Alabama: Better Save the Tray of Embryos Over the Baby

[Pens1566]

If science is helping people that are unable to conceive, are we no longer following "survival of the fittest", and in fact weakening the gene pool?

In virtually every species, only the strongest that can reproduce to carry on the species. This was also true for humans until fertility treatments were developed, and in our (human) timeline that is a very recent event.

Many, many healthy babies are now being born from parents that were unable to conceive. Perhaps mother nature was saying, "have fun, but we don't need 'your' DNA in the gene pool". And now with IVF, man is unknowingly polluting the gene pool with less than optimal DNA.

By that logic almost anyone that has been saved by modern medicine should be prohibited from procreation.

Strong anti-vaxx vibes too.

 

[Paratus]

If science is helping people that are unable to conceive, are we no longer following "survival of the fittest", and in fact weakening the gene pool?

In virtually every species, only the strongest that can reproduce to carry on the species. This was also true for humans until fertility treatments were developed, and in our (human) timeline that is a very recent event.

Many, many healthy babies are now being born from parents that were unable to conceive. Perhaps mother nature was saying, "have fun, but we don't need 'your' DNA in the gene pool". And now with IVF, man is unknowingly polluting the gene pool with less than optimal DNA.

That’s not how evolution works.

 

[MtnMan]

By that logic almost anyone that has been saved by modern medicine should be prohibited from procreation.

Strong anti-vaxx vibes too.

Aside from vaccines, most saved by modern medicine are saved after they have reproduced. But yes, perhaps we have been unknowingly weakening the gene pool since vaccines were developed, also a very recent event in the human timeline.

I think by the time I took part in contributing to the gene pool, the only vaccine I had received was the polio vaccine, surviving without medical science things like measles, chicken pox, etc.

 

[MtnMan]

That’s not how evolution works.

It's not? Would love to hear your take on it... and please no mention of supreme beings or zodiac signs.

 

[Pens1566]

Aside from vaccines, most saved by modern medicine are saved after they have reproduced. But yes, perhaps we have been unknowingly weakening the gene pool since vaccines were developed, also a very recent event in the human timeline.

I think by the time I took part in contributing to the gene pool, the only vaccine I had received was the polio vaccine, surviving without medical science things like measles, chicken pox, etc.

Do you use electricity? Corrective lenses?

/rabbithole

 

[dank69]

Aside from vaccines, most saved by modern medicine are saved after they have reproduced. But yes, perhaps we have been unknowingly weakening the gene pool since vaccines were developed, also a very recent event in the human timeline.

I think by the time I took part in contributing to the gene pool, the only vaccine I had received was the polio vaccine, surviving without medical science things like measles, chicken pox, etc.

We evolved to create and use tools. Some of those tools are used to communicate and preserve knowledge, including the knowledge of how to create and use tools. Does it make a difference if a tool is biologically a part of us?

 

[brycejones]

If science is helping people that are unable to conceive, are we no longer following "survival of the fittest", and in fact weakening the gene pool?

In virtually every species, only the strongest that can reproduce to carry on the species. This was also true for humans until fertility treatments were developed, and in our (human) timeline that is a very recent event.

Many, many healthy babies are now being born from parents that were unable to conceive. Perhaps mother nature was saying, "have fun, but we don't need 'your' DNA in the gene pool". And now with IVF, man is unknowingly polluting the gene pool with less than optimal DNA.

Wut

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

We evolved to create and use tools. Some of those tools are used to communicate and preserve knowledge, including the knowledge of how to create and use tools. Does it make a difference if a tool is biologically a part of us?

I mean, one of our tools is arguably the ability to rapidly warm our climate to the point it will likely cause our own extinction, not sure if tool usage being all natural organic logic is the path you wanna walk down.

 

[MtnMan]

We evolved to create and use tools. Some of those tools are used to communicate and preserve knowledge, including the knowledge of how to create and use tools. Does it make a difference if a tool is biologically a part of us?

One could also equate that our species has proven the "peter principle" to be valid.

 

[IronWing]

One could also equate that our species has proven the "peter principle" to be valid.

But that is exactly how evolution works. It isn't "survival of the fittest", it is "survival of the good enough". There is no goal beyond keeping on keeping on.

 

[MtnMan]

Do you use electricity? Corrective lenses?

/rabbithole

They were not involved in the reproduction process I participated in...

And wouldn't have to back too many generations to find my DNA lineage was forwarded when "fire" was the most common technology in common usage.

 

[Paratus]

It's not? Would love to hear your take on it... and please no mention of supreme beings or zodiac signs.

If a member of a population is adapted well enough to its environment to successfully reproduce it meets the minimum fitness required to pass along its genes. For humans that environment currently includes our big brains and the scientific and medical advances that allow children with congenital problems to be born, grow up and have kids of their own.

We don’t live in an environment without those advances anymore so we don’t have to be adapted to an environment without them. If our environment drastically changes then those who don’t meet that new fitness requirement won’t live long enough to pass their genes on to the next generation.

 

[MtnMan]

But that is exactly how evolution works. It isn't "survival of the fittest", it is "survival of the good enough". There is no goal beyond keeping on keeping on.

Those you would classify as "good enough"... would they need IVF?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Those you would classify as "good enough"... would they need IVF?

In the broadest sense, they survived long enough in their environment to be able to acquire the resources to pass their genes on. So, I would argue yes, "good enough".

Damnit, ninja'd by Paratus

 

[sandorski]

If science is helping people that are unable to conceive, are we no longer following "survival of the fittest", and in fact weakening the gene pool?

In virtually every species, only the strongest that can reproduce to carry on the species. This was also true for humans until fertility treatments were developed, and in our (human) timeline that is a very recent event.

Many, many healthy babies are now being born from parents that were unable to conceive. Perhaps mother nature was saying, "have fun, but we don't need 'your' DNA in the gene pool". And now with IVF, man is unknowingly polluting the gene pool with less than optimal DNA.

Evolution is not a Moral code or something we must follow. It is merely the process that brought about the diversity of Life. We have made artificial conditions that just allow us and other Life capable to survive outside the Natural Order. These artificial conditions are only a concern if they cease to exist and don't have any meaning otherwise.

 

[Zorba]

If science is helping people that are unable to conceive, are we no longer following "survival of the fittest", and in fact weakening the gene pool?

In virtually every species, only the strongest that can reproduce to carry on the species. This was also true for humans until fertility treatments were developed, and in our (human) timeline that is a very recent event.

Many, many healthy babies are now being born from parents that were unable to conceive. Perhaps mother nature was saying, "have fun, but we don't need 'your' DNA in the gene pool". And now with IVF, man is unknowingly polluting the gene pool with less than optimal DNA.

That's true for all modern medicine.

 

[APU_Fusion]

If science is helping people that are unable to conceive, are we no longer following "survival of the fittest", and in fact weakening the gene pool?

In virtually every species, only the strongest that can reproduce to carry on the species. This was also true for humans until fertility treatments were developed, and in our (human) timeline that is a very recent event.

Many, many healthy babies are now being born from parents that were unable to conceive. Perhaps mother nature was saying, "have fun, but we don't need 'your' DNA in the gene pool". And now with IVF, man is unknowingly polluting the gene pool with less than optimal DNA.

Are you … are you serious? Why have medicine at all? Antibiotics keep people alive who should have died preventing the rest of us from building immunity into future generations. I mean really?

also, why are you assuming a child born in that manner wouldn’t be an Einstein? It is precisely our minds, science and technology that allows for IVF. That in itself is a product of evolution. I caught pneumonia as a kid. Should I have died?

 

[Zorba]

Aside from vaccines, most saved by modern medicine are saved after they have reproduced. But yes, perhaps we have been unknowingly weakening the gene pool since vaccines were developed, also a very recent event in the human timeline.

I think by the time I took part in contributing to the gene pool, the only vaccine I had received was the polio vaccine, surviving without medical science things like measles, chicken pox, etc.

So if modern medicine doesn't impact people until after they procreate, how come the childhood death rate has dropped from over 50% to almost zero. I hope you never took antibiotics or got a cast before your kids moved out. Or ate purchased food for that matter.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Its not even a question of medicine.

A lot of societies would lock access to reproduction/women behind cultural factors. Sometimes it was being able to hunt (which might bias brawn over brains), while other cultures required males to be literate (which might bias for "intelligence" over brawn), while others simply required some sort of ceremonial practice to be completed as according to some totally random non-biological tradition.

Some Matriarchal societies might prefer more docile and nurturing men, Patriarchal societies might prefer demure and passive women, etc etc etc.

And that's just culture.

Getting into "survival of the fittest" arguments themselves are iffy (A Tiger and a Great White shark are both apex predators, highly evolved for a specific scenario, but put the shark in the jungle and the tiger in the middle of the ocean and suddenly they don't seem that evolved at all) and the human X factor of society/culture/tool use/etc just adds an even greater layer of complication on top of everything.

 

[APU_Fusion]

the human mind changed everything. We are able to break the natural order in order to evolve to the point we kill our planet and ourselves. Pure genius.

 

[Pens1566]

Yeah, this convo is kind of pointless TBH.

 

[MtnMan]

That's true for all modern medicine.

As I pointed out earlier, the majority of the time that modern medicine intervenes to save/extend life, the procreating has already occurred.

 

[MtnMan]

So if modern medicine doesn't impact people until after they procreate, how come the childhood death rate has dropped from over 50% to almost zero. I hope you never took antibiotics or got a cast before your kids moved out. Or ate purchased food for that matter.

And this has what to do with IVF?

Homo sapiens have been around for at least 300,000 years, with grocery stores, antibiotics, casts, etc. present in only the last 0.01% or so of that time frame.

Building a fire, making a stone tool, were at one time all "high science", and clearly contributed to our species success. But still those unable to procreate remained out of the gene pool.

Nor am I the first to consider the possibility that the intervention of science vs. natural selection is detrimental to the robustness of the collective Homo sapiens gene pool.

The murky future of the human gene pool | ScienceBits

www.sciencebits.com

 

[MtnMan]

Are you … are you serious? Why have medicine at all? Antibiotics keep people alive who should have died preventing the rest of us from building immunity into future generations. I mean really?

also, why are you assuming a child born in that manner wouldn’t be an Einstein? It is precisely our minds, science and technology that allows for IVF. That in itself is a product of evolution. I caught pneumonia as a kid. Should I have died?

Why? Survival instincts, just like every other species. Dogs, cats, apes, birds, fish, worms, snakes, etc., all have these instincts to survive and procreate, and use what ever abilities they have to do so. Humans are no different, we just have better tools.

Not long ago "medicine" consisted of blood-letting, drilling holes in the skull, potions elixirs and magic spells. But at the time, it was "modern" medicine.

 

[Zorba]

And this has what to do with IVF?

Homo sapiens have been around for at least 300,000 years, with grocery stores, antibiotics, casts, etc. present in only the last 0.01% or so of that time frame.

Building a fire, making a stone tool, were at one time all "high science", and clearly contributed to our species success. But still those unable to procreate remained out of the gene pool.

Nor am I the first to consider the possibility that the intervention of science vs. natural selection is detrimental to the robustness of the collective Homo sapiens gene pool.

The murky future of the human gene pool | ScienceBits

www.sciencebits.com

You are the one arguing that IVF is against evolution, while ignoring all other modern advancements. For 300,000 years, 50% of kids died before they turned 5, now due to modern medicine, sanitation, and nutrition it's almost 0. This has much more impact on human evolution than IVF.

If you think modern advances only make old people live longer, I suggest you walk through an old cemetery sometime and educate yourself on the number of kids that died even in the 1890s.