OK, I hope my question doesn’t get misunderstood, I can see how that could happen.
Just a product of overthinking.

Idea is that we can live fairly easily even with some diseases/disorders which could be-life threatening. Many of these are hereditary.
Since modern medicine increases our survival capabilities, the “weaker” individuals can also survive and have offsprings that could potentially inherit these weaknesses, and as this continues it could perhaps leave nearly all people suffering from such conditions further into future.

Does that sound like a realistic scenario? (Assuming we don’t destroy ourselves along with the environment first…)

  • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    You need to read a genetics textbook and then some evolutionary biology so you understand OPs question.

    • ParabolicMotion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, I guess college biology textbooks and Charles Darwin’s origin of species weren’t enough for me. I shouldn’t try to stop OP’s hint at arguing against letting people with physical disabilities breed.

        • ParabolicMotion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          This part made me think OP was implying that they shouldn’t breed if they have a physical ailment, or disability:

          • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Weaker is in quotes, which suggests to me they don’t mean weaker, just those carrying potentially deleterious traits. Plus, if those people are reproducing, those traits can’t be that bad anyway.