Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

Longevity Cook Book

On “How We Became Post-Human”

Bitcoin and Science: DNA is the Original Decentralized System

Summa Technologiae, Or Why The Trouble With Science Is Religion

Technoprogressive Declaration - Transvision 2014

Transhumanism: A Glimpse into the Future of Humanity


ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
Author
Martine Rothblatt


comments

Rick Searle on 'Summa Technologiae, Or Why The Trouble With Science Is Religion' (Nov 24, 2014)

Peter Wicks on 'Summa Technologiae, Or Why The Trouble With Science Is Religion' (Nov 24, 2014)

Peter Wicks on 'Pastor-Turned-Atheist Coaches Secular Church Start-Ups' (Nov 24, 2014)

Rick Searle on 'Summa Technologiae, Or Why The Trouble With Science Is Religion' (Nov 24, 2014)

Rick Searle on 'Summa Technologiae, Or Why The Trouble With Science Is Religion' (Nov 24, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'Summa Technologiae, Or Why The Trouble With Science Is Religion' (Nov 24, 2014)

Laurence Hitterdale on 'Summa Technologiae, Or Why The Trouble With Science Is Religion' (Nov 24, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Why Running Simulations May Mean the End is Near
Nov 3, 2014
(20874) Hits
(15) Comments

Does Religion Cause More Harm than Good? Brits Say Yes. Here’s Why They May be Right.
Nov 18, 2014
(19464) Hits
(1) Comments

2040’s America will be like 1840’s Britain, with robots?
Oct 26, 2014
(14597) Hits
(33) Comments

Decentralized Money: Bitcoin 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0
Nov 10, 2014
(8713) Hits
(1) Comments



IEET > Life > Vision > Contributors > Colin Farrelly

Print Email permalink (0) Comments (2226) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Perceiving the Health Impact of Evolution by Natural Selection


Colin Farrelly
By Colin Farrelly
Ethical Technology

Posted: Feb 16, 2013

The health prospects of humanity are influenced by many things. There are extrinsic factors like poverty, violence, and infectious disease that can cause humans to die. There are also intrinsic factors, like the constraints of our biology (e.g. aging). The role these different factors play in causing disease and death in the world changes over time. The greater success we have with combating extrinsic risks, the greater the impact intrinsic risks have on our health prospects.

I have been mining this article for data on global mortality between 1970-2010 to help capture how the health challenges facing human populations have changed over time. I decided it would be helpful to compare the number of human deaths that occur when the force of natural selection is working at 100% (the pre-reproductive stage) with the death rates when the force of natural selection is working at 0% (after the "biological warranty period" has expired, approximately age 70 for our species). As such these two categories are biologically meaningful age windows. They effectively illustrate the priority natural selection places on reproductive fitness over the longevity of a parent (which becomes most evident by 2010 when extrinsic risk factors for both age groups are lowered, but with significant differences in mortality numbers). We cannot hope to tackle the health challenges of today and tomorrow without an understanding of how natural selection impacts the health prospects of today's aging populations.

The first chart below compares the number of deaths, in thousands, of people age ≤ 14 with those who die age ≥70 in 1970 and 2010. This gives us a good sense of how health challenges have changed over the past 4 decades. As public health measures and material prosperity improved, deaths early in life have been reduced by half. But the story at the other end of the lifespan is very different. The chronic diseases of late life are the leading causes of death in the world today. Promoting health in late life is thus a significant global health challenge today and for the future. The health innovations needed to promote health in late life will need to be very different from those that have proved effective in helping to reduce death and disease in the pre-reproductive stage of life (when the force of natural selection is 100%).



The point of showing these two graphs? Answer: the stakes have never been higher for humanity than they are now for pursuing Darwinian medicine.



Some common reactions people might tend to have to the message I convey here (these are common comments I have heard many times, even from researchers in the health sciences):

1. The levels of early life mortality today are a tragedy and should be lower.

My response: I completely agree! So pointing out that there are significant health challenges in late life does not mean that significant challenges do not remain with respect to tackling disease and death in early life (though we should acknowledge that the trend for early life mortality is a declining (not inclining) one).

2. We should divert all resources to combating early life mortality (which I have actually heard researchers suggest)

My response: we should aspire to promote health at all stages of the human lifespan. It is irrational to think that we should only care about saving the lives of children when they are young, but not give a damn about their health prospects when they are older. That is simply ageism.

3. The chronic diseases of late life are only a problem for the world's richest countries.

My response: This attitude is not grounded in the empirical data. Furthermore, it rests on a very simplistic and mistaken view of human biology. It is on my "top 5" list of dogmas that must be eliminated if we hope to create a more humane and rational world.


Colin Farrelly is currently Queen's National Scholar in the Dept of Political Studies at Queen's University. His most recent book is entitled Justice, Democracy and Reasonable Agreement.
Print Email permalink (0) Comments (2227) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Questions I am frequently asked about… Writing and Science Fiction

Previous entry: AIs and the Decisive Advantage Thesis

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376