There are certainly some causes of death which are not accidents or contagious diseases which are made more likely by our modern lifestyle: Consider all of the obesity-related diseases, for instance. On the other hand, death by starvation also falls in that category, and it’s almost unknown in the modern developed world.
Add to that some childhood diseases returning (albeit on much smaller scales than in the past) because of anti-vax paranoia. We’ve taken great strides forward, but with a few minor backsteps along the way.
I’m not sure that I buy that the sort of things that kills people before reproductive age are the sorts of things that kill people post-reproductive age. The things that we are stopping – contagious disease, cancer, accidents, starvation, childbirth, injuries (both the incidents and the complications that arise from them)–are not the things that (prematurely) kill these same people in old age, nor are they things that have much, if any, genetic component.
The only disorder I can think of that fits that bill is CF, which is very rare, and while CF sufferers sometimes now reproduce, they are generally careful to not reproduce with someone else that carries the (recessive) gene. And since people are more and more routinely tested to see if they are CF carriers before they even have children, the actual instance of the disorder is more likely to decrease than increase.
That’s an interesting point: Now that we’re capable of detecting people who carry recessive genes, and make decisions accordingly, it’s possible for both the disease to become less common and the gene which causes it to become more common, at the same time.
O.K., jtur88, so you admit that you have no proof for your claim. I consider the claim that longer longevity is being bred out of the human race to be similar to the claim that high intelligence is being bred out of the human race. Both claims seem to be contradicted by the statistics. People are living longer. Average I.Q.s (assuming that I.Q. tests actually measure anything of importance) are increasing if you look at the Flynn effect:
The reply of people who want to deny any real increase in intelligence is that the environment of the world has allowed people to improve their use of their native-born intelligence, although the underlying genetic ability for intelligence has decreased because stupid people aren’t dying before they breed. Similarly, they say that while any increase in longevity is because the environment of the world (medical and such improvements) is increasing the average lifespan, although the underlying genetic ability for longevity has decreased because genetically shorter-lived people aren’t dying before they breed. There’s no proof of any such claims.
Cancer has a huge genetic component. If you don’t have whichever gene can mutate into the cancerous version, you don’t get whichever type of cancer.
Right, but the kids who aren’t dying of treatable cancers as children aren’t generally going to survive only to have children who will die of those cancers. How strong is the generic component of treatable childhood cancers? How often are those genes dominant, or so common in the population that they are likely to be expressed again? And if those cancers are treatable, how often will the G2 cancer kids have reduced lifespans?