Survival of the fittest - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

drewboy12 · 10-22-2009, 07:28 PM

Reading "the box" thread got me thinking.

Has modern medicines made the human race weaker, and less tolerable to certain things in life? Yes Medicines save people, and do wonders, but it seems people need medicine now just to live at all.

Im young still, early twenties, but even from when I was growing up until now its seems you need medicine for everything, and kids are allergic to everything. Get a cold, take some medicine. Get a head ace, take some medicine. Everything seems to be cured with a pill. But what is this doing over the long run in an evolution point of view? Is Medicine destroying the human race, or making it better?

Yes I stand on the point where certain medications and procedures are making it better when it comes to harsh diseases and such.

Whats your take on this?

FiftyBelow · 10-22-2009, 07:43 PM

I do believe that medicine is being over used these days. If I have a headache I never use aspirin or Tylenol unless its unusually bad. In fact I haven't taken any for maybe 2 or 3 years now. When I'm sick, I usually just try and get enough rest. If it progresses for 1 - 2 weeks thats when I resort to a prescription. I don't think I've had antibiotics for 4 years either. However, if it does harm our human progression in the future, I'm not sure. Medicine must be doing something right though since we've definitely been increasing in life expectancy.

CaptainCrunch · 10-22-2009, 07:43 PM

I believe that due to modern medicine we are now living far past our natural lifespan which would explain old age problems such as Alzheimer, diabetes, arthritis and other diseases that cripples the old and takes away their level of life.

I think we were designed to live to the age of 50, medical advances have lengthened our lives but not really made them better.

Berger_4_ · 10-22-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I believe that due to modern medicine we are now living far past our natural lifespan which would explain old age problems such as Alzheimer, diabetes, arthritis and other diseases that cripples the old and takes away their level of life.

I think we were designed to live to the age of 50, medical advances have lengthened our lives but not really made them better.

That's a good point...how many people got Alzheimer's and that kind of thing back in the day? Or could it have just been misdiagnosed (if diagnosed at all)?

FlamesAddiction · 10-22-2009, 07:58 PM

The ability to develop medicine is one of the things that makes our species incredibly fit.

Keep in mind that evolution is not about the individual, but about the species. Our ability to use science and medicine is as much a tool for survival as immune systems. Without it, our species would not have even survived the last ice age.

drewboy12 · 10-22-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The ability to develop medicine is one of the things that makes our species incredibly fit.

Keep in mind that evolution is not about the individual, but about the species. Our ability to use science and medicine is as much a tool for survival as immune systems. Without it, our species would not have even survived the last ice age.

Yes I agree 100%, but with such a large portion of people (I think mostly North America) relying on medicine for every aspect of life will end up damaging people in the long run. Running down your immune system, and getting sick more often, and taking even more medicine. Medicine is a wonderful thing, but I like the point made that it might not in all situations be making life better, yet just extending life.

Peanut · 10-22-2009, 08:36 PM

I think one of the best things that happened for life expectancy was clean water and modern plumbing/sewage systems.

ratech · 10-22-2009, 08:42 PM

We will just invent better and more medicine. And advance. It's a vicious cycle and I'm pretty sure we will destroy ourselves in different ways long before the dark side of medicine takes us down.

Thor · 10-23-2009, 12:35 AM

I certainly think in some instances over medication is a problem, with seniors, with especially depression and psychological issues.

However modern medicine has taken us from 30yrs life expectancy to upwards of 80yrs, not only that it has given us a quality of living well until our deaths.

Modern medicine is the single biggest factor in the massive change to the human species as we live longer we can contribute more to society, imagine if you will that at 30 you just are near death, anyone over 30yrs old can tell you how much wiser we all are as we get older.

Anyhow, yes we need to make sure we're not making ourselves pill poppers, but thats the reason why competent medical professionals need to be making these decisions with their patients, which is often a problem with the US system in where its about profit in the industry and we allow pharmaceuticals to advertise on TV.

So in conclusion, modern medicine has not made us weaker, its made us much much stronger and allowed us to pretty much remove some of the worst killers in human history, bubonic plague, polio, etc...

I still hear stories from my father about his grandparents back 100-140 years ago that people had 5 kids at least because they expected at least 1 or 2 to die from disease, infections, complications.

We've come a long way.

RougeUnderoos · 10-23-2009, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewboy12

Has modern medicines made the human race weaker, and less tolerable to certain things in life?

No. If modern medicine was bad for us we'd be dying and not sitting on our asses discussing it on the internet.

Hack&Lube · 10-23-2009, 01:29 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...t-1802501.html

Thor · 10-23-2009, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...t-1802501.html

Yes, we no longer have to run 1000m to kill our meal, does that make us weak or smarter?

RougeUnderoos · 10-23-2009, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...t-1802501.html

Thanks. That is a good read.

Who am I to say that some abo hunter in Australia couldn't chase a kangaroo at 40 km/h twenty thousand years ago? But it does seem kind of far-fetched to me.

A little closer to home -- put Dion Phaneuf in a time machine and he plays for the Montreal Wanderers in 1909. Even with those crappy old skates and leather britches, he's the biggest, fastest player that anybody has ever seen. He's six inches taller and outweighs everyone on the ice by 75 pounds.

With that straight stick his shot is even more wild than it is now and he's put two goalies in the morgue and the Archbishop of Mount Royal is administering last rites to a rover in the tunnel and the second period isn't even over.

I don't even know what I'm trying to say.

jayswin · 10-23-2009, 02:30 AM

I know my parents use to be very anti medicine with me, and it really helped for awhile. If I got a bad headache it wasn't tylonal, it was laying in bed with a cold cloth to get it down, etc.

It was cool because when I got a little older and started uses medicine more regularly, it would always have such a great effect. I would having a blasting headache, take half a tylonal, and lose the headache within minutes. But now I've caught up to everyone else.

Russic · 10-23-2009, 07:57 AM

I agree with Thor. It's easy to see everybody taking everything they can when they feel a sniffle, but we often overlook the benefits those medications have given us.

firebug · 10-23-2009, 07:58 AM

Much of the improvement in human life expectancy is due to improved (i.e. reduced) levels of infant mortality (for example moving from a 30 year life expectancy to a 65 year life expectancy).

The truth is, if you survived your first 2 years you could reasonably expect to live to a decent age (otherwise where did all those people who are 100 years old now come from?).

The move from a life expectancy of 65 years to about 75 (about where we are now) can be attributed to medical improvements for those who are past childhood.

(link for supporting article)
(link for opposing article)

We should be grateful we are in a position now where we can debate whether we are interested in using the latest medical developments. Not too long ago, if you were too sick to work you likely couldn't afford to eat.

~firebug

dre · 10-23-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flameswin

I know my parents use to be very anti medicine with me, and it really helped for awhile. If I got a bad headache it wasn't tylonal, it was laying in bed with a cold cloth to get it down, etc.

It was cool because when I got a little older and started uses medicine more regularly, it would always have such a great effect. I would having a blasting headache, take half a tylonal, and lose the headache within minutes. But now I've caught up to everyone else.

I agree with you to a certain extent. Why would someone
put up with a headache when they could take a pill that
will make it go away? My thoughts.

Cowperson · 10-23-2009, 08:21 AM

Life expectancy rankings by country for 2009 at this link.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

Obviously a very distinct impression that it sucks to be African but, interestingly, even in some equally poor Asian countries, life expectancy can be fairly high.

Modern medicine is only part of the answer. Personal hygiene standards would be one of the most important base factors as demonstrated by vast advances in life expectancy in Britain in the 1800's during the early moments of the Industrial Revolution, improved and varied diet would be important and prosperity in general would also be a factor.

Since 2000, the life expectancy of the average Russian male has fallen by 15 days, to under 59 years, this in a society with wide access to modern medicine.

Regarding the anthropologist who says an average Aboriginal could outrun Hussein Bolt, I would say that's highly unlikely.

We see throughout sport - anywhere in the world - that athletes are consistently bigger, stronger and quicker than at any time in history.

Moreover, the common person is partaking in these activities more and more as well. They too are bigger, stronger and faster than might have been the case in the past.

As one example, the first New York City marathon in 1970 had 127 runners . . . . the event this year, I think, will have a ceiling of 38,000 with applications for 90,000.

Meanwhile, we have a scientist trying to tell us that in an era where life expectancy was in the 20-30 year range, these average aboriginals were so amazing they could outrun a champion sprinter of today. That doesn't add up.

Cowperson

GreenLantern · 10-23-2009, 08:36 AM

People have been living for 80+ years for thousands of years.. and it has always been due to what was perceived as "modern medicine" at the time. In the middle ages for example, the average life span would have been around 33 for certain parts of Europe, however it was not unusual for the noble houses to live well into their 60's or later. That is double the average, and why? Because they had access to modern medicine, where as the peasants and farmers did not. The average was so low because there are always so few at the top, and so many at the bottom.

I don't think this is any kind of new concept, it has been around forever.. and so if it has been around for so long, who is to decide what we were really meant to live? I think that we were meant to live past our 60's. Not just for our own benefit, but in order to pass on our values to the next generation.

Cowperson · 10-23-2009, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

People have been living for 80+ years for thousands of years.. and it has always been due to what was perceived as "modern medicine" at the time. In the middle ages for example, the average life span would have been around 33 for certain parts of Europe, however it was not unusual for the noble houses to live well into their 60's or later. That is double the average, and why? Because they had access to modern medicine, where as the peasants and farmers did not. .

The term "modern" isn't applicable to the medical standards at the time. Unless you think the answer to everything - "leeching" - was a good idea.

It would be more appropriate to say the elite had access to better diet and likely had better hygiene standards than the common person.

Even then, if I'm not mistaken, it was considered dangerous to bath until the mid-18th Century.

Incidentally, the common wealthy English gentleman felt it necessary to have a big pot belly because it was a visible sign of his prosperity. It meant he had plenty to eat.

Cowperson