Does modern medicine disrupt evolution? Yes, in that it allows those who would otherwise die without passing on their genes to live to pass on their genes. But the only reason this would be bad is that the species develops a dependence on medicine, and that's pretty resource-draining.
Should we just let sick people die? What if Einstein needed a transplant, after which he could continue doing physics? It would be sad to deny him that. There is more to life than being able to survive in the jungle and being able to procreate.
I also don't think that the unborn future generations lay a greater claim on resources than the already living individuals. In a related point, don't tell me that the casino will weed out stupid people. It'll feed the gambling urge of many, and gambles are poor bets because the odds are against you. When families fall apart, the children suffer, and it's not even their fault.
Regardless, it'll be interesting and perverse to watch and see what happens to social dynamics around it. Granted it probably won't be the end of the world, not by a long shot, but the glitz and slick is going to make me sick. You know, I thought the economic benefit of a casino would be more Singapore Pools style, where a cut of the profits goes to charity or the government.
2 comments:
I agree that evolution is be disrupted, but only to the extent that selection criteria become modified. Although with the invention of culture, we humans have accelerated the rate of evolution, the whole process of specimen generation, elimination and transmission continues nonetheless.
True. By accelerated you mean that there are more "experiments" and more rapid changes?
Post a Comment