On the "evolutionary process" and passing judgements

Yet again I have received some unwarranted criticism for my column Fears of prescribing perfection. A certain “critic” wrote the following:

This column is not very well thought out. How do drugs speed up the evolutionary process? If anything, it causes a bit of devolution. People with defective genes are able to live quite well in society and pass on those genes, and then more and more people have that defect. For example, eyesight. I have the worst eyesight. In nature, I wouldn't be able to find food or survive. In our society, I can have glasses or get laser eye surgery because of medical breakthroughs. I pass on my poor eyesight to my kids and they are blind as bats too.
Also, who are you to decide what makes somebody an 'individual' versus... oh I don't know... suffering? You as an outsider might think, that depressed person doesn't need medication, that's just the way they are, blah blah... to that person, their depression isn't them, it gets in the way of who they are.

The critics first point is referencing the following line,“Though a more capable human race would certainly be more productive, is it really the purpose or place for man to speed up the evolutionary process?” The idea here, that “critic” missed, is that the evolutionary process is a process which produces more capable humans. With this contextual definition, evolution implies generations stronger, smarter, and more productive than previous ones. In a world without drugs this development of the human race is a slow process, one that would take millennia to correct a human problem such as poor eyesight. What is implied here is that this evolutionary process of correcting human problems can be replaced by man made remedies to fix the problems. Though the genetic composition of humans may not change with drugs, the actual performance of humans will, making the genes obsolete. Thus, in a very clear sense, man can speed up the evolutionary process, the process of improving the capabilities of humans, simply by finding ways to master genetic deficiencies and the human blueprint.

Though the critic has a very interesting point, it is meant for a different piece, perhaps something examining the long term effects on the human genome due to the ability of mankind to alleviate disorders and diseases that would normally be fatal. But in the context of my column it is perfectly thought out, if one is willing to read into the context of the phrase “evolutionary process.”

Furthermore the “critic” goes on to criticize my statement that “As we slowly are able to smooth out the inadequacies of ourselves, we will all become more of the same person.” The “critic” finds this to be critical of people who take drugs to alleviate suffering asking “who are you to decide what makes somebody an individual versus…oh I don’t know…suffering?”

First of all, I don’t say what makes someone an individual. Instead I address the idea of “individuality” within society. The idea is very simple, as people are more able to better themselves, they will all approach some kind of standard of perfection. The perfect height, a perfect memory, perfect skin complexion, perfect anything, defined by society’s options. It is a mere observation which I do claim to be possible “extrapolated dystopian thinking.” None the less, taken as food for thought, it can be a provocative idea to ponder. If you read a previous blog entry I wrote, I discuss a few examples of people having disorders or disabilities, but being happy with them, and seeing themselves in no other way. These people viewed their disorders as essential to their own individuality.

The “critics” reference to depression is an interesting case as well. There have been many famous artists, singers, and writers who suffered from depression and probably would not have produced the works that they did, had they not been under emotional strain. I’m not saying that it’s better for people to be depressed, just that the elimination of any defining trait within society might have unintended costs. I think it also is effective for some people to embrace any disorders they have and learn how to channel them into positive work. The Jet Blue CEO is just one example. All it requires is encouragement in one's self and the drive to not feel pressured into conforming to societal standards. Individuals however are free to choose how they deal with their own problems and it is not the place of others to pass judgment on their decisions for every situatoin is different. I do think it is important to examine how overall societal trends may effect society itself.

The presumption that I am in anyway passing judgment on people who take medications to alleviate suffering is completely misguided. Obviously it is not the case; I made it perfectly clear that I took prescription drugs to cure the illness which brought me into the possession of the sleeping pills. It would be morally pretentious and hypocritical for me to judge anyone else that tries to alleviate suffering in their life with medications. I am confused of where the “critic” derived this thought from, I clearly state that the “trend in society to fix disorders” is a “noble goal.”

I hope this clears up both how drugs can be seen as a means to improving the “evolutionary process.” Perhaps all that was needed to understand my wording was a more open, more contextual definition. Furthermore I hope that the “critic” reads more into my words instead of letting his/her personal emotions cloud rational reading abilities. Perhaps "critic" forgot to wear his glasses when reading the column.