Human Race Is Dying (Genetic Deterioration)

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

​at this time theres no such technology that can "stop" mutations. perhaps in teh future that may be possible. At this time tho we can only detect some mutations but not actually correct them

 

And mutations if you think about it are more likely to be bad than good. Genes are very complex a ramdom change is likely to be harmful because in something that complex and interconmnected, most combinations probably wont work. its like changing a code in computer software ramdomly. Most lieklly that change will be bad not good

 

Now in the past, bad mutations were often weeded ot by natural selection. And the few that were good would be kept. Now its easier for bad mutations that make you weaker or sick to not kill you thanks to technology. You survive and pass on those bad mutations instead of dying

 

In a way its good. i dont think people should have to die for the bad luck of bad genes. On the otherhand clearly theres a downside

 

the good news is technology is advancing quickly. i would assume at some point within my life time the first steps in genetic treatments or corrections will start to be made available. If not within my lifetime surely before any genetic degredation becomes a HUGE problem. After all the degredation is a slow gradual process. 200 years from now there will still be many people who are strong and healthy. Its just that proportionally speaking, a higher percentage will probably be sick and weak

 

Genetics is very complex, we stilld ont know what most genes do. There billions of sequences. the amount of information is huge. And these amino acids are very small. Seeing them is one thing, manipulating them to fix them is a completely different story. Its like space. We been exploring galaxies with telescopes for many decades. Actually leaving our solar system is a completely different story

 

Im confident if these theories are correct about our genes deteriorating, we will find solutions with plenty of time. But it WILL take time. Genetics is so complez that even in 100 years as advanced as we might be it may still prove to be a chalange

 

in the TV sci-fi series "SG-1" this Alien race called the "Asgard" were super advanced. They travelled between galaxies and were in space for at least 30,000 years. And even they couldnt fix their genetic degredation and died off.

 

 

​Some genetic mutations can be prevented or deterred, thats really what I meant by "stop"  And really the biggest part of my argument is that when we can't, if its not immediately or eclipsingly life threatening, its possible to make life worth living for those who do have some form of mutation   Hence the whole "everyone deserves a chance @ life" regardless of bad luck in genetics I was getting at. I think we as the human population generally agree that this is the more moral alternative to simply letting natural selection happen. I knew all of what you said from there on, and i dont really get the point of the :reductive: emote tbh  

[Economy 53,220]

​Some genetic mutations can be prevented or deterred, thats really what I meant by "stop"  And really the biggest part of my argument is that when we can't, if its not immediately or eclipsingly life threatening, its possible to make life worth living for those who do have some form of mutation   Hence the whole "everyone deserves a chance @ life" regardless of bad luck in genetics I was getting at. I think we as the human population generally agree that this is the more moral alternative to simply letting natural selection happen. I knew all of what you said from there on, and i dont really get the point of the :reductive: emote tbh  

​the "reductive" was showing failure on the part of a species that was suppostu be the 2nd most advanced species in the universe (after the ancients) and they let themselves die. But it was also joking cause the last paragraph was purely bringing up something fictional

 

And i agree. i never said we should let natural selection happen. I understand the moral implications

 

if u read carefully, the moral aspect of it is never what i was talking about. I was talking about the issue and how fixing it may not be easy

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

​the "reductive" was showing failure on the part of a species that was suppostu be the 2nd most advanced species in the universe (after the ancients) and they let themselves die. But it was also joking cause the last paragraph was purely bringing up something fictional

 

And i agree. i never said we should let natural selection happen. I understand the moral implications

 

if u read carefully, the moral aspect of it is never what i was talking about. I was talking about the issue and how fixing it may not be easy

​Oh

 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

​what do u mean by total volume? my poin was that you can be weak now and not have the best genes and survive thanks to medical technology, and your more liekly to make it to adulthood and pass your bad genes on than u were in the past. How is that so hard to understand?

 

 And thats another thing that has been talked about. if ur naturally intelligent, its easier to be successful in life and have a good

 

Mortality rates aren't necessarily linked to bad genes .. Hence the higher survival per birth rate per capita doesn't correlate to passing on bad genes .   

Whait I mean by volume ... . .?      The total sustainable population increases with modern medicine...each individual is unique and has some potential to contribute .   

By previous standards, physical strength was the primary genetic marker for survival.  That is no longer the case.  It's not a deterioration but a diversification of genetic survival now.  

[Economy 53,220]

Mortality rates aren't necessarily linked to bad genes .. Hence the higher survival per birth rate per capita doesn't correlate to passing on bad genes .   

Whait I mean by volume ... . .?      The total sustainable population increases with modern medicine...each individual is unique and has some potential to contribute .   

By previous standards, physical strength was the primary genetic marker for survival.  That is no longer the case.  It's not a deterioration but a diversification of genetic survival now.  

​depends for what. For some stuff premature deaths had nothing to do with it. If you got some deadly desiese like tuberculosis ud die regardless of genetics cause its too strong for anyone to survive... or a mother with complications during pregnancy

 

On the otherhand for some stuff genes did have an impact. People with stronger immune systems, physical strength, stamina were all more likely to survive in such harsh conditions