Over the past 100 years, and much more so in the past 40 years, medical science has been able to save an increasing number of babies (and mothers) being born that would have not survived if they had been born at any other time in human history. Is this having an impact on the human gene pool?

What’s your opinion on this? Is curing hereditary diseases on a genetic level a scientific possibility? If so, why there’s a focus on supressing those diseases or their symptoms?

  • ree@lemmy.ml
    31·
    2 years ago

    Is this reducing the quality of the entire human race’s gene pool? Due to medical science, the strongest are no longer the only ones to survive today

    Wow, that question check a few fascist boxes.

    Not saying it shouldn’t get asked. But at least the answer should tackles than dimension.

    Edit: negation

    • Tatar_Nobility@lemmy.mlOP
      11·
      2 years ago

      I figured so and was reluctant at first to post this but I can see quite some differences with fascist clinical methods. The Nazis exterminated people with hereditary diseases that were thought to stain the supposedly pure, Aryan blood. I don’t think this is what the article was implying as a solution. Implicitly, the author is implying that maybe we shouldn’t be treating those diseases in the way we are right now.

      • ree@lemmy.ml
        2·
        2 years ago

        The article doesn’t discuss what a perspective such as “the survival of the fittest” implies and mostly validate it.

        Moreover some point are a bit weak the academic says sth like “there are more asthma in western societies, I think those are people with weak immune system” . first he’s has no empirical evidence second asthma is highly correlated with pollution I don’t think it’s an interresting indicator.