OK, I hope my question doesn’t get misunderstood, I can see how that could happen.
Just a product of overthinking.

Idea is that we can live fairly easily even with some diseases/disorders which could be-life threatening. Many of these are hereditary.
Since modern medicine increases our survival capabilities, the “weaker” individuals can also survive and have offsprings that could potentially inherit these weaknesses, and as this continues it could perhaps leave nearly all people suffering from such conditions further into future.

Does that sound like a realistic scenario? (Assuming we don’t destroy ourselves along with the environment first…)

  • just2look
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    29 days ago

    Pretty much everyone here either misunderstands how evolution works, or is willfully ignoring it to push their viewpoint.

    Humans at this point have very little evolutionary pressure from natural selection. We aren’t getting weaker, shorter, taller, or anything like that from natural selection because those traits aren’t killing people.

    The main driving factors for human evolution are sexual selection, random mutation, and genetic drift. There are still some poorer areas disease may still play a not insignificant part, but even that is fairly minimal since people largely live to reproductive age.

    Human evolution has been fairly stagnant for quite a while. The differences most people would notice are from changes in diet, environment, and other external forces. For natural selection to pressure evolution we would need to have a significant portion of the population sure before they are able to reproduce.

    • freebee@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      In this age of contraception, it’s more a matter of wanting to reproduce (and how often) rather than merely being able to. I can’t shake off the impression that less educated people are reproducing at a way higher pace, producing many offspring of which in before times many would not have reached reproduction themselves, but now they do.

        • just2look
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          29 days ago

          I’ve seen it. And less educated/poor doesn’t mean genetically less intelligent. And even if it did, all that means is a change in the average gene distribution. A large enough portion of every population still reproduces that we are unlikely to dead end any major gene variations. So we still maintain a diverse gene pool, and if something happens to make natural selection play a role, we still have enough variation to adapt to changes.

          • Ænima
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            29 days ago

            I think the point Idiocracy was trying to convey had less to do with the genetics of the stupid people breeding, and more so the downward spiral of intelligence due to policy societal and governmental changes. Dumb people, make dumb policy choices, including with regard to education. To me, it stands to reason that the downward slope of intelligence is percitpitated on how effective governmental policy is and how well education is distributed.

            • just2look
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              28 days ago

              Agreed. Plus it is a satire. It was making a point. It wasn’t required to be factually accurate through the entire movie.

              My disagreement was that there was any evolutionary downward pressure on human capability. We can do increasingly dumber things without it being a genetic change. Propaganda, indoctrination, and selective access to information can play a huge role in how people develop and ultimately behave.

    • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      Pretty much everyone here either misunderstands how evolution works, or is willfully ignoring it to push their viewpoint.

      Yes! Finally someone else who knows how…

      Humans at this point have very little evolutionary pressure from natural selection.

      Oh come on! Such a strong start but then you fell on your face. Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It never lets up. It’s more about reproduction than staying alive. Natural selection is happening every time someone reproduces more than someone else.

      • just2look
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        28 days ago

        Natural selection isn’t the only thing at play though. That solely refers to the organism best adapted to the environment being more likely to survive and produce offspring. Essentially everyone in our population survives to be able to produce offspring.

        Sexual selection plays a much bigger part now. That isn’t someone being the most adapted to the environment, it’s someone being the most attractive to a mate. There are plenty of adaptations across nature that are maladaptive to survival, but are selected for regardless.

        Then there are random mutations and genetic drift. Those happen in every population. That is more just a matter of chance.

        We have found ways to adapt to our environment outside of evolution. So we no longer have a significant natural selection process.