/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12525176
>It's all about net gain.
Do you have a crystal ball that allows you to min-max that net gain anon? I used the Myopia IQ correlation and it's utility between different time periods to illustrate the issue with eugenics. It doesn't just stop at that example.

>So if you remove some traits from the pool that cause benefits, you can just compensate by adding traits to the pool that cause the same benefits.

So what trait(s) can you trade in to make up the difference for the following trait below that heavily decreases cancer and diabetes by reducing growth hormone and dna breakage?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/defective-growth-gene-in-dwarfism/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laron_syndrome

Obviously I'm not expecting everyone to want to become dwarfs. But this compensation position isn't going to always work equally across the board.

>>12251138

People are simple minded. The faith lies in the assesment of the whole not necessarily the assessment of the individual parts. The field of medicine as a whole has delivered life saving practices (surgery, organ/blood donation), life extending lifestyles (modern hygiene) and life altering perspectives (germ-theory/micro-organisms). And even though these feats were developed by less than 1% of all the individuals that have ever involved themselves in medicine, it is enough to place a "halo" effect on the remaining 99%. To the point to where even practices like lobotomies was still able to net a Nobel Prize in medicine despite it later being realized as a abhorrent technique that resulted in more negatives than positives. To the point where the medical errors you point out causing +250k deaths is considered acceptable.

Clearly wide spread cognitive bias is at play. And yet it may be necessary in order to maintain some order in a society so they do not take it upon themselves to do medicine when they possibly are too inept to practice it.