Natural Selection

[rnichilo]

I have a quick thought that I have been recently thinking about:

 

If it weren't for modern medicine would natural selection have weeded out most disease and sickness? eg. AIDS, etc

[blike]

If it weren't for modern medicine would natural selection have weeded out most disease and sickness? eg. AIDS, etc

Nope. If natural selection had weeded out most disease and sickness, there never would have been a need for modern medicine.

[Skye]

Remember that natural selection works on the causes of infectious disease too.

[rnichilo]

ah yes, good point

[Ophiolite]

Disease is just a symbiote that hasn't learnt good manners yet.

[1veedo]

besides, desies (esp viruses) evolve more rapidly then higher level beings.

[AzurePhoenix]

Would certain genetic diseases be less prolific?

[Dak]

Disease is just a symbiote that hasn't learnt good manners yet.

 

as are humans

 

Would certain genetic diseases be less prolific?

 

shortsightedness has dramatically increased in frequency since the conservative party introduced free glases on the NHS, which was only quite recently (tho i suppose it could just be the level of diagnosed shortsightedness), and of course antibiotics can forse the evolution of diseases that would otherwize not evolve/only evolve very rarely, such as MRSA (that flesh-eating one), pathogenic E.coli, etc. it is not unheard of, in people who are infected with HIV, that the treatments forse the HIV to evolve immunity to the treatments, and this is sometimes accompanied with the evolution of an extremely reduced latencey period. so i think that arguably, whilst improving an individuals condition, modern medicine can make diseases worse overall, hence, for example, why doctors are reluctant to prescribe antibiotics -- or in england at least, in america it might be different as you get what you pay for ie a doctor who will do what you tell him to, as opposed to what is actualy good for you.

[rnichilo]

Dak, thats really intriguing. I hadn't heard of those cases, thanks for the info

[AzurePhoenix]

Here in the USA we hand out medicine like candy, but our doctors get pissed if we stop taking our antibiotics too early cuz it gives the little buggers a chance to survive and adapt.

[[Tycho?]]

Look at animals. Do they get diseases and die from them? Most definately, always have, always will. Animals (including humans) over time aqquire resistance to infections. The bacteria and viruses that cause the infections also adapt however, usually at an aburdly higher rate.

[Dak]

Here in the USA we hand out medicine like candy, but our doctors get pissed if we stop taking our antibiotics too early cuz it gives the little buggers a chance to survive and adapt.

 

the reason that policy in the uk is to avoid this, is partly because of the native bacteria in your gut, such as E.coli. the E.coli in your gut has been there for ages, and is quite established and so will likely survive the course of antibiotics. however, they will be exposed to the antibiotics and some may die, which could give them the chance to evolve immunity.

 

now say that, later, you have a second course of (different) anti-biotics... the E.coli could pick up a second antibiotic immunity.

 

this could have two seriouse repurcussions: if the E.coli goes visiouse and starts to infect people, then it could have a head start in being resistant to some antibiotics; and also, there is a chance that the E.coli will share its antibiotic resistance by swapping plasmids with invading bacteria, making the invading bacteria antibiotic resistant. not likely, but possible.

 

Dak, thats really intriguing. I hadn't heard of those cases, thanks for the info

no charge

[buzsaw]

If it weren't for modern medicine would natural selection have weeded out most disease and sickness? eg. AIDS' date=' etc[/quote']

 

Having become familiar with holistic healing via natural foods, vitamines and minerals, et al, many diseases seem to be the naturally selected (cause and effect) product of un-natural and careless lifestyle.

[Mokele]

Having become familiar with holistic healing via natural foods, vitamines and minerals, et al, many diseases seem to be the naturally selected (cause and effect) product of un-natural and careless lifestyle.

 

First, that's not what natural selection means.

 

Second, while malnutrition and vitamin/mineral deficiencies *can* cause *some* diseases, to claim that they cause "most" isn't supportable in the least. Malaria has killed many more people than heart disease, and continues to do so. We just don't see it locally because we live in a "developed" country.

 

The prevalence of "lifestyle diseases" is purely secondary. Less developed countries don't have them because people are dying from cholera, malaria, AIDS, Black Death (yes, it's still around, namely in India), and assorted other microbal nastiness, not because of any "natural lifestyle". The only reason we have cancer so much now is because people are actually living long enough for it to form, rather than dying of sleeping sickness at age 35.

 

Mokele

[Dak]

mokele: good points, but i disagree with this bit:

The only reason we have cancer so much now is because people are actually living long enough for it to form, rather than dying of sleeping sickness at age 35.

this is one, pretty large, reason for the increase in cancer levels, but lifestyle does also play a part: smoking, certain pollutiants, certain diets etc.

 

Having become familiar with holistic healing via natural foods, vitamines and minerals, et al, many diseases seem to be the naturally selected (cause and effect) product of un-natural and careless lifestyle.

one of the worst modern diseases, 1918 influenza (aka spanish flu), which killed 20-50 million people world wide (sourses vary) was most pathogenic in healthy young (early twenties) people.

[Sayonara]

Having become familiar with holistic healing via natural foods, vitamines and minerals, et al, many diseases seem to be the naturally selected[/i'] (cause and effect) product of un-natural and careless lifestyle.

They are not a "product" of un-natural and careless lifestyle as such - disease is more visible in conjunction with those lifestyles because they provide more suitable conditions for pathogenic diseases to operate, while simultaneously reducing the natural ability to combat the diseases and repair the damage that they do.

[Mokele]

this is one, pretty large, reason for the increase in cancer levels, but lifestyle does also play a part: smoking, certain pollutiants, certain diets etc.

 

True, I did overstate a bit. Still, the same lifestyle that contributes to cancer allows us to live long enough to see it, in some cases.

 

Mokele

[buzsaw]

The only reason we have cancer so much now is because people are actually living long enough for it to form' date=' rather than dying of sleeping sickness at age 35.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

1. It's a known and proven fact that modern diet of processed foods, et al and incidence of cancer is related.

2. Multitudes die of cancer before old age.

[-Demosthenes-]

It's a known and proven fact that modern diet of processed foods' date=' et al and incidence of cancer is related.

[/quote']

Indirectly.

[buzsaw]

They are not a "product" of un-natural and careless lifestyle as such - disease is more visible in conjunction with those lifestyles because they provide more suitable conditions for pathogenic diseases to operate, while simultaneously reducing the natural ability to combat the diseases and repair the damage that they do.

 

Do you think a global prevalence of the deteriation of food quality over a long period would have any long term effect on NS?

[Aardvark]

Multitudes die of cancer before old age.

 

The great majority of cancer cases occur later in peoples lives, people younger than 35 will only very rarely develop cancer. In pre modern times most people would have already died before they had reached 35.

 

As such it is clear that a large part of the increase in cancers is due to the increase in life expectancy. Other causes of death being eliminated.

 

Modern diet isn't perfect but can only be directly linked to a proportion of cancers, even if peoples diets were perfect the rate of cancers would still rise with the general increase in life expectancy.

[buzsaw]

The great majority of cancer cases occur later in peoples lives' date=' people younger than 35 will only very rarely develop cancer. In pre modern times most people would have already died before they had reached 35.

 

[/quote']

 

I found this link on google, but didn't sign in for the full text.

The average age of cancer patients at the time of diagnosis of their cancer was 42.4 years.

http://www.obgynsurvey.com/pt/re/obgynsurv/ fulltext.00006254-199902000-00001.htm

[Mokele]

You are aware that 35 is less than 42.4, right?

[Rekkr]

Nope. If natural selection had weeded out most disease and sickness, there never would have been a need for modern medicine.

 

Actually, nature would weed out those diseases. But it would take time, maybe generations. Remember the bubonic plague? Modern medicine hinders the process because it demands a cure in an instant and on an individual basis. This is contrary to nature's harsh way of dealing with the diseased: letting them die (while a few build up their own cure). Survival of the fittest.

[buzsaw]

You are aware that 35 is less than 42.4, right?

 

But if 42.4 is the average, that implicates a heck of a lot of incidents under that age.