I have a pet theory that saving children from natural deaths is harmful to future generations. Surely by intervening so much, we're giving unhealthy people as much evolutionary advantage as healthy people. If the whole world reaches western standards of infant mortality and stays there long enough, will children eventually become dependent on even more interventions and be even more vulnerable to death without them? It might take a lot of generations, but aren't we supposed to value future humans higher than present ones because there will be more of them?
I would have died in childhood without modern medicine, and have a lifelong illness as a consequence of surviving. I may pass that on to my own children. That's a problem that never happened in all human history before about a 100 years ago when useful medicine started to exist, so maybe its effects will be disastrous for the human race. On the other hand, perhaps it's OK if we evolve more dependency on technology. We already need clothes, cooking, and shelter which helps us have advantages and flexibility that animals don't have.
I would have died in childhood without modern medicine, and have a lifelong illness as a consequence of surviving. I may pass that on to my own children. That's a problem that never happened in all human history before about a 100 years ago when useful medicine started to exist, so maybe its effects will be disastrous for the human race. On the other hand, perhaps it's OK if we evolve more dependency on technology. We already need clothes, cooking, and shelter which helps us have advantages and flexibility that animals don't have.