🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <674@intvax.UUCP> morimoto@intvax.UUCP (Alan Morimoto) writes:
>
>So, if there were a major disaster that restricted medical professionals to
>treating those who were injured, i.e. a war, then we would have a lot of
>dying people out there, dying from cronic illnesses.  My point is that maybe
>we need to look at what long term effects we are creating by breeding
>diseases into our future generations.  I can imagine that countries that are
>not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply
>because the weak will perish.  Will the future of the world be inherited by
>us, the medically pampered, or the third world?

It seems to me that this is just part of the human ability to modify
our environment.

Wouldn't the same point apply to primitive homo sapiens ?  By choosing to
live in caves, and use tools and weapons, and cook food, our ancestors
allowed those weaklings with low tolerance to exposure, lower physical
strength and endurance, and higher susceptiblity to worms, etc, to survive.
The history of human progress has been a constant move to improve our own
lot, and make our lives easier and longer.

And I certainly can see no value in the argument that there's no point in
saving lives now because of the possibility they might be lost in the
future.  (although I don't think Mr. Morimoto meant to imply that)



------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						att!cbnews!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------