I wouldn't say so at all. Poor eyesight carries on smartly. Baldness. I enjoy both.
But an old story about the controller code for a surface-to-air missile comes to mind.
Someone looking at the memory allocator spots an obvious resource leak: "This code is going to crash."
The reply was that, while the point was theoretically valid, it was irrelevant, since the system itself would detonate long before resource exhaustion became an issue.
So too prostate cancer back in the day: war, famine and plague were keeping the lifespan well below the threshold of every man's time bomb.
> It’s odd for there to be such an easily-removable design flaw in the human body; evolution tends to remove them.
The answer to every "why hasn't evolution done x" question is selection pressure.
An enlarged prostate is something that people get in their 60s and later. Most people are done with reproduction long before that event. There is simply very little and very low selection pressure.
It's pretty much the reason why most humans have peak health into their 40s.
Don't expect evolution to "fix" anything for humans that doesn't commonly impact 20yos.
Do you have any source for this? As someone born in the summer to a farming family with poor eyesight, I find it hard to believe that happened because I wasn't exposed to enough sun as an infant or child.
I've worn glasses since I was 2.
"It’s odd for there to be such an easily-removable design flaw in the human body; evolution tends to remove them. Since it strikes at advanced ages, BPH doesn’t make a big impact on a man’s ability to pass on his genes. But being the leading cause of male infertility sure does. Their explanation is that evolution hasn’t had much time to work on the problem; in animals the spermatic vein is horizontal, and doesn’t have or need one-way valves. It’s our standing upright that yields the problem; in evolutionary terms that’s a recent development."
What is the problem with baldness other than having a cheap excuse for not being successful in life? I actually enjoy looking a bit like Larry Fink.
I just so happen to have Hyperopia with astigmatism, neither of which came from a lack of outdoor exposure. (If anything, I needed less time outside).
That's a bit of the issue I have with such a broad generalization. It's true that for some, a lack of time outdoors damaged their eyesight, it's not universally true that all or perhaps even most poor eyesight is a result of staying indoors.
What's up with those things?!
I couldn't find the source just now (in the 30 seconds I searched for it), but I always thought it was an interesting idea.
A better method would be to confine the program to monozygotic twin pairs of young women with spotless genetic heritage, and inseminate one twin with frozen sperm and the other with current sperm. The "current sperm" child (CS) could be closely monitored, and the "frozen sperm" (FS) child fitted with an explosive chastity device which, in the event that CS is found to have developmental issues, are remotely-detonated to ensure the tainted line does not persist.
Simple-as.
I strongly suspect it's more a matter of "won't kill you". Nearsightedness is far more common than farsightedness, and it's only in the last two hundred or so years that there's been any major benefit in seeing fine details at distance. The fuzzy shapes afforded by 20/80 vision are plenty enough to hunt a mammoth.
Having 20-20 vision is nice for avoiding lions and tigers, but it's a luxury spec, because movement acuity doesn't decrease linearly with nearsightedness, and movement acuity (plus traveling in groups, as prehistoric humans were wont to do) can take care of business decently-enough on its own - so I wouldn't call it "evolutionary-pressure"-nice.
But you freeze the sperm at the peak of freshness. Then you wait and see how the donor does. If they live to a ripe old age without old age diseases, then go select their sperm. Otherwise, destroy it.
You can probably do this with eggs too. When a child is desired, select an egg and a sperm off the shelf, and there you go. Easy peasy. Your device ensures only munitions experts can procreate outside the system, and I think we'll need a lot of munitions experts in the ensuing generations.
Mr Trump has also expressed his interest, especially if the women are very young.
The life expectancy cited by Wikipedia for the paleolithic is around 39 additional years for those surviving to 15.
The gallbladder is not important for humans in the aggregate. The aorta, yes.