25% of humans died before reaching 5 in 1800s US, today it is <1%. Its been at least 5 generations since this value dropped dramatically.

We have not ended up with "humans which aren't as strong, aren't as smart, aren't as well adapted to a changing environment, etc."

▲

qsera 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> We have not ended up with "humans which aren't as strong, aren't as smart, aren't as well adapted to a changing environment, etc."

Haven't we?

▲

100ms an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Probably throwing quite the grenade here, but around 29% of pregnancies end in termination globally. Absent cultural considerations, it's questionable whether life expectancy has improved in absolute terms in modern times

	▲	flexagoon 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Child mortality rates are rapidly dropping globally as well https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality https://ourworldindata.org/children-saved-global-health

▲

colordrops 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We haven't created humans from scratch using genetic engineering yet, why would you think our current state has anything to do with the comment you are replying to?

▲

wossab 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How would you know?

▲

krageon 2 hours ago | parent [-]

When you make an outrageous claim the burden of proof is on the claimant. Given that there isn't a real indication of anything to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume reality is still the way it always was and humans are too.

▲

graemep an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Which is the outrageous claim? We normally require new medical treatments to be proved safe, rather than assume they are safe until proved dangerous.

▲

b112 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This feels hand wavy.

I could make the same claim of a bridge before it collapses, without realising the steel was weak, or had micro fractures.

Where's the proof? What an outlandish claim! Don't you see traffic flowing as normal?

Of course, we shouldn't drop all advancement due to worries. I do think we should study the results a bit more closely though.

	▲	grumbelbart2 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Bridges deteriorate by default. That is a well understood process with well understood reasons, which we monitor and work against. Salt, thermal cycles, load, rust. Humanity does not deteriorate by default. Claiming it does so through some hand-wavy pseudo-evolutionary arguments is not a strong case, and requires at least some evidence to be taken serious. How about a (equally unfounded and just for the sake of argument) reverse claim: Humanity got more intelligent, because high child mortality favored physically strong children instead of mentally strong children.

▲

Mistletoe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I like the spirit of what you are saying but the smart part isn’t true at all. IQ peaked around the mid 1990s and as someone that lived back then that tracks.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028962...

Look at Fig. 3. The world seems to be experiencing a reverse Flynn effect.

	▲	latexr an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The reversal of the Flynn effect is more likely explained by other factors such as the explosion of social media, endless addictive entertainment, and all the attention manipulation that comes with it. Conception didn’t change that much at a large enough scale during this short time period to explain it.