If evolution works by survival of the most adaptive to change (rather than the fittest), does that mean that some slight mutations of a species will survive, be stronger, and so evolve the species, while others will be weaker, not therefore survive?
If that’s the way evolution works, how does our approach to medicine affect that? The western approach at least is very much based on saving every life, at almost any cost. But what if we’re saving the weaker mutations, the less adaptive to change mutations, the ones that would naturally have faded out. Are we therefore diluting or weakening the global human gene pool? Would we be evolving faster, or better, if we were to allow nature to play a greater part in the evolution of the species. If nature were to play a bigger part in who lives and who dies.
Having said that, does it only apply to those that haven’t yet reproduced? If someone has alreay procreated, then their genes are in the pool anyway, and so it wouldn’t make such a big difference. How would that actually work? You get a lower level of medical intervention until you’ve procreated? That would certainly drive a pretty hard baby boom! Can you imagine people mating to stay alive? It would be hell of a party though…
Sent from my Treo