You're viewing a single thread.
I for one think it's wonderful to question what we think we know. Such thoughtful consideration will eventually yield good results. Maybe we'll come back to where we started but with a more firm underpinning as to why exactly we believe it. Or maybe we won't, and that's often good too, in order to cast off false beliefs e.g. in believing in Santa Claus or a childish view of a God who grants our every good wish but demands nothing in return. The important thing I always keep in mind is that TRUTH has nothing whatsoever to fear from honest inquiry.
Also, interestingly enough, we seem to be on the cusp of being able to rewrite our own DNA, thus what genes we have at any given moment may not matter to people in a hundred years from now:-P.
The important thing I always keep in mind is that TRUTH has nothing whatsoever to fear from honest inquiry.
Sure, the fact is though that this person is clueless about natural selection, morphing it into Malthusian nonsense, and making an inquiry on that basis (so not developing science by expressing skepticism but flaunting their ignorance of things already explained). There is great harm in rejecting modern medicine to bring about “natural selection,” especially since this is merely a misunderstanding of the concept.
Ofc it's possible that I could be reading into it what I want to see, and yet too the reverse as well?
The last two sentences made me think that it was just a thought, which they (not OP, but the person whose name is scratched out) wanted answered, not at all like the style of like "hey, I'm just asking questions!" (no, you very much are not you bowtie-wearing MFer). But ofc that could be by design, if they were sea lioning?
Also, it's true: medical science really is diametrically opposed to allowing purely "natural selection" to have its way with humanity, as too is selective breeding (dogs, livestock, plants, etc.) that has been done by centuries. Humans like to divide things, so like things that "we" do gets one name, whereas things that "other" forces do gets a different name. Even though it's all the same DNA under the hood, and what survives is what manages to survive, good bad or whatever.
The whole thing is so short, and lacking context - unless I missed it somehow? - that it seems hard to know if it is genuine. Like if it was a Reddit post to shower thoughts, wouldn't it be good to treat it as an honest question, in that case, if we knew that?
If it is not a genuine question, then my reply still stands, but no longer applies since it was predicted on the question being genuine, which in that case it would merely be taking the form of a question but would really be sea lioning. The latter happens thousands of times daily on Reddit, and barely happens at all on Twitter/X - oh excuse me, barely ever does not happen:-P - so is uninteresting since h8rs gonna h8, and responding will not change thagt. So I thought I would reply to what was, to me, the more interesting part, that might actually have been meaningful if someone had told that to the person whose name is scratched out the made this.
I hope that explains why, right or wrong, I said that. And I hope this reply was interesting to you as well:-).
Humans like to divide things, so like things that "we" do gets one name, whereas things that "other" forces do gets a different name. Even though it's all the same DNA under the hood, and what survives is what manages to survive, good bad or whatever.
I agree. In my view, as far as applying “natural selection” to humans, why should medical development be ignored? Is it not just the accumulation of knowledge from past generations which managed to survive due to this knowledge? When humans choose to help others, is this not because we are social creatures who survive/thrive by working in communities? How is any of this any more “unnatural” than otherwise? What determines human action other than the past developments and their social/natural conditions?
An interesting video demonstrating that cooperation even emerges from non-organic, non-living algorithmic constructs: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM. Basically, the whole idea behind the "Prisoner's Dilemma" was stupid (or rather it does not apply centrally to everything) bc irl we see the same people on a daily basis and that changes EVERYTHING! In fact I recall a book from Daniel Dennet suggesting that religions were even developed along similar lines: to extend natural kin selection beyond people that you have known all your life, and even people in your own country, to others around the world. Sidestepping the question about does God exist and if so which one, and all the harm it has done, he at least suggested that it was a phenomenon that could be studied by scientific means. I got busy finding a job and never finished it - he is so dense! - but I thought I would share the thought. e.g., comparing religious thinking to enlightenment is not helpful in terms of understanding human history bc the only thing existing at the time were tribal vs. the new innovation of "religion", whereupon the latter seems to have thrived more than the former.
Separately, there is something real to the thought of artificial selection, and that is stupidity on the part of the designer, rather than the cruel but therefore the epitome of "fair" natural ones (we all play by the same rules: the laws of physics). I mean in particular the royal inbreeding that makes weaker bodies, who may be no better than anyone else - and in fact lesser in many ways than many others, not in spite of but b/c of their ancestry - but since they are held up as "superior", are given enormous sums of money, off the backs of the poorest peoples no less, just to live it up (life) however they see fit, wining and dining and partying and the like. The last I heard, the justification for keeping the royalty in place was that in the end, they could act as a check upon the Parliament of the UK. But then they did not stop Brexit, they did nothing about Boris Johnson, and so on. So then what DO they do, and why are they considered so "superior", enough to give money to for life, in return for... again, whatever it is that they do? This is at least one form of "artificial selection", and unlike looking back upon millions of years of natural selection, may very well cause a dead end in that gene pool. Ofc, natural selection caused MANY dead ends, but we happen to know that humanity was not one of those... at least, not so far:-). Thus it may grant us a false sense of superiority - like, "we haven't ended humanity yet, therefore despite all the evidence of MANY dead ends throughout history (e.g. dinosaurs), I conclude that we never will, so we can do whatever we want, without fear of consequences".
The deeper we dig, the more we understand precisely why we believe as we do, and where those lines begin, end, and connect with what lies outside of them, perhaps even being in opposition to them. Which reminds me: check out that video - it sounds like you'd enjoy it!:-)
people can't really rewrite their own DNA
CRISPR is riddled with errors and even if it gets past some of this, it'll only be a real solution in germline editing
and even then you won't rewrite your entire DNA, only tiny parts of it. There are a few diseases which are truly genetic, but most diseases aren't
may not matter to people in a hundred years from now
Not now yes. But as this video explains beautifully, it might be possible, in some distant future. Ofc, it might not, though we won't know for another century, yet it is fun to speculate now.
e.g. the video starts off with:
Imagine you were alive back in the 1980's,
and were told that computers would soon take over everything:
from shopping, to dating, and the stock market,
that billions of people would be connected via a kind of web,
that you would own a handheld device, orders of magnitudes more powerful than supercomputers.
It would seem absurd, but then, all of it happened.
Science fiction became our reality, and we don't even think about it.
We're at a similar point today with genetic engineering.
Already I can envision things like taking out the tiniest portion of our liver, rewriting its genetic code, then transplanting our very own (modified) liver back into our bodies (after first growing a lot of cells, of the type that we selected for). Even if the liver only replaced some fraction of the natural cells that were previously there (I dunno... 10-50% maybe? I do not have an M.D. so it is mostly speculation), I think we would still have the new function that the new cells provide? e.g., even if 90% of the liver cells do NOT do the new chemical processing, if 10% DO, then that could be enough to make whatever that "function" is happen?
Or removing people's gallbladers could become a thing of the past, or even if you did that, you could maybe pop back in a new one? The latter is more generic stem cell stuff, not needing modification of any kind, genetic or otherwise, but now take it one step further and imagine that you inserted cells modified to produce a new chemical - a stronger digestive aid perhaps. You wouldn't need a whole LOT of cells to provide that gain-of-function, even just a little would alter the state from "chemical does not exist, at all" to "chemical now exists, in XYZ quantity".
And we haven't even BEGUN to dig into the microbiome: maybe we don't want to experiment with editing our own fully human DNA, but editing the bacterial DNA could have profound implications, especially for anything digestive-related.
Finally, while most diseases may not be fully genetic, some are, and in any case perhaps a genetic solution could be devised even if that was not the original cause? An example could be to implant a new organ that would permanently produce insulin, so so as to not require injections any longer - and if you could make that organ from the patient's very own cells, that would significantly reduce the chance of tissue rejection?
Or even with all the detail already, I still have yet to even so much as mention nanobots, lets say bacterial or viral ones. Tiny changes, to even a few cells, can have HUGE ramifications. See e.g. cancer, but what about making those kinds of changes work for rather than against us - e.g. by modifying bacteria or bacteriophages that have zero possibility of passing on those genetic changes to the human host, for safety? Heck, the insulin example is probably already possible now - we've been mass-producing insulin from bacteria since the 80s. There probably is some reason that we aren't seeing it - e.g. if bacteria in our small intestine were to produce insulin, could it get into our bloodstream that way or would it just become pooped out? Even if someone had to eat a yogurt once a week rather than receive insulin injections, many people might purchase such a product?
And from there it will only continue to grow... just as computers did, also having mostly started in the 80s. Check out the video - it's superb!:-D
And we haven't even BEGUN to dig into the microbiome: maybe we don't want to experiment with editing our own fully human DNA, but editing the bacterial DNA could have profound implications, especially for anything digestive-related.
99% of health problems are the result of stress which is the result of rich people overworking poor people
outside of curing cystic fibrosis and a few other inborn things, CRISPR's gonna be useless for health
even cosmetic traits like "blue eyes" seem to not be entirely dependent on genes. the incidence of blue eyes in mayo americans has fallen from 60% to 20% in a century, despite no admixture and no selection against the known light-eye genes
Sickle cell anemia? It's irrelevant if the person eats Cassava. It disappears.
Also you can just look at the last 70 years of US media and news to see how drastically the same exact population's (White and Black Americans) appearance can change drastically.
Even the insulin stuff is unnecessary if people just have what they need, the rate of diabetes would plummet in the first place.
"it continuing to grow" would imply that these problems haven't been solved, and are getting worse--in which case the CRISPR will be a band-aid (likely with more side effects down the line)
genes are incredibly overrated. Resources and lifestyle are everything.