As promised a tangent to the child mortality thread:

As the rich countries continue to develope ever more effective "cures and treatments", and so continue to live despite nature's 'intention' (yes I know, but let's not get sidetracked before we start), aren't we effectively shallowing our own gene pool to the point that we can't survive, for want of a better metaphor, outside?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

As promised a tangent to the child mortality thread:

As the rich countries continue to develope ever more effective "cures and treatments", and so continue to live despite nature's 'intention' (yes I know, but let's not get sidetracked before we start), aren't we effectively shallowing our own gene pool to the point that we can't survive, for want of a better metaphor, outside?

That does not seem to be the case. As science and technology expands and improves so does our Life expectancy. Examples from the other thread.

2 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

That does not seem to be the case. As science and technology expands and improves so does our Life expectancy. Examples from the other thread.

Point well missed...

5 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

That does not seem to be the case. As science and technology expands and improves so does our Life expectancy.

Indeed, but this is an ethical question, not a moral one...

As per my post in the other thread the West donates to third world countries in terms of money, people and technologies.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Point well missed...

If you spent more time on explaining your point in the OP and less time on admonishing those who don't understand it, we might be able to have more cordial, meaningful, and enjoyable discussions. You make this statement a lot, and it's akin to "go back and reread my posts". Not helpful, not even a little bit.

I recognized the question, because I've heard it asked many places. It's basically the old "are we becoming weaker overall because genes which formerly would have been lethal or inhibited reproductive chances are now compensated for by modern medicine?" This is the sort of question which researchers step around like a pile of poo on the sidewalk. Research findings which could be seen by some as justification for sterilizing people with deleterious genes or letting pandemics run rampant or allowing even more "Darwinian" situations to play out in the RW....are findings that would be a sort of third rail. You may recall some unpleasantness in the early/mid 20th century regarding the disposition of people branded as genetically flawed in some way.

Maybe it's worth talking about ways to avoid having Fascists and/or NeoNazis get any sort of traction from such research.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Point well missed

As did you, the title of the graph was Global life expectancy, not "Rich people life expectancy."

Even though we have wars technology beneficial to human health gets passed around where possible and there is money available.

We can always do better, perhaps the rich should do more? The fact is GLOBAL life expectancy has increased so some better off countries like my own are doing something right somewhere.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As promised a tangent to the child mortality thread:

As the rich countries continue to develope ever more effective "cures and treatments", and so continue to live despite nature's 'intention' (yes I know, but let's not get sidetracked before we start), aren't we effectively shallowing our own gene pool to the point that we can't survive, for want of a better metaphor, outside?

In short, no. Your argument is based on the faulty assumption that there are "good" genes and that helping folks to survive it will let in a creep of "bad" genes. In this line of (frankly, eugenic) way of thinking there is an optimization to be had, where a good gene pool is actually fairly shallow and full of "good" genes (I will continue to use genes here, though I am really talking about alleles or variants as most folks arguing this are using the term gene, although it is incorrect).

The issue here is that nature is highly dynamic and one thing that we have seen empirically, but can also explain theoretically, is that a population with a broad gene pool is more likely survive than a shallow, but optimized one. The classic example in humans is sickle-cell which is very detrimental when homozygous, but in areas with malaria heterozygous carriers have a higher survival rate.

This can be extended to all the "bad" genes as you won't know whether there are situations where they are beneficial or become beneficial in certain combinations with certain alleles and/or environmental conditions.

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If you spent more time on explaining your point in the OP and less time on admonishing those who don't understand it, we might be able to have more cordial, meaningful, and enjoyable discussions. You make this statement a lot, and it's akin to "go back and reread my posts". Not helpful, not even a little bit.

Fair point, my apologies to everyone...

This isn't just a biological question, (hence the ethics forum), evolution is also a cultural phenomena; my question is more about the path our wealth will lead us.

I'm suggesting that our moral imperative to keep people alive, is leading us down a cul-de-sac, where the burden on society can only ever increase.

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm suggesting that our moral imperative to keep people alive, is leading us down a cul-de-sac, where the burden on society can only ever increase.

That is a different question, you did say gene pool initially. I think that has been answered.

Is the question ore about keeping people alive for longer and keeping more people alive? What impact that will have on the planet long term?

That is a broader question.

At some point our resources will start to run out and we are already using more than the planet will give, sustainably.

https://populationmatters.org/news/2024/03/global-resources-dwindling-as-demand-rises/

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

That is a different question, you did say gene pool initially. I think that has been answered.

Is the question ore about keeping people alive for longer and keeping more people alive? What impact that will have on the planet long term?

That is a broader question.

At some point our resources will start to run out and we are already using more than the planet will give, sustainably.

https://populationmatters.org/news/2024/03/global-resources-dwindling-as-demand-rises/

When we broke enigma, our ethics demanded that we let some people die to keep the secret and win the war; how is this question different?

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

When we broke enigma, our ethics demanded that we let some people die to keep the secret and win the war; how is this question different?

Did "we?" Who is "we?"

Why not ask that question instead? That is a different question.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

When we broke enigma, our ethics demanded that we let some people die to keep the secret and win the war

"The imitation game," film right? If you ever visit Bletchley Park one of the first things they will tell you is that, the film good as it was, may not have represented the actual events of WW2.

On 8/11/2025 at 6:46 PM, CharonY said:

In short, no. Your argument is based on the faulty assumption that there are "good" genes and that helping folks to survive it will let in a creep of "bad" genes. In this line of (frankly, eugenic) way of thinking there is an optimization to be had, where a good gene pool is actually fairly shallow and full of "good" genes (I will continue to use genes here, though I am really talking about alleles or variants as most folks arguing this are using the term gene, although it is incorrect).

The issue here is that nature is highly dynamic and one thing that we have seen empirically, but can also explain theoretically, is that a population with a broad gene pool is more likely survive than a shallow, but optimized one. The classic example in humans is sickle-cell which is very detrimental when homozygous, but in areas with malaria heterozygous carriers have a higher survival rate.

This can be extended to all the "bad" genes as you won't know whether there are situations where they are beneficial or become beneficial in certain combinations with certain alleles and/or environmental conditions.

I'm not advocating we selectively kill people, quite the opposite; H G Wells' "The War of the Worlds" is kind of the thrust of my argument.

I believe there's a hypothesis that suggests children exposed to a mild viral disease develops a stronger adult immune system, I'm not suggesting we don't continue to vaxinate against the more lethal strains; anecdotally, having suffered adult chickenpox caught from a child with about 5 little red spot's.

The cultural side of the argument, is the NHS a fine institution but one that's imploding under it's own weight, one example is the DNR (do not resuscitate), without one a Dr is obliged to keep that person alive, despite the Dr knowing that in doing so it can only prolong the suffering.

22 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

That is a different question, you did say gene pool initially. I think that has been answered.

Is the question ore about keeping people alive for longer and keeping more people alive? What impact that will have on the planet long term?

That is a broader question.

At some point our resources will start to run out and we are already using more than the planet will give, sustainably.

https://populationmatters.org/news/2024/03/global-resources-dwindling-as-demand-rises/

The question is, is health, heathy?

36 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The cultural side of the argument, is the NHS a fine institution but one that's imploding under it's own weight...

No. It is being systematically undermined by a wealthy global cabal and their political minions whom you seem to be assisting with your jingoistic misrepresentation.

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

No. It is being systematically undermined by a wealthy global cabal and their political minions whom you seem to be assisting with your jingoistic misrepresentation.

It's being undermined by morning TV, almost everyday they have a guest with a sob story, demanding they get a million pound treatment that will extend their life for 6 month's.

11 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

with your jingoistic misrepresentation.

WTF, how did you manage to showhorn my 'natural jingoism' into the discussion??? 🙄

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It's being undermined by morning TV...

= minions busying themselves with misrepresentation.

34 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

= minions busying themselves with misrepresentation.

This is an ethical question, when is our morals not affordable, to which your answer is, minions who tell lies; get a better butler you idiot...

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

No. It is being systematically undermined by a wealthy global cabal and their political minions whom you seem to be assisting with your jingoistic misrepresentation.

I agree completely. Over the years, I've engaged in discussions about the NHS, and I've watched as it became polluted by American capitalistic policies. You can't inject capitalism into a socially funded program, it just doesn't work. Capitalism takes over once it has even the smallest toehold.

And those who complain about it usually didn't vote, or they voted for the party that wants to make the NHS more modern by looping in some private providers. And the more they do that, the less healthy healthcare becomes, and the more expensive simply because those private companies need a profit the NHS wasn't designed around.

I really appreciate your input on this. I too have a hard time relating to the misrepresentations and obfuscations, and don't understand how butlers fit into the topic.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

This is an ethical question, when is our morals not affordable, to which your answer is, minions who tell lies; get a better butler you idiot...

Who are you calling an idiot? Like others on this thread, I'm simply pointing out that the OP is framed in an inethical, right-wing-dog-whistly manner.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I agree completely. Over the years, I've engaged in discussions about the NHS, and I've watched as it became polluted by American capitalistic policies. You can't inject capitalism into a socially funded program, it just doesn't work. Capitalism takes over once it has even the smallest toehold.

And those who complain about it usually didn't vote, or they voted for the party that wants to make the NHS more modern by looping in some private providers. And the more they do that, the less healthy healthcare becomes, and the more expensive simply because those private companies need a profit the NHS wasn't designed around.

I really appreciate your input on this. I too have a hard time relating to the misrepresentations and obfuscations, and don't understand how butlers fit into the topic.

This pretty well sums up the situation for me (quoted from https://keepournhspublic.com/privatisation/how-is-the-nhs-being-privatised/):

In 2012 the Health and Care Act took away the Government’s ultimate responsibility to provide an NHS for all. That opened the way to changing the way the NHS was managed and allowed NHS trusts to contract out services to private providers.

What has the NHS ever done for us?

When the NHS was first launched in 1948 it was described and defined to the UK public thus:

“It will provide you with all medical, dental and nursing care. Everyone - rich or poor, man, woman or child-can use it or any part of it. There are no charges, except for a few special items. There are no insurance qualifications. But it is not a "charity". You are all paying for it, mainly as tax payers, and it will relieve your money worries in time of illness.”

Meaning that the NHS is:

• Obliged to fulfil all health needs

• Available to all

• Free at the point of use

• Not an insurance-based system

• Paid for by tax-payers.

Methods of privatisation

While attacks on the basic tenets of the NHS have been made since its inception, attempts to privatise the NHS have occurred in recent years in the following ways:

• Removing duties of government to provide NHS services through the Health and Social Care Act 2012

• The tendering of contracts for services, and making them available to private companies

• Private financing, such as PFIs, with no guarantee hospitals paid for in this way will be in public ownership when they are paid off with tax payer money.

• Inclusion of health and patient data in trade deals

• Sending patients to private hospitals

• Migrant charging.

Is privatisation of the NHS expanding?

Attempts have been made to introduce charging in the NHS since it was founded, and attempts to further privatise services have been ongoing since the 80s and 90s. This era saw hospital car parks, cleaning, portering and catering.

PFI was introduced in the 90s, but it was the 2012 Health and Social Care Act that has opened up the NHS to privatisation like never before. It was this Parliamentary Act that demanded all NHS contracts were put on the ‘open market’ for the first time. The changes since then have been dramatic, and often unseen.

While most hospital clinical care is still in public NHS hands many are unaware of the inroads privatisation has made in winning smaller community contracts since the 2012 Act came into force. In 2018/19 and 2017/18 7.3% of CCG commissioned clinical contracts were in private hands (down from 7.7% 2016/17).

In the five years to 2015 the private sector was awarded the following:

• 86% pharmacy contracts

• 83% patient transport contracts

• 76% diagnostics contracts

• 69% GP out of hours

• 45% community health contracts including children and AWLD

• 25% mental health contracts

Still getting a whiff of eugenics from the ethical side here insofar as some medical technology does help people with genetic conditions live longer and increase the option of having a family. @CharonY pointed out that eliminating some deleterious alleles as some sort of gene pool optimization could reduce genetic diversity and leave a shallower gene pool. But even if we were to focus on quite harmful alleles only, say, Tay-Sachs or cystic fibrosis, what would actually be accomplished? Frederick Chopin is now believed to have had CF - should his mother have been required to abort him? Are we going to force someone who is autosomal recessive for Tay-Sachs not to have children, even with a mate who is a non-carrier? What if they are otherwise robust and have immune systems that are particularly well adapted to a world of pandemics and toxins?

Really, I think the only path is a humane one going forward, where we improve screenings for the truly awful conditions that result in babies who live and die in great pain for a few weeks or months. That really is pointless suffering.

On 8/11/2025 at 9:01 AM, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but this is an ethical question, not a moral one...

How’s that an ethical question?

When we broke enigma, our ethics demanded that we let some people die to keep the secret and win the war; how is this question different?

What code of ethics demanded it? I thought it was a strategic decision, no different than recognizing that in any battle some people will die. You weigh the benefit with the cost. (and not all cultures value people this way)

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not advocating we selectively kill people, quite the opposite; H G Wells' "The War of the Worlds" is kind of the thrust of my argument.

As TheVat said, the point is not about killing folks, but rather a sort of vision of an optimized gene pool, by letting natural selection (or anything else) do its thing. The idea that it results in a healthier population is a faulty one due to the reason I mentioned before. It is a short-term optimization but limits potential. Our tree of life is full of dead branches of species who were very optimized for their particular situation, but vanished when the situation changed.

You can also think of it that way- a "perfect" gene pool formed by natural selection with the highest fitness will have all relevant alleles fixed (i.e. a given locus will be identical through the whole population). If the selective pressure at some point changes so that these specific alleles become detrimental (say, a high susceptible to a new virus) the whole population is going to be affected.

In other words, envisioning a form of optimization as outlined in OP necessarily means a reduction of diversity, and hence flexibility in the gene pool and makes the population more vulnerable to new health events.

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

What code of ethics demanded it? I thought it was a strategic decision, no different than recognizing that in any battle some people will die. You weigh the benefit with the cost. (and not all cultures value people this way)

I remember from a college philosophy course that the Coventry bombing debate was a classic example of consequentialist ethics v deontological ethics (with Churchill selecting the consequentialist path because of the immense strategic importance of not revealing the Enigma project breakthrough).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

I remember from a college philosophy course that the Coventry bombing debate was a classic example of consequentialist ethics v deontological ethics (with Churchill selecting the consequentialist path because of the immense strategic importance of not revealing the Enigma project breakthrough).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

Interesting how many times it mentions morals and morality, which this allegedly is not

18 hours ago, CharonY said:

As TheVat said, the point is not about killing folks, but rather a sort of vision of an optimized gene pool, by letting natural selection (or anything else) do its thing. The idea that it results in a healthier population is a faulty one due to the reason I mentioned before. It is a short-term optimization but limits potential. Our tree of life is full of dead branches of species who were very optimized for their particular situation, but vanished when the situation changed.

You can also think of it that way- a "perfect" gene pool formed by natural selection with the highest fitness will have all relevant alleles fixed (i.e. a given locus will be identical through the whole population). If the selective pressure at some point changes so that these specific alleles become detrimental (say, a high susceptible to a new virus) the whole population is going to be affected.

In other words, envisioning a form of optimization as outlined in OP necessarily means a reduction of diversity, and hence flexibility in the gene pool and makes the population more vulnerable to new health events.

I'm sorry I'm clearly not making my point, This post is basically my point, the more we interfere (healthcare) the closer we get to the "outside".

19 hours ago, swansont said:

How’s that an ethical question?

It's my understanding that ethics is societies version of individually agreed average morals that are mostly tollerable.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

What code of ethics demanded it? I thought it was a strategic decision, no different than recognizing that in any battle some people will die. You weigh the benefit with the cost. (and not all cultures value people this way)

In this context, what's the difference?