News0 min ago
Should we continue along this path?
8 Answers
Please no comment son cuts, I mean this from a purely ethical point. surely there becomes a point where we are interfering with nature and that cannot be good.
http
http
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
From the day we started using medicines and potions etc, to heal all sorts of things we interfered with nature.
ailments, injuries etc that prevented a person from departing this mortal coil in the past are being kept in the gene pool and these genes, from natures point of view are "weak genes" and it would remove them its own way.
so unless the defective genes are removed the ill person recovers and can still pass on the defective genes
Nature works on the survival of the fittest but we are definitely "tinkering" in all sorts of ways with that line of action
ailments, injuries etc that prevented a person from departing this mortal coil in the past are being kept in the gene pool and these genes, from natures point of view are "weak genes" and it would remove them its own way.
so unless the defective genes are removed the ill person recovers and can still pass on the defective genes
Nature works on the survival of the fittest but we are definitely "tinkering" in all sorts of ways with that line of action
We've been interfering with nature ever since Christ raised someoone from the dead, cured leprosy and made ae a blind man able to see! And since then we have learned how to do such things without divine intervention.
Every cure brings more questions. People who would have died are now living to old age, so we have the problems of dealing with the afflictions of old age; our ancestors didn't have to bother, even if they had the means or incentive to try.
Every cure brings more questions. People who would have died are now living to old age, so we have the problems of dealing with the afflictions of old age; our ancestors didn't have to bother, even if they had the means or incentive to try.
Others have already mentioned that any medical or surgical intervention could be termed interfering with nature.
Babies are an emotive subject, and instinct tells us that aiding survival in very premature babies is a good thing - but medical science is not infallible -all we are able to do is increase the odds that a very premature baby might survive. The hurdles to survival that a premature baby faces are immense - as just one example, they are born with immature lungs, which can lead to severe Respiratory Distress Syndrome, needing oxygen therapy, use of a respirator, continuous positive pressure within the airways, doses of surfactants. And even if they get past this, they run the constant risk of pneumonia.
And even if they do survive, the long term mortality and morbidity rates are significantly poorer than for full term infants, often suffering major medical complications as they develop through childhood.
These complications of survival, and the poor prognosis for those premature babies lucky enough to survive are incidentally the reason why medical evidence does not support the idea that the abortion limit should be reduced from 24 weeks to 20 weeks or less.
Whether we are actually interfering with the evolution of homo sapiens is an intriguing question, and one difficult to answer. Common sense might suggest that we are, but we have very little evidence to support that notion, and there is evidence to show that humanity is still evolving.
Babies are an emotive subject, and instinct tells us that aiding survival in very premature babies is a good thing - but medical science is not infallible -all we are able to do is increase the odds that a very premature baby might survive. The hurdles to survival that a premature baby faces are immense - as just one example, they are born with immature lungs, which can lead to severe Respiratory Distress Syndrome, needing oxygen therapy, use of a respirator, continuous positive pressure within the airways, doses of surfactants. And even if they get past this, they run the constant risk of pneumonia.
And even if they do survive, the long term mortality and morbidity rates are significantly poorer than for full term infants, often suffering major medical complications as they develop through childhood.
These complications of survival, and the poor prognosis for those premature babies lucky enough to survive are incidentally the reason why medical evidence does not support the idea that the abortion limit should be reduced from 24 weeks to 20 weeks or less.
Whether we are actually interfering with the evolution of homo sapiens is an intriguing question, and one difficult to answer. Common sense might suggest that we are, but we have very little evidence to support that notion, and there is evidence to show that humanity is still evolving.
As everyone else has said we constantly interfere with nature in the most minute ways so everything from that point of view is corrupt- There are laws preventing people like me beating weasely little traffic wardens to death, therefore their weasely little traffic warden genes get passed on as well as my big aggressive survival of the fittest ones ;-)
Likewise we medicate illnesses, try to save people who would naturally die and generally play god ( thank goodness).
As to pre-term babies, I think parents should be informed fully ( and truthfully) and it should be their choice whether to try to save a very pre term baby or not, cost most definitely ought not to come into it.
Likewise we medicate illnesses, try to save people who would naturally die and generally play god ( thank goodness).
As to pre-term babies, I think parents should be informed fully ( and truthfully) and it should be their choice whether to try to save a very pre term baby or not, cost most definitely ought not to come into it.
"Common sense might suggest that we are, but we have very little evidence to support that notion, and there is evidence to show that humanity is still evolving. "
the reason there is little evidence is primarily because of the time scales involved for changes to become noticeable.
Usually at a minimum (there are few rare exceptions)tens of thousands of years to millions of years, and we havent really known that much about "the genetic force" prior to Darwin proposing his theories and Crick and Watson discovered the DNA molecular structure.
its still very early days, its an evolving science !
the reason there is little evidence is primarily because of the time scales involved for changes to become noticeable.
Usually at a minimum (there are few rare exceptions)tens of thousands of years to millions of years, and we havent really known that much about "the genetic force" prior to Darwin proposing his theories and Crick and Watson discovered the DNA molecular structure.
its still very early days, its an evolving science !
1 to 8 of 8
Latest Posts
Travel1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Biggest Gap In Income And Spending Since...
News13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.