well first a smal thing about ijffdrie's controversy: in this monthly series i, ijffdrie, post a controversial statement, it is your job as a reader to disprove my argument, now for the first topic GENETIC DETORIATION we all know how evolution works; new genes are created by mutation, good genes get more children. the second part is called natural selection now, in the modern society, due to help for the weak and the fact taht partners arent chosen for their chance of survival. well these things have as an effect that bad genes are becoming more widely spread along the human populace, increasing the chance of some rare diseases, and reducing senses over several generation try to disprove me, i am very good at argueing though,
I hope you can argue better than spell deterioration But yeah there's not much to argue about, you're right about bad genes spreading among people. But it's not like we need the good genes to dominate the whole of mankind since we've got all the gadgets and stuff that make our lives easy.
Just wait until aliens with EMPs come Like Kuvasz said, there's not much to argue about here since you're mostly right
I dissagree, here is a few reasons and examples why. First, people not choosing partners for survivability is only true if by survivablilty you mean the ability to live without technology or in the modern world. Because in the modern world people with more money tend to live longer healthier lives, and you tell me if all else were equal would you choose a millionare or a bum on a street for a partner to reproduce with? While the ability to make money and/or gain power in the world isn't tied directly to genetics the traits that get people those things are (like intelligence, athleticism, looks...). People are still very much choosing partners based on survivability reasons, its just that what creates survivability has changed. Next while a lot more people can survive various diseases and other things they wouldn't have normally without technology, it doesn't mean more people with bad genes will reproduce it means more people with unnessecary genes will reproduce. The only way saving people with technology could hurt the gene pool would be if we lost the technology. Finally, if saving people with technology does actaully increase the amount of genetic defects within the gene pool, it also does the opposite, because no one has genes that are all bad and their bad genes aren't guranteed to be passed into their children. For example, lets say an extremely smart person that had a hereditary illness that would have killed him (or her) without technological intervention is allowed to reproduce. There is chance he could pass on the illness detiorating the gene pool, but there is also a chance he could passed on his intelligence helping the gene pool, ultimately all that really happens by that person living is the gene pool becomes more diverse allowing for more extreme cases to occur. In the end genetically speaking the world is a giant bell curve that hasn't changed its median very much in a very long time. Instead what happens is the population of the Earth grows continually which allows there to be more instances where the extremes are seen while the bar for the most extreme case is contiually raised. However, most people only seem to notice that there is more negative extreme cases than there has been in the past and what is considered to be the worse cases keep getting worse, while ingoring the fact the oposite is happening as well, and also ignoring the fact that the numbers are increasing is normal because the population is increasing. The idea of genetic detioration from increased use of technology to save peoples lives is a myth because we (humans as a whole) have been using technology to live longer for more than 2000 years and I don't think anyone would call the modern world a detioration from where we were 2000 years ago.
yes, but think what todays people think fall for skilled hunters adn the such? women that can get more or healthier children? no, most guys(not all) fall for anorexic types and most girls fall for the tony stark playboy clichue(i could be wrong about this, i am not a girl) so people dont fall for the "correct" type anymore(i am not telling you what to fall for, dont accuse me of that, i am just talking about the wild nature state) and i am talking about detoriation seen from the perspective of the "nature man" and you are right that something like a technological breakdown is needed to really show the defects(or a social, like when all people need to get their own food)
BLAH BLAH healthy childern are nice but then if you have mentally disabled ones like me you love them more
Alright, let's break this up with logic. Axiom 1: Chance Mutation is still at work today. Axiom 2: Society today extends help to its weaker members. Axiom 3: Partners are not chosen for survival, rather a random choice Conclusion: The human race will suffer from genetic deterioration including rare diseases, etc... Now, the problem with the argument is thus: The argument can never be a 'sound' argument (applicable in real life circumstances) because it's 3rd Axiom is false, Human beings still choose partners for reproduction unconsciously. The logical conclusion from your argument would only prove valid if a fourth axiom: "Those with weaker genes are more likely to indulge in reproduction" which would also be unsupported academically.
Well we are interfering with the tendency of nature to destroy individuals with damage genes. Thus they are allowed to propagate. Before medicine you had t be strong and smart and also have a healthy immune system. Now if you aren't strong get a desk job. Not smart? Manual labor. Medicine will fix you weak immune system and any other abnormalities. Now you are likely to be chosen as a partner if you have a few genetic abnormalities because technology will fill the gap. The problem is every generation the abnormalities build.
