Its like our coccyx, its left over from when we used to have a tail, and that was a long, long time ago. It's only still there for muscle attachment, but with surgery, it can be removed and the muscles, etc, reattached elsewhere to maintain function, so we could survive without it, but it'll take millions of years to fully disappear.
Evolution of man is stagnant and will stop completely if we continue to scupper mother natures brilliant idea of culling those whose genes are corrupt. 100 years ago only 2 in 5 babies born in Britain survived to 10 years old, now it's pretty close to 100% and while nobody likes to even think of children dying, most of those who now survive are passing their corrupt genes on to the next generation, in 100 more years our race will be on the brink of extinction, simply because our medical advancements have degraded our gene pool too much.
Even assuming you were right it will take far longer than 100 years to get to the brink of extinction. Even then, it's unlikely that the human race will fall below the MVP and go extinct.
For every child who should have died in infancy (sorry, I hate to use that phrase even though it does sound sick, but I can't think of a better one) around 100 years ago, just imagine their descendents, it's now on average 5 generations since then and each one of those people will have some genes that SHOULD have been culled. Well over half of all people now living have had some kind of surgery or medication that if they'd lived just 200 years ago would not have existed, simply put, they'd be dead and for each generation from now on this figure will grow. Medicine advances at an extraordinary rate, but it never seems to prevent any underlying problems, just fixing what's already broken, maybe this will change in the future, but it certainly doesn't look like that will happen soon and each time it just fixes a problem temporarily, the problem is passed on, within our lifetimes we will start to see how bad it's already become.
Medical Science can treat underlying problems with germ line gene therapy -the only problem is that it is illegal. The technique has been trialled in animals, and found to succeed, so without the ethical barrier, within a few years it would be possible to screen everyone for genetic disorders, and alter the specific genes of their sperm/ovum, in order to eradicate a genetic problem. If the technique was not illegal, and made widespread, it would be possible within maybe 5 generations to complete remove issues such as Huntingdons disease, Sickle Cell Anaemia, Cystic Fibrosis, etc, etc from the population. Sure, random genetic mutation will always throw up the occasional new problem, and some issues occur in such a low proportion of the population that it wouldn't be worth screening for, but the majority of genetic disorders as they are today could be eliminated. However, if it was allowed, then you're on a slippery slope to designer babies, deliberately breeding certain unnecessary characteristics, eugenics, and a whole lot of other nasty stuff, but the scientific principle is still valid.
****ing hell! Its like a Eugenics Are Us convention here!! Will you ****wits wise up. The fact that childhood mortality was maybe 60% 100 years ago has NOTHING to do with gene pools or genetic mutations, FFS! Rather, it has EVERYTHING to do with advances in medical science, public sewage and sanitation systems, better understanding of hygiene issues, better diet, better housing, etc.
Unpleasant but it brought home the brutality of the situation. The picture of the dead infant was particularly shocking.
Is someone a little tetchy because his 4 toe theory got shot full of holes? Both myself and ReallyReal distinguished between the advances in medical science you are discussing, and gene therapy. Yes, advances in hygiene, etc, made a big difference to child mortality, but myself and ReallyReal (I believe) were addressing the issue about weakening of the gene pool as a result of medical science helping people with genetic weaknesses. I merely raised the point that techniques do now exist to overcome these. As for Eugenics, ignoring the Nazi connotations that often plague the field, is improving the genetic composition of a population not a good thing if applied to things that really matter such as genetic diseases, rather than hair and eye colour?
Pretty much what I was thinking, though I don't think mankind knows anywhere near enough about the possible consequences of genetic manipulation YET, for man to start 'messing' with nature any more than we currently do, even if many scientists have the capabilities to do so. The advances in hygiene have undoubtedly helped improve mortality rates, but the difference between improved hygiene and medical advancements is huge, simple things like antibiotics have saved more lives than all advances in hygiene ever will. The 'eugenics' debate is never of use either, too many hate the word itself and everything it could ever be used to describe, even though the practise makes complete sense in theory.
