Medicine & Evolution - Are we becoming weaker?

A few months ago I had this thought:

We carry a lot of information in our DNA to form our healthy and fit body. But also information for diseases, which occure due to damaged DNA/mutations. Now with advanced knowledge in medicine and technologies we are able to help disabled people.

Let's take this as an example ( bbc.com/news/health-42322246 ):
- A baby was born
- Heart was outside the ribcage
- Cause was a genetical defect
- Baby got successfully operated
- Child is living a "healthy" life

What medicine did, is to take care of the symptom, not the cause - the child still carries the genetic defects. If said child grows up and procreates, it might transmute this genetic defects upon it's offspring, which will result in a polution of our gene pool over time. Same goes for any genetic defect. If medicin keeps humans with genetic defects alive, which should have died, because they had no chance to survive (e.g. baby with external heart), they prevent evolution from intervening and get rid of this defects, hence we become less healthy, weaker, susceptible to disease etc. So, Sup Forums, what do you think? Is medicin spreading low-quality genes?

Should we just refuse medical help for genetically disabled people, so they don't polute our gene pool?
Or should we help them to live a normal life, but don't allow them to procreate?
How about genetical engineering? Is it safe or ethnically inappropriate?

Discuss!

Agreed on the second option.
But libtards would make it difficult

The less screwed up ones should be allowed to breed though, doubt it would do that much damage and mutations sometimes only happen in one individual and does not spread genetically and is able to produce normal offspring. I say we get better technology and keep making discoveries until we have a cure like those machines in the movie Elysium.

I don't really see a problem, if you're worried about it now, consoider the change humanity underwent during early 20th century and the mass introduction of vaccines, antibiotics, etc. Prior to that, it was normal for a family to lose half of their children in infancy (with, presumably, the heathiest, strongest ones surviving). I don't think solving this caused any disasters.

Then the next descendant gets the operations as well. Also CRISPR.

Think of all the people that wouldnt be alive today if it weren't for vaccines and antibiotics.

Now think of all the people that would not be alive today because they would have made shit hunters and gatherers in a state of nature environment.

Evolution, in the classical sense, applied less and less to our species ever since we invented agriculture.

Ja, mit den ganze NIGGER-GENEN die ihr deutschen in zukunft haben werdet, werdet ihr nicht nur schwächer, sondern auch dümmer. Viel spaß bei der verderbung eures Volkes.

chances are people with major medical problems will be forever alone anyway

>Think of all the people that wouldnt be alive today if it weren't for vaccines and antibiotics.
Exactly. They wouldn't be alive and wouldn't be able to spread their weak genes. From a evolutional perspective, the weak should die to let the strong procreate more, so that a population as a whole becomes even stronger and resistent.

It's just a thought, but if vaccines wouldn't exist and people died, maybe we would develop a natural resistance to different diseases. We made ourselves dependent of the pharmaceutical industry, which provides chemicals to keep us alive, rather then making nature perfect our bodies.
Compare it to the origin of lactose tolerant and intolerant people - its quite interesting.

Danke. ;)

Eugenics is literally good for everyone but as always ((they)) don't want it

>It's just a thought, but if vaccines wouldn't exist and people died, maybe we would develop a natural resistance to different diseases.
Well, we didn't during those thousands of years before vaccines were invented, I don't think waiting some more would be a good plan.

>I don't think solving this caused any disasters.

It's assumed that it caused a demographic shift from a homeostatic near-equilibrium of high mortality and high fertility resulting in zero or slow and fluctuating population growth to a new homeostatic equilibrium of low mortality and replacement-level fertility leading to a stationary population. In reality, however, fertility did not stabilize at replacement level in most countries but declined to levels far below replacement. For reference the number of countries with estimated fertility levels at or below 2.11 children (replacement treshold) per woman increased from 5 in 1960 to 64 in 2020. Funny enough the party that repeatedly warns governments of these developements is the same actively implementing measures to further accelerate the withering of europe by selective humanitarian aid, urbanization, shrinking living space and gender empowerment.

My friend, the issue lies in that not all these malformations are due to genetic mutations but to deficiencies. For example menigocele or anencephalia, usually due to low folate intake, hence the supplementation of folate in bread some cooking flours and so on. We really should be focusing of diet related issues which at the moment are of greater importance than genetic mutations.

But still our ancestors lived, don't they? Without industrial medicine we have even another benefit - no overpopulation.

Medicine allowes to keep us artificially alive for longer, resulting in a higher population and lower quality genes. While no medicin (at least no industrial), would make our population lower, give better opportunities to distribute goods and land, and create better genes by natural selection.

So roughly you get to chose:
Industrial medicine = More lives, but of lower quality
No medicie = Less lives, but of higher quality

You're assuming genetics determines the outcome of a person's life. Granted, before modern medicine, a heart outside the ribcage would mean the child would die. Hell, even 20 years ago it still meant death. (Know this because my inlaws had a child with exact condition about 20 years ago. Child died soon after birth.)

While the idea of eugenics and gene manipulation sound great, think about the consequences. Do we really know that by "cleaning up" our DNA that we can stop these mutations? What if these mutations were part of a natural barrier designed to keep us from becoming like the inbred Muzzies in Pakistan? Enough chaos left in what is otherwise a perfect set of blueprints to keep it from getting stale?

What if our DNA was specifically designed with flaws to ensure that we didn't just become inbred clones of each other down the road?

In this case, I say we shouldn't do anything. If these flaws in the DNA existed naturally, who are we to play God and say we know better how to design ourselves? Yeah it may mean some people draw the short end of the stick and get some fucked up DNA anomaly. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. I believe it was by design to ensure that the human race DNA didn't become stale.

>he fell for the evolution jew
good goys

>How about genetical engineering? Is it safe or ethnically inappropriate?
In the context of everything you wrote, yea it is more "ethically appropriate" than refusing to save a baby's life, or make the government decide whom can and can not procreate.

On the matter if it is safe or not, gen modification is extremely safe. However we don't have the technology to change the DNA sequence of a full grown organism.. You can change it when there is just a fertilized egg, but to change the DNA of +100 billion cells - which is what a newborn baby would have, is not an option at the moment.

>medicine

Yes, but don't forget technology. Both have really removed fitness from the equation.

One fixable genetic defect doesn't invalidate other positive things about the same blood.

>Posted from my comfy summer battle station

>Without industrial medicine we have even another benefit - no overpopulation.
Overpopulation is another problem that solves itself with time, as we can observe in every developed country, so I don't htink this argument works.

>don't forget technology. Both have really removed fitness from the equation.
Are you referring to the mobility scooters?

>would make our population lower, give better opportunities to distribute goods and land, and create better genes by natural selection.
No.. it is people whom create the real value, not land or natural ressources.

Much bigger picture, user. What about the calculator? How good at mental math are you? Technology exists to help us with our deficiencies. Instead of our deficiencies leading to our demise because we are unfit, technology allows us to pass those weak genes on. Same as with medicine and resistance to disease really. Only the technology we build doesn't build it's own upgraded version that make us even weaker, yet.

>Are we becoming weaker?

Yes

Reading Tip:

Biohistory: Decline and Fall of the West

>Do we really know that by "cleaning up" our DNA that we can stop these mutations?
No, but it sounds reasonable, that we can reduce congenital anomalies at least. And if they still occure: Well, natural selection will take care of it.

How about abortion before a disabled child is born? Wrong or Right?

How does is overpopulation solve itself out? By conflicts, riots, war? Right now younger generations have problems to find jobs, because old people occupy them, for instance.
I agree, that it may solve itself somehow, but why should we allow this problem to happen in the first place, if we could circumvent it, by not consuming pharmaceutical garbage.

Land and natural ressources are essential for living. It's not about value itself, but about quality of live (healthy food, enough land/space for farming, big families etc.)

Thanks, user. I'll take a look.

To some degree you are right. Some technologies out there do make us less efficient in a biological sense. I would even go so far to say, that our environment has drastically changed, so that mainly our psych isn't capable of dealing with it (see e.g. high increase of depressions -> flood of information, overworking due to meritocracy and so on)

It may appear on future generations though, depending on the extent of the defect

The single best way to prevent genetic defects is having children below age 25, which goes completely against Judaized Western culture, so good luck with that.

>Land and natural ressources are essential for living. It's not about value itself, but about quality of live (healthy food, enough land/space for farming, big families etc.)
No.. There is plenty of land, there is no scarcity in agricultural land, otherwise it would translate into higher prices.
Even if we assume that there were to become a shortage of arable land, one could just build vertical farms (indoors farms in apartment complexes).
If you like open spaces, then there is plenty of areas that are scarcely populated.
Ask yourself this, what can i buy with my money and what is the price.. Then you get the idea of what scarcity is. Can you buy organic food with a McDonalds salary? Yes, you can. Can you have 10 acres of land and live on a little farm, Yes you can - although perhaps not doable on a McDonalds salary, it is not pertained to the rich.
If the price of these things increases, people will find new ways to satisfy the supply the demand. People create the goods you desire, not nature, overpopulation is nothing but a retarded meme..

I honestly don't understand why Westerners treat having children at a biologically viable age as though it were unspeakable blasphemy...

>child

should have been left to die. Some how I don't think its a really health human. Going to be feed welfare and be in pain the rest of its life.

o vey I wonder who wanted this.