I had a bookmark to the Unabomber’s Manifesto (remember that guy)? At some point I had intended to read the whole thing, but today I just randomly clicked on the bookmark, and randomly clicked on an item in the table of contents. I then randomly read the following paragraph:

122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through the use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.

This is silly, and a half-formed thought. People often have half-formed thoughts, and it amazes me. The continuation of this thought is that yes, any sort of medical treatment reduces the effect of natural selection as it would be done by nature itself. But as long as that treatment continues to be available, and it is a treatment such that the treated individual is just as healthy as those who don’t have a condition, why does it matter?

For example, some large majority of the population is nearsighted, and if you want, you can blame glasses and contact lenses because then “people with a genetic tendency to bad vision” were “able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else”. Yes, it means that we now depend on glasses and contacts, but those are readily available. So now we’re not genetically adapted as well to live in environments where optometrists and vision correction products don’t exist (i.e., we have bad vision), but wouldn’t any sane person see this as being irrelevant?

I haven’t read any more yet, but it seems what he’s doing here is going down a slippery slope that ends in something worse than us all living in caves. Therefore, he must argue, we should all slide back into caves. (Where we will hunt wooly mammoths for fun and profit and have superior genes.)

Sorry for dredging up this old bit of drudgery, but really, no, I’m not sorry. Just your little bit of mental amusement (or lack thereof) for Friday evening.