|
6
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by While it is common knowledge that air pollution is unhealthy, a simple analogy that describes that danger has been sorely lacking. Research into the rising cases of asthma amongst American youths reveal that for children, constant exposure to air pollution causes the equivalent damage as smoking. The famous pediatrician author Bill Sears says, "If you live near a polluted area of a city, it's like the child is smoking .... Children do not grow as well because they do not breathe as well. The brain really needs a lot of oxygen. They don't think as well. They don't learn as well."
This situation raises yet another interesting question regarding the future of the human race. As discussed earlier in the peanut allergy op/ed, many new ailments are the result of medical innovations that "keep-alive" those of us that would otherwise not pass in Earth's long running survival-of-the-fittest game. Are the technologies and industry that cause the ailments or the technologies and medicine that allow us to grow weaker going to be the long term downfall of humanity?
Add a Comment (3)
Email This
Message Author
This question seems to lie at the very root of "civilization" as we know it. Even the development of agriculture meant people were less healthy than their hunter-gatherer ancestors. Whether or not the price of growth and technology is worth it is really up to society. Of course, large civilizations tend not to make those decisions consciously, instead being focused on which sports team won the recent game, or on increasing their own political power...
So, I'd say an eventual crash is inevitable for us--just as it happened for countless civilizations before our own in an endless boom-bust cycle of technological expansion and collapse.
That is, unless we wake up... It has happened before--if you look at the archaeological record for Aboriginal Australia, it actually gets simpler over time. At some point they developed sophisticated tools, then gave up on them and went back to a simpler lifestyle. However, life isn't a "survival of the fittest" game to them (Survival of the fittest is a gross oversimplification of evolution anyway); they take care of their elderly and other non-contributing members of society; but they also understand when it's time for someone to die and they deal with it.
"Civilizations" on the other hand, resist death at every turn--like trying to hold back a river--and when the pressure builds too high, the entire civilization collapses, leaving the survivors to pick up the pieces.
RSS
A by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 22 April 2008
I have a mixed view on this subject due to the fact that each
individual's immune system works a lot with chance. Ponder that
question or wonder if you have contracted something, are you safe and
healthy… but one never knows. No one individual can predict what kind
of immune system will be required to be fit in the future and/or with
the pathogens, viruses etc that are evolving and changing constantly.
In a way our society is preparing ourselves for the evolution since
they are creating a lot of "genetic diversity" which can be lead to
new and interesting combinations. Another question that I might add is
if we the individual need to 'evolve' more or are we well adapted
already?
There is also a thought that we fear to lose the evolutionary race.
This can be seen because of a misunderstanding of our evolution; but
never the less there is no progress as such in evolution, meaning no
recession. But is there an extinction and/or a natural part of
evolution; it just happens just as often as 'speciation'. Evolution is
a natural process; So keep your hands off it!
But do these individuals creating technology have a different view.
Maybe they are not interested in human evolution, but instead a
political agenda in mind…
So do we want to change the human species for political purposes or
the 'rethoric' behind the social philosophy which may advocate an
improvement to human hereditary traits.
Product of our Own Calamity by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 22 April 2008
But is there an extinction and/or a natural part of evolution; it just happens just as often as 'speciation'. Evolution is a natural process; So keep your hands off it!
Normally within a species (like homo sapiens as a whole), I don't think of extinction without considering all of them extinct. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that a branch within the species were to become extinct. I guess people don't like thinking of branches of humans because they start getting called discriminatory ... but whatever.
So let's say epinephrine and stuff like that simply ceased to exist. The "branch" of humanity that is allergic to peanuts would probably die off very quickly and the remnant stragglers would follow thereafter. Consider that an extinction of the line.
Isn't that the natural way? We've simply staved off the extinction of an aspect of humanity because we had the technology to do so. That's unnatural prolonging of a weakened genetic line. Perhaps not only are these weaknesses being introduced by exposure to modern industrialization but they're being perpetuated by our ability to use technology and chemicals to stay alive.
A few thousand years ago ... I would've died off at roughly 8 years old for an inability to see. The technology of glasses has enabled people like me to stick around - and now people all over the world have bad eye-sight because those genes no longer died off.
In a way our society is preparing ourselves for the evolution since they are creating a lot of "genetic diversity" which can be lead to new and interesting combinations. Another question that I might add is if we the individual need to 'evolve' more or are we well adapted already?
And that is of course the very interesting counter-proposition. In a truly wild setting, the most suitable traits would be strong immune systems, strong physique, excellent senses, etc. - thing suited for hunting and defense against animals. For whatever reasons, "weaker" brainiacs have begun surviving and developing technologies to keep "weaker" humans alive. That expanded gene pool, the genetic diversity, has resulted in such a range of people that our ability to survive now is incredible - somebody, somewhere will have a genetic immunity or the intelligence to develop a cure against just about anything. It may not save everyone - but it would save a lot.
So it makes you wonder. Should we be crying nay against the industry saying it's hurting us ... or should we be inadvertently thanking industry for accelerating our genetic mutation?
Interestingly ... such survival is now considered a venial sin by the Catholics.