Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The section of this article that discussed a "potential downside" of anti-retroviral treatments being that they prevent human evolution seemed downright offensive to me. I don't think the author realizes it but what he is suggesting is basically eugenics.

Evolution against pathogens works by killing off most everyone who isn't naturally immune. The fact that we can halt this process with drugs and technology isn't a "potential downside" - it's the goal.



The problem that the author describes is that we can’t discover who’s naturally immune and thereby develop cures if we always halt the natural immune process with treatments. I don’t know how scientifically valid this is, but it seems at least a valid ethical concern: if we could eradicate a deadly disease by sacrificing a few people, should we?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: