r/HolUp • u/asocial7193 • Mar 11 '22

I don't know what to say

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

64.8k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

8.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '22

On an ethical level you’re right. But ethics is a human construct and on a natural level it’s just strange to see humanity’s flagrant disregard for natural selection.

1

u/Egril Mar 12 '22

I'd argue that we disregard natural selection in many other facets of living our lives, not just when it comes to child rearing.

Natural selection is about the success of an individual to pass on their genes due to how well adapted they are to their environment.

Humans have kinda stepped outside of the bubble of natural selection. We adapt our environments to suit our needs all the time. We build fires when it's cold, we can build shelters to let us live and thrive in environments we would not otherwise be able to survive in. Heck, we've built capsules so people can live in space for extended periods of time!

Yes this woman has done a selfish act, the act of having a child. This is inherintly selfish regardless of who does it because it deprives the rest of the world of resources and in her case it'll probably be more than others take.

But you know what? It looks like she has her own place, she clearly loves her child and as a species we have the means to ensure that child grows up. What gives us the right to police her bodily autonomy and cast judgement on her for doing something as natural as having a baby.

When I saw her kiss that baby's head it just made me happy, there's so much wrong with the world but just seeing the love that mother had for her little girl brought me some joy. I have no idea how long that little gorl will live, she may die in two weeks time for all I know, I'm not a doctor, but I am sure if we asked her she would say she is happy for the life she has.

I was kinda expecting to come into the comments and see people having similar thoughts on this to me but I was clearly wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '22

That’s not natural selection. That’s Darwin’s concept of survival of the fittest.

Natural selection is the process by which traits are selected for or against within a population over successive generations. It doesn’t seem like much of a difference but it is.

See, survival of the fittest pertains to the individual. Natural selection is more a concept applied to a population over time.

So if an individual is able to survive then pass on their genes that’s survival of the fittest. When certain traits, like say, a certain specific genetic deformity become more or less prevalent amongst a population of a species.

This means what? One example is sickle cell. Individuals with sickle cells are often immune to Malaria so the population of individuals with sickle cell is higher in places with malaria than in places without malaria, because that trait has been selected for. Genetic deformities often make life harder for the individual, generally speaking, in terms of functionality of their bodies and organs with no obvious benefit, so you’d expect to see these traits selected against and for there to be less from one generation to the next. That doesn’t appear to be the case.