You don't understand evolution

I'm not aiming this at people who reject evolution, I'm talking to science-loving atheists who claim to understand it, to respect it, and then disregard its implications at every other turn. YOU don't understand evolution.

Just like this whole universe, we are subject to nature's unrelenting laws and we are constantly evolving. All public policy affects our biological and societal evolution. No serious thought is given to either of these by most people, regardless of what policies they advocate, or who they vote for, or what academic qualifications they hold.

When an issue is in debate, like cockroaches to a left over pie, the different factions advance from all corners to fight over it and nibble away at the crust from different sides without even perceiving the greater substance.

Should we allow X?
"Yes, X is my personal business!"
"No, X is a sin!"
"Yes, X has these good immediate consequences!"
"No, X has these bad immediate consequences!"
"Yes, X is good for you!"
"No, X is a violation of my freedom!"

The pertinent question is "What lasting effect will X have on us, our evolution, our future being and society, the inheritance of those that come after, not just one generation, but into perpetuity, so far as we can reckon." All of the above responses are important, but still parochial and auxiliary considerations.

Let's take the vaccine question:

What effect does vaccination have on...

1. ...one person? Assuming it does what its proponents claim, the person just becomes immune to a particular virus with no ill effects.
2. ...a population of people? It makes that population immune to a particular strain of virus, potentially even wiping out that virus completely.
3. ...virus evolution? It creates evolutionary pressure to mutate faster into a new strain of virus, and immunise itself to the vaccine.
4. ...human evolution? It removes evolutionary pressure to maintain a naturally healthy immune system, deteriorating the natural immune system.
5. ...vaccine evolution? The evolutionary pressure on viruses to mutate coupled with the weakening of the human immune system will perpetuate the need for new vaccines to be constantly developed.
   
6. ...societal evolution? People must be administered with ever greater numbers of newly developed vaccines, to survive even previously mild ailments.

Is such an outcome desirable? Are we creating a more dangerous future with this growing dependency on vaccines? And if so, is this danger justified?

I can think of additional factors, as there will always be, but this seems to be a good primary line of reasoning to work from, without wild speculation, simply derived from what we know of evolution.

I think all hot-button political issues deserve a similar analysis, but seldom get it.

If you're going to squabble, then please squabble over something more substantial than the momentary crust.

 

There's a difference between claiming to know it all and daring to look at the bigger picture. Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you, not be liked by you.