Northern Bavungria wrote:If you are going to be like that then your kind of wrong. This will probably sound mean but i do not intend to attack you with this comment at all. For the start of humanity it has been dog eat dog survival of the fittest thing. Well if it wasnt for human technology people with diabetes would have probably died and people with other disease would have to. The only humans who would have survived would be the ones without disease and things like. So only the greatest humans would survive
Diabetes isn't exactly new. People had it long before there were treatments for it, and yet, they obviously DIDN'T all die off, so that theory is... not sound.
The Black Plains wrote:Our physical bodies are shit compared to other animals. We are one of the least properly survival-equipped mammals in existence... Think about how fucking fragile we are. BUT our brains make up for all that now don't they?
Our brains aren't part of our bodies?
Nazistisches Reich wrote:I also am aware of survival of the fittest which is meant to keep the genepool strong. Like how we werent mean to live that long we were meant to livel ong enough to grow up, mate care for our younge and then die but due ot our brains being more advanced we evolved and have done research on things to save people who would have died without it but if you ask me I dont like it I think theres a reason their body caught it and that was becuase they just werent the fittest. I also wouldnt have lasted though since I had menangitice at the age of 4 and the flue at age of 10. I probably wouldnt have survived the menangitic or the flu. But Ive never been sick after that so my immune system has obvoiusly became strong becuase of those 2 incidents.
So you don't like the evolution of our brains which allowed us to find treatments for things that might have killed us before because it interferes with evolution? *squint*
And that's some dodgy logic in the last sentence.