Isn't Medical Science ruining the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest in both humans and animals?

I agree with you. People with weak immune systems that get sick often (such as myself) and people with disabilities such as lethal scoliosis (also such as myself) probably wouldn't be living long enough to reproduce and pass on their crappy genes if not for medical science.

No.
LucyInTheSky is right. What a concise answer!

This debate is not a productive area of discussion, in my opinion--I'll explain. Bear with me....I'm a nerd and this might get long.

Vaccines: no, they're not "skirting the principle". Example: smallpox. Certain populations simply had no previous exposure--and therefore no immunity--to smallpox (like the native Americans and Polynesians--they weren't unfit, just unexposed). It had nothing to do with "fitness", but with exposure. Smallpox devastated these populations indiscriminately, killing sick and healthy alike. Immunity had more to do with environmental factors rather than overall health. The same goes for the plague: likelihood of infection had more to do with living conditions than individual health. I predict that with the silly, unfounded idea that vaccines cause autism (adherents to 'noted scientist' Jenny McCarthy) will cause a resurgence of eradicated diseases, which is ultimately bad for everyone--sick and healthy alike. (Vaccinate your kids--we're trying to have a civilization here, people!)


This topic of "survival of the fittest" has been debated for quite some time. The idea that it should be applied socially is known as social Darwinism (it has nothin' to do with Darwin, it was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who wrote on this topic and founded eugenics; Galton believed that social institutions such as welfare and insane asylums were allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce and should be done away with ).

The line of thought involved in social Darwinism can be dangerous in that suggests that there is such a thing as a "inferior" or undesirable kind of person or animal--one that is sick, weak, disabled, poor, stupid, etc. That idea was the very foundation of eugenics.
The practice of eugenics was a very dark time for science--hundreds of thousands of people in the US were sterilized because they were thought to be inferior (most of those who were sterilized were minority groups--blacks, native Americans, and slavic people).

Eugenics gave rise to the concept of 'racial hygiene' as well, which is exactly what inspired Hitler to kill 12 million people. But I digress...

Medically, there are some terrible, debilitating diseases that were actually advantageous in certain environmental contexts: people that carry one gene (not two) for sickle cell anemia have slightly misshapen red cells, which makes them immune to malaria. People with cystic fibrosis lack an enzyme that is needed by the bacteria that cause tuberculosis infection and possibly typhoid fever. That is why these genetic diseases are still in our population today--at some point, it was an advantage. Some weaknesses aren't always bad.


I hope I've answered your question. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

New times, new rules...I guess...

If survival of the fittest really improved the species so much we wouldn't have so many medical problems and backward personalitys. Medical science promises to do what survival of the fittest could not.