Edit: I meant specifically humans.

  • VikingHippie
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Again, I specifically said that I prefer to have a compassionate society over a (maybe) genetically superior one that practices eugenics. The tradeoff is unquestionably worth it and you’d have to be very callous to disagree.

    Also, I never said that medicine was the sole reason. On the contrary, I said that it’s social society (which medicine is one of many results of) as a whole and a general disposition towards keeping your loved ones alive even if they can’t hunt. That’s much older than medicine. It’s literally a cornerstone of what a society is.

    • sixfold@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hear you, but genetic change at the level of these diseases and traits can take on the order of hundreds of thousands of years or more to accumulate into meaningful trends. Social society is a part of that process, in the way it might be for other social animals. If social dynamics tend to result in communities harboring vulnerable individuals, then there is probably some selective advantage to that behavior, not the other way around.