re: As a society should we be trying to save people from themselves?

quote:

---

No we shouldn’t. Let Darwinism do its thing. I’ll even go a step further. It is so dumb to me that we prop people with terminal health problems onto a pedestal. Isn’t the point of evolution to stamp out things that kill us and allow the species to adjust and armor itself against these threats? Instead we celebrate these people and throw them parades and what not.

---

You show a basic misunderstanding of evolution and attribute some sort of "plan" to it.

Evolutionarily speaking, an organism is successful if it has lived long enough to reproduce. By that standard, a lot of the examples in this thread, drug addiction, terminal health problems, etc., would only be relevant if the individual died before reproducing. However, those listed are generally post-puberty age and old age issues.

So by evolutionary standards, the human population is very strong due to its diversity. Risk takers may die younger, but due to their risk taking may breed earlier, while the more risk-averse breed later. This leaves the species strong because it leaves a lot of room for continuation of the species in the event of a catastrophic event (such as disease, natural disaster, etc.).

In evolution, you can only tell the "winning" genes from the "losing" genes in hindsight, because it is almost impossible to predict what pressures are going to determine the beneficial genes. Hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to a genes benefit, that's why diverse populations tend to be more successful long term.