23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

This doesn’t answer the question. Also you said it wasn’t about morals — you made the distinction that allows you to avoid addressing one point but then backtrack to avoid another. The first avoidance suggests you agree that increasing average lifespans (helping people live) is morally a good thing. So if these are shared average morals then isn’t it also ethical?

But that’s mostly moot, since I think the premise is bogus. “aren't we effectively shallowing our own gene pool to the point that we can't survive, for want of a better metaphor, outside?”

Having treatments and cures broadens the gene pool, as CharonY pointed out. A diverse population is more likely to have some individuals survive. The premise seems to be based on some notion of dilution of the gene pool, i.e. genetic purity, which is a flawed social concept, not a biological one.

Our genomic load of recessive lethal or sterilizing alleles is pretty much on a par with other eukaryotes...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4391560/

The effects of inbreeding on human health depend critically on the number and severity of recessive, deleterious mutations carried by individuals. In humans, existing estimates of these quantities are based on comparisons between consanguineous and nonconsanguineous couples, an approach that confounds socioeconomic and genetic effects of inbreeding. To overcome this limitation, we focused on a founder population that practices a communal lifestyle, for which there is almost complete Mendelian disease ascertainment and a known pedigree. Focusing on recessive lethal diseases and simulating allele transmissions, we estimated that each haploid set of human autosomes carries on average 0.29 (95% credible interval [0.10, 0.84]) recessive alleles that lead to complete sterility or death by reproductive age when homozygous. Comparison to existing estimates in humans suggests that a substantial fraction of the total burden imposed by recessive deleterious variants is due to single mutations that lead to sterility or death between birth and reproductive age. In turn, comparison to estimates from other eukaryotes points to a surprising constancy of the average number of recessive lethal mutations across organisms with markedly different genome sizes.

On 8/14/2025 at 1:25 PM, swansont said:

This doesn’t answer the question. Also you said it wasn’t about morals — you made the distinction that allows you to avoid addressing one point but then backtrack to avoid another. The first avoidance suggests you agree that increasing average lifespans (helping people live) is morally a good thing. So if these are shared average morals then isn’t it also ethical?

I have tried to expand and clarify my point, but you seem determined to pick fault with my initial post, rather than address or answer my attempts to qualify the difference between individual and societal moral output.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I have tried to expand and clarify my point, but you seem determined to pick fault with my initial post, rather than address or answer my attempts to qualify the difference between individual and societal moral output.

It’s moot. The ethics/morals distinction is less important IMO than the point that it swings in the opposite direction than you claimed. Treatments and cures don’t diminish the survivability of the species, and it saves lives. How is that unethical?

21 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s moot. The ethics/morals distinction is less important IMO than the point that it swings in the opposite direction than you claimed. Treatments and cures don’t diminish the survivability of the species, and it saves lives. How is that unethical?

it's not, it's a moral imperative that could lead to our deaths as in "the war of the worlds".

The ethical question is, how do we avoid the problems a moral imperative presents?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

it's not, it's a moral imperative that could lead to our deaths as in "the war of the worlds".

How does genetic diversity lead to our deaths? You need to walk us through the thought process here.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

How does genetic diversity lead to our deaths? You need to walk us through the thought process here.

Every ying has it's yang...

Just now, dimreepr said:

Every ying has it's yang...

That’s not an acceptable answer.

Just now, swansont said:

That’s not an acceptable answer.

Why not?

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why not?

Yin and yang are not genetic/biological concepts.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How does genetic diversity lead to our deaths? You need to walk us through the thought process here.

I'm trying to figure this out. Does Dim mean some science fictional dystopia where we keep medically helping people with deleterious mutations live to reproduce? Is he picturing everyone in the future having Huntington's, Cystic Fibrosis, HLA-DR/DQ (T 1 Diabetes), Tay-Sachs, Spina bifida, etc? I thought we had explained how that's not likely to happen, but maybe he has articulated some worst case scenario to himself that is not being articulated to us.

Just now, TheVat said:

I'm trying to figure this out. Does Dim mean some science fictional dystopia where we keep medically helping people with deleterious mutations live to reproduce? Is he picturing everyone in the future having Huntington's, Cystic Fibrosis, HLA-DR/DQ (T 1 Diabetes), Tay-Sachs, Spina bifida, etc? I thought we had explained how that's not likely to happen, but maybe he has articulated some worst case scenario to himself that is not being articulated to us.

I suspect that’s basically it, but it’s also not consistent with the WotW reference. So I want to know the thought process so the misconception(s) can be identified.

The closest example might be the susceptibility of New World populations to diseases brought by Europeans, but they weren’t wiped put and the susceptibility wasn’t because they had modern medicine. Quite the opposite, since vaccines would have helped immensely.

On 8/16/2025 at 3:35 PM, TheVat said:

I'm trying to figure this out. Does Dim mean some science fictional dystopia where we keep medically helping people with deleterious mutations live to reproduce? Is he picturing everyone in the future having Huntington's, Cystic Fibrosis, HLA-DR/DQ (T 1 Diabetes), Tay-Sachs, Spina bifida, etc? I thought we had explained how that's not likely to happen, but maybe he has articulated some worst case scenario to himself that is not being articulated to us.

I'm not the best at explaing myself, as this thread attests.

What got me pondering on this question is the thought that, does vaccination give us the illusion of herd immunity, when in fact it gives us herd susceptability, as in a monoculture?

It's been suggested that our (weathy nation's) insistance on cleaning to the point of sterility, whilst being essential in an operating theater, may have created an epidemic of allergies, when applied to everyday life.

It was never about a dystopic future, it's more about the rich nation's hobbling themselves, whilst the poor nation's naturally evolve past us into a brief facsimile of a utopic flyby.

Edited August 18Aug 18 by dimreepr

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What got me pondering on this question is the thought that, does vaccination give us the illusion of herd immunity, when in fact it gives us herd susceptability, as in a monoculture?

How does it make you susceptible? You’re not as susceptible to the pathogen when you’re vaccinated.

People decided to stop getting the measles vaccine, and now lots of kids are getting the measles. 3 confirmed deaths in the US, with 1356 cases (92% unvaccinated or unknown status) as of Aug 6. >20% of kids under 5 had to be hospitalized.

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html

“herd susceptibility” is just being unvaccinated. How would you become more susceptible than that?

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

the illusion of herd immunity

No. Smallpox being a good example.

Several points:

First, deleterious genes that aren't lethal by age 30, are going to be passed along to the next generation regardless of modern medicine curing or treating them or not. The common lay example in this area is: are eyeglasses contributing to worse eyesight, genetically? Well before eyeglasses folks with poor eyesight commonly lived to reproductive ages (just as they do currently with eyeglasses) thus there was no evolutionary pressure selecting against any genetic causes of poor eyesight that is correctible with eyeglasses.

Second, the doubling of Average Global life ecpectancy in the 20th century was largely accomplished by lowering infant and child mortality through sanitation, antibiotic use and vaccinations, not treating diseases afflicting adults.

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

herd susceptability

You have this backwards. The people who are susceptible are those who have never encountered the pathogen.

Another good example being COVID 19. The virus did not just go away, the difference now is we have some significant protection from it.

About 7 million died between 2019-2022, in 1918 Spanish flu killed between 25 - 50 million in three years.

They had less sophisticated critical care but they also had no vaccines.

I'm not suggesting that we stop treating people against disease or that we stop cleaning the food prep area.

I'm just pondering the possible cost bc the fundamental reality of life is, it's always a compromise; or to put it another way, there is no utopia.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

life is, it's always a compromise; or to put it another way, there is no utopia.

How do I put that into biological terms? Either you have the vaccine or you do not. If you do not you then have the disease as it is described in the literature.

If that disease is as severe as something like Covid then it is wise as an individual and as a society to have the vaccine, it really is a no brainer. No one said or suggested that life is a utopia.

On 8/11/2025 at 12:44 PM, dimreepr said:

aren't we effectively shallowing our own gene pool to the point that we can't survive

Back to the OP, no we are not, we are giving humanity a chance to live longer healthier lives.

7 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Second, the doubling of Average Global life ecpectancy in the 20th century was largely accomplished by lowering infant and child mortality through sanitation, antibiotic use and vaccinations, not treating diseases afflicting adults.

It had a big impact, but it’s not like there was no impact on adult life expectancy.

Here’s an example: life expectancy of a 20 y.o. in England and Wales was ~60 in 1850. It’s now >20 years longer

https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not suggesting that we stop treating people against disease or that we stop cleaning the food prep area.

I'm just pondering the possible cost bc the fundamental reality of life is, it's always a compromise; or to put it another way, there is no utopia.

But you have yet to explain why you think there’s a cost. You didn’t frame this as investigating what downside there might be, and whenever you’ve been asked for clarification you’ve dodged the question.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm just pondering the possible cost bc the fundamental reality of life is, it's always a compromise; or to put it another way, there is no utopia.

What you seem to be saying is that you expect everything to have a cost and are wondering what it might be. Here, the cost is basically a larger surviving population with all its advantages and drawbacks. But I don't think there is big evolutionary argument to be made here.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

It had a big impact, but it’s not like there was no impact on adult life expectancy.

Here’s an example: life expectancy of a 20 y.o. in England and Wales was ~60 in 1850. It’s now >20 years longer

https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages

We're in agreement, improvements in infant and child mortality was "largely" responsible, I said. You said it had a "big impact". Your reference's chart clearly shows improvements across all age groups, with the lowest ages showing the most gains.

It's all good.

20 hours ago, swansont said:

It had a big impact, but it’s not like there was no impact on adult life expectancy.

Here’s an example: life expectancy of a 20 y.o. in England and Wales was ~60 in 1850. It’s now >20 years longer

https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages

But you have yet to explain why you think there’s a cost. You didn’t frame this as investigating what downside there might be, and whenever you’ve been asked for clarification you’ve dodged the question.

I fully accept I'm wrong certainly genetically in terms of evolution and the points above. I may get myself confused sometimes, but I'm not trying to dodge a question or trying to win an argument.

But I did wonder if there is any traction on the idea that our immune system is weakend bc of vaccines, sort of bc it's a weakened virus, when compared to a survivor of the full strength virus; I fully accept that not vaccinating is a stupid idea.

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I did wonder if there is any traction on the idea that our immune system is weakend bc of vaccines, sort of bc it's a weakened virus, when compared to a survivor of the full strength virus

An immune system exposed to the virus is stronger than an immune system not exposed to the virus.

Those who are not vaccinated and get exposed get far more sick and frequently die. Vaccines reduce that risk and intensity.

At the individual level, vaccines are clearly better for the immune system and clearly make it stronger than not.

Perhaps if there is a valid point in your argument somewhere it's at the population level... in that we're allowing the weaker members of the herd to survive and reproduce thanks to the vaccines instead of letting them die and only allowing those naturally born strong enough to survive without vaccines to reproduce.

20-40 million people have died from Covid in the last 5 years, even with vaccination available. I'd say the herd has been thinned enough already, but YMMV.

4 hours ago, LuckyR said:

We're in agreement, improvements in infant and child mortality was "largely" responsible, I said. You said it had a "big impact". Your reference's chart clearly shows improvements across all age groups, with the lowest ages showing the most gains.

Yes, we agree on the math, but the way you phrased it sounded like we’re not doing anything (or much) to treat adult diseases. We are doing a lot.

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But I did wonder if there is any traction on the idea that our immune system is weakend bc of vaccines, sort of bc it's a weakened virus, when compared to a survivor of the full strength virus; I fully accept that not vaccinating is a stupid idea.

Vaccines train your body to respond, granting increased immunity, but without running the risks of actually getting the disease. It strengthens your immune system. (edit: as iNow notes. xpost)