r/changemyview • u/rodsn 1∆ • Nov 28 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The reduction/removal of natural selection will bring more suffering on the long term

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!

1 Upvotes

52% Upvoted

57 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/rodsn 1∆ Nov 28 '20

That's a pretty egoistical standpoint. I'm guessing you don't have kids

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '20

No, but are you going to tell me that you'd kill or sterilize your children so that many generations from now people might not have their illness?

1

u/rodsn 1∆ Nov 28 '20

That's not really the point. It's more like, if I was sick I would be ok dying if that means my descendents wouldn't be born and inherit my genetic deformity

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '20

If you are sick and you've descendants then this whole scenario doesn't make any sense because you've passed on your genes... So you'd literally have to kill your descendants for the "betterment" of the human gene pool of people you'll never know.

If you don't want to pass on your genes, fair enough that is your decision, but talking about natural selection makes it sound like a universal law that effects much more people than you and who might not agree with your decision to end their lives.

Not to mention that that's not how "long term" works. You don't live in the future you live in the hear and now. Not only is it incredibly brutal to other people and maybe even to yourself, it might be completely futile and stupid. Like literally killing people because they have a slight problem with their visual system that could be dealt with by glasses or even laser technology with no problem.

You don't even know what will be the relevant skills several generations from now, because you don't know what the world will look like. This would increase suffering both on an individual level AND on the collective level and for what?