320 Years of History
Gold Member
The title question focuses primarily on treatments for genetic ailments that in years gone by would have killed the folks who are born with them. It seems to me that dying of those things was/is nature's way of flushing out defective genes, yet these days, we seem to think we are better at managing "things" than is Mother Nature. The arrogance of that assumption astounds me, but that as a society our buying into it is even more astounding.
Is it emotionally devastating to lose a child to a genetic disorder, or to a somewhat lesser extent one further on in life, to a fatal genetic disorder? Of course, it is. The question posed here, however, is whether it makes sense for the long run (I'm talking eons, not a single human lifespan) to allow those defects to persist in the gene pool and continue to replicate?
To get a grasp on the scope about which I'm asking, consider this. Suppose a super calamity were to occur, say a large asteroid strike or some other event that wipes out nearly all of humanity. It's happened before, it can happen again. Indeed it's a matter of when such an event will occur, not whether it will. (After Near Extinction, Humans Split Into Isolated Bands)
Suppose when that happens, the only folks left to repopulate the Earth consist largely of folks who have genetic defects of which they were cured, or for which palliative measures allow them to live "normal" lives, but that remain in their DNA. Coupled with the devastating natural disaster (although the disaster need not be natural), humanity is quite likely doomed for it'd lack access to the treatments used before the calamity. In contrast, were we to allow folks having fatal, at least fatal before one reaches reproductive age, to simply take their toll, we'd at least be able to breed again and work our way back from the brink, so to speak.
So, having presented my concern, if you are able to distance yourself from the short term and whatever anguish y you may feel were you faced with such a situation, what do you think?
Note:
This is not a "God" discussion. If you feel compelled to write about God, do me a favor and click on just about anything you want other than the Reply/Post options on this page.
Is it emotionally devastating to lose a child to a genetic disorder, or to a somewhat lesser extent one further on in life, to a fatal genetic disorder? Of course, it is. The question posed here, however, is whether it makes sense for the long run (I'm talking eons, not a single human lifespan) to allow those defects to persist in the gene pool and continue to replicate?
To get a grasp on the scope about which I'm asking, consider this. Suppose a super calamity were to occur, say a large asteroid strike or some other event that wipes out nearly all of humanity. It's happened before, it can happen again. Indeed it's a matter of when such an event will occur, not whether it will. (After Near Extinction, Humans Split Into Isolated Bands)
Suppose when that happens, the only folks left to repopulate the Earth consist largely of folks who have genetic defects of which they were cured, or for which palliative measures allow them to live "normal" lives, but that remain in their DNA. Coupled with the devastating natural disaster (although the disaster need not be natural), humanity is quite likely doomed for it'd lack access to the treatments used before the calamity. In contrast, were we to allow folks having fatal, at least fatal before one reaches reproductive age, to simply take their toll, we'd at least be able to breed again and work our way back from the brink, so to speak.
So, having presented my concern, if you are able to distance yourself from the short term and whatever anguish y you may feel were you faced with such a situation, what do you think?
Note:
This is not a "God" discussion. If you feel compelled to write about God, do me a favor and click on just about anything you want other than the Reply/Post options on this page.