What should we do about our constant degrading gene pool?

Question

Modern medical technology is responsible for the constant degradation of the human gene pool. How? Simple, we allow bad genes to propagate.

Take me for example. I have glasses. Quite a small diopter, but glasses nonetheless. In ancient times, my eyesight genes would have had a negative "evolutionary" pressure from the environment. I would have had for example a somewhat degraded chance to successfully hunt my food, lower probability of noticing a stalking tiger, and hence a higher chance of dying before getting to reproduce. Namely, my bad eyesight gene would have had a somewhat smaller probability of successfully propagating itself, and hence would tend to disappear relative to the better eyesight genes.

Today, this is not the case of course, given that I can readily obtain glasses, my bad eyesight gene has just as much a chance in propagating itself as the better eyesight gene. Since the bad gene stands an equal chance in reproducing itself, it wont die away. Of course, there are many other examples like that. The most extreme would be of course a hypothetical gene which causes infertility that can be circumvented by other means (e.g., with IF - In Vitro Fertilization). Such a gene would have died off after a single generation, but can now easily propagate until the end of eternity.

This implies that bad genes can now accumulate without necessarily dying off. Of course, if they don't have any evolutionary preference, i.e., they are "neutral" (e.g., if it just as easy for glass wearing geeks to get married), it would take a long time for such a gene to become important (if it doesn't accidentally die off otherwise), since it would require a random walk in the gene pool for it to become dominant.

Is this bad for humanity? Clearly, if a gene can now propagate itself by an artificial mean, it would be able to do so in the future, it only implies though that we will have to rely on more and more means. That is, it would be progressively more expensive, and complicated to keep the human race "reproducing".

Of course, I am not the first to think about this point.

Answer 1

ummm, we can murder people with glasses? (wait, i wear glasses! thats not right!!)

Answer 2

your question makes an assumption that certain physical characteristics are the only way to measure improvement in the species. well we know that is not true. we have not figured out what the perfect human being should be.

the examples you use-- infertility and eyeglasses-- seem inconsequential as compared to longevity, health and intelligence.

seeing those tigers is a  false test of success. contribution to the whole human species by someone like stephen hawkins advances us while the most perfect body may be an empty idiot.

just look at michael phelps, someone with attention deficit disorder who is acheiving so much.

now you tell me how are we becoming degenerate. i disagree.

Answer 3

that is a good question

Answer 4

The bad eyesight gene doesn'tt adversely affect your existence because it has been bolstered and phased out as a disadvantage in western society. This might mean that more than usual will survive but itshouldn'tt be seen as negative unless it has negative consequences for our survival. If this was the case those with the gene wouldnt survive. If it somehow good eyesight became important for obtaining resources in modern society again the gene would die off. If there was a disaster and we had to revert to an earlier form of society the greatest obstacle to survival would probably be cultural. What is problematic is the use of antibiotics which on the one hand weaken the immune system while on the other speed up the natural selection of more resiliant disease causinf bacteria. MRSA, the hospital bug, is the result of this.

Answer 5

idk...maybe create free lasik for ppl with bad eyes so they can live normally??

other then that, its just destiny to look the way you do. its not really degrading.