Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jayv9779 t1_j3h7h54 wrote

Reply to comment by lobojones6six6 in A randomized double-blind controlled trial found post-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was not advantageous for the prevention of COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The incidence of COVID-19 was similar in both the HCQ group and control. by glawgii

Environmental pressures according to the Theory of Natural Selection. Which is well documented if you care to read up on it. Survival of the fittest means the most fit to the environment which vaccines help with. Notice the distinct lack of small pox for instance.

2

lobojones6six6 t1_j3h8bo2 wrote

Environmental pressure like surviving disease? Pre vaccine. Some bodies can handle some can't. May not even come down to physical fitness but genetic makeup. Yes , lack of small pox... but at same time over population. Over population is bad , if you care to read up on it. You kinda side stepped the issue of human species sidestepping nature's checks and balances on species. Where does our evolution go from here once we've eliminated all environmental pressures? Do we then stagnate and become unable to survive?

−4

jayv9779 t1_j3hd0vv wrote

No. We still face pressures. There are a lot of them. Evolution still moves along. To be clear, evolving in the context of science doesn’t mean that it is always a good thing. There isn’t some overall cosmic goal. It just happens when we breed. The earth can sustain our population. It is overtaxed in many areas because of concentrations. If we get on a good plan of comprehensive sex ed and freely available contraception then the numbers will fall. They have already started in many advanced nations.

3

lobojones6six6 t1_j3hhxys wrote

Yes like I said not physical fitness but instead genetics , like as you said what happens when we breed. And yes sometimes as you said it's not always a good thing , which is where the adaptation becomes an advantage or disadvantage. Some were cut out to survive , some were not. All depends on the situation , like skin color and sun exposure. Some skin pigmentation works in some climates some better in others. You bring up concentrations of people overtaking areas and say the earth can sustain and to some part I agree but we can't spread out and inhabit every corner of land , not all of it is habitable. You must admit humans have made it through a lot and more than we even understand at this date , but they did it without all the fancy modern tech. Were all an example of what nature can provide over time and I'll take that over what we as humans can conjure. All in all humans have become arrogant as a species and that's not a trait that is desirable for future sustainability.

0

jayv9779 t1_j3hizzq wrote

So do you think medical advances are a bad thing? We live longer lives now and are generally in a much better position as far as healthcare options now compared to ancient times.

We can also spread out more than we do and the internet could help that through delivery and remote work.

2

EB123456789101112 t1_j3lmcqb wrote

If I might offer my bit, this convo reads like you two are talking past each other. Neither of you seem to be truly seeking to understand the other and simply seem to be looking to advance your own argument (despite asking very very pointed questions).

1

jayv9779 t1_j3lmfm9 wrote

I answered his questions. He just didn’t grasp it. They are basically anti modern medicine. It isn’t a very logical position based on evidence.

2

EB123456789101112 t1_j3lmpbi wrote

Nothing like that good ol spirit of humility to start the day, amiright?

1

jayv9779 t1_j3ln1ed wrote

Feel free to point out where and I will be glad to clarify. Your attempt to help is not currently effective as we do not have any examples.

1

EB123456789101112 t1_j3lnzgh wrote

I was just attempting to have fun w you. I don’t have a dog in the fight. I saw both sides to the argument.

He was essentially arguing something similar to a modern Malthusian argument (the planet can only support so many people before famine, nature, whatever begins to cull them unavoidably). And you countered w but modem meds, tech advances, and natural reproduction patterns show that’s maybe not the case.

Am I understanding both right?

I can see points to both arguments and don’t think either is entirely right or entirely wrong. We just can’t tell yet. The problem is the developing nations are countering the trends of the developed ones. That’s where the real crux lies. Does the overpopulation of India outnumber the under population of Japan, South Korea and Europe? Same with vaxxes, starvation, etc. it’s just too early to tell. But I’d like to be hopeful.

2

jayv9779 t1_j3lohfm wrote

They were suggesting that humans would stop evolving because of a lack of pressures. That humans were better off before modern tech. There is a myth out there that the old world was better but it ignores massive health advances. It is the old everything modern is evil. I could be strawmaning a bit but I think I am close.

2