Saturday, June 28, 2008

Why is there so much more illness in humans than animals?

Nature developed the process of natural selection which meant survival of the fittest. This process automatically eliminated any weakling among the animals. The weak male would loose to the strong ones and would not get the opportunity to spread his genes. And that would be the end of the bad gene. A weak female would be unable to reproduce any cubs, or feed her cubs (if any) who would not survive as result.
However, humans have totally surpassed this natural selection. Survival of the fittest in terms of health has been replaced by survival of the fittest in terms of affluence. The moment we have some illness we are able to cure it. The bad gene not only stays but very comfortably gets the opportunity to produce offspring’s and hence spread. Women who are unable to give birth to kids by natural means, resort to extensive medical treatment to be able to do so. Results are disproportionately high multiple births and offspring's with a greater propensity to have genetic and other diseases. Men don’t have to fight to be able to spread their genes - having enough affluence helps.

As a result, we see an increase in the diseases over time. Yes, life expectancy has increased considerably, but at the same time, there is great sickness at younger ages. e.g. diabetes now strikes younger people. So does cancer, and the number of younger people being affected is increasing. Overall, there are more diseases.

1 comment:

Aathira Nair said...

Some say the dinosaurs were wiped out over a few years, doesn't that sound like what happened with Smallpox?

So maybe if we did not do the health care and disease management there would not be a today and humans would have been wiped out as i certainly doubt whether there would come by a natural selection by which some would be provided (magically) the genes required to safeguard oneself against the smallpox virus.