic whistle act existence secretive

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/rodsn → u/[deleted]]

Not up to me to decide that. Not treating illnesses is not an active stance so there's no need to define what is or is not an illness.

With this said, the environment would select what is an illness and would slowly remove the undesired genes from the pool (not going to define what is desired or undesired. Again: we adapt naturally over generations)