• Victor@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    I guess it proves humans as a whole are focusing more on screens, books, and other short visions tasks

    For me it tells me that nature is not selecting good vision anymore. We are fixing our vision on the side of evolution. If this trait is easy to pass on, it doesn’t take many generations.

    A near-sighted hawk will never survive to live even a short life beyond its childhood nest. But we have glasses…

    Humanity will only suffer more and more ailments as medicine gets better and better, is my prediction. As long as the afflicted individuals have time to breed before dying.

    I’m only a layman though. Evolution isn’t my field. I might be talking out of my ass.

    • Shawdow194@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Well like how glasses fix myopia it isnt really an ailment anymore then. Ideally that’s what we should be aiming for. Fixing - not making better just to make better

      We only see people with PKU (phenylketonuria) or ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) living normally because of our advances in medical fields. Before in our history they would perish (or unfortunately be culled) like the stunted hawk

      It’s a highly grey area in ethics, but I think as long as we have best interest in mind and dont end up like the humans in Wall-E we should be fine. Star Trek also covers a lot of eugenics topics and in the end they also think humans should take the course of evolution and avoid things like designer babies or genetic enhancements

      And its honestly incredible though. Humans literally fighting (and winning) against evolution/nature

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

      https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Eugenics_Wars

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Honestly, the idea behind designer babies is pretty dope IMO. But only if you take away the bad stuff like diseases and deformities and stuff like that, for the sake of the individual to be born. It gets weird when (most likely, if possible) they’ll start to offer babies to order. Like, “what would you like, madame? A professional athlete? Musical prodigy? Please select from our menu, or we can arrange a meeting with our custom-embryo designer for the premium deluxe package.”

    • isles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      This article is from 2018 and talks a bit about the suspected causes of increased myopia. The theory is that our eyes are responding to the environment and elongating (axial myopia). So it’s not that humans have lost the ability to have good vision via selection, it’s that we’re adapting to screen vision.

      Your point about natural selection is well addressed by @Shawdow194@kbin.social already.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        This goes against everything I thought I understood about natural selection and evolution.

        My understanding was that evolution is based on small, random mutations in genes, occurring constantly, and any beneficial changes will most likely cause that individual to thrive better than others, causing nature to “select” that gene.

        But the notion that our eyes would “respond to the environment” and somehow cause the next generation to also have myopia… Wouldn’t that necessitate that our eyes have some sort of feedback loop that connects to our reproductive system so that we can pass that on? I don’t see any other way around other than this occurring from the lack of natural selection.