Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro,alt.energy.renewable,sci.space.policy,sci.chem,sci.psychology.psychotherapy,de.sci.philosophie,sci.med,sci.environment,sci.lang,sci.engr.mech,sci.optics,sci.energy,sci.econ,sci.skeptic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!goldenapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!data.ramona.vix.com!news1.digital.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!128.135.181.132!uchinews!cars3.uchicago.edu!MERON
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Notice - Social Issues
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: cars3.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <E6wo40.2t4@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Reply-To: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637
References: <33236327.373F@p085.aone.net.au> <33236F89.5DFA@ix.netcom.com> <33247147.575E@sc.hp.com> <Pine.SGI.3.95.970311072934.6730A-100000@Mn.Chem.LSA.UMich.Edu> <3325E70B.4444@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 00:59:59 GMT
Lines: 41
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:251986 sci.math:189466 sci.astro:166725 sci.space.policy:69704 sci.chem:91154 sci.psychology.psychotherapy:25475 sci.med:208557 sci.environment:132109 sci.lang:72441 sci.engr.mech:35872 sci.optics:27963 sci.energy:67657 sci.econ:67681 sci.skeptic:273917

In article <3325E70B.4444@netcom.com>, Jim Balter <jqb@netcom.com> writes:
>Jeffrey Bodwin wrote:
>
>> This has been debated ever since people have practiced medicine. If one
>> believes in evolution and natural selection, then from a species point of
>> view, curing diseases is not such a good idea because individuals with
>> less favorable genetic traits are allowed to reach reproductive maturity
>> at a higher rate. This leads to production of more individuals with the
>> less favorable trait, which throws the whole natuaral selection thing into
>> reverse.
>
>Those who understand natural selection understand that this is utter
>nonsense.  In the absence of pressure against some trait, such as a gene
>for some curable genetic disease (of which, in fact, there aren't any),
>that trait will be able to express itself.  If such pressures later
>arise (say the doctors and molecular biologists all migrate to
>Aldebaran), then individuals who carry those genes will have fewer
>offspring.  Natural selection is natural selection; there is no
>"reverse" about it.
>
True.  However, if there is a significant amount of such individuals 
in the society, it becomes the society's problem, not just said 
individuals problem.  That natural selection eventually works doesn't 
mean that its workings are pleasant.

>OTOH, suppression of disease allows longer lives and more variety
>in the gene pool, which can allow certain otherwise marginal genes
>to mutate into something useful, or allow useful genes that are
>linked to otherwise fatal genes to be passed on.
>
Or allow said genes to mutate into something yet more damaging.

>Social Darwinism is not only morally bankrupt, but it is also based
>upon ignorance and bad science.

Now, where did I see it before.  I mean the classification of science 
into "good" and "bad" according to whether somebody does or doesn't 
like the results?  Something in this spirit was posted, not long ago.

Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"
