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…)

  • BakerBagel@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 months ago

    A very cavalier take until it’s your wife/sister/friend that dies because she cant get to a maternity ward in time. As it stands, humanity will carry on if society were to collapse next week. But if we cant safely deliver babies without modern medicine, we are in aerious trouble.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      humanity /hyoo͞-măn′ĭ-tē/ noun

      Humans considered as a group; the human race.

      Humanity is not individuals. It’s humanity as a whole.

    • Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      But that’s not what OP asked / wanted to dicuss? The person you’re attacking simply answered the original question:

      “would it be a danger to the whole of humanity or our evolutionary progress?”

      While I think the data alignes with your observation and your interpretation of the risks are on point it deviates from the point the person you answered to.