So, the big question is- how did allergies not get dropped out the window at the first genetic pass? I big, soft fleshy creature uncontrollably sneezing with mucus filling it's passages so it cannot run fast and reveals it's location?!?! That should have been gone long ago. Something so deadly the smell or particulate requires an epi-pen for survival? No genetic reproduction there. Even the most poisonous plant in the world doesn't have that affect. So, if you look at all ecology and permaculture and nature developing and co-existing, I think that something's wrong. Something must be missing from this picture. Consider also that a sinus infection before antibiotics could be deadly. Since I have to deal with allergies and have my whole life, I figure I might as well try contemplating this until something gets figured out. In another forum we discussed potential cures. Most involve a certain "getting used to" plus probiotics and avoiding other potential toxins. So, that's a hint, right?
I'm not highly fond of the adaption method- I think that just makes your immune system readier, but still battling.
I like probiotics, because those have the potential to limit entrance into the body.
I think avoiding toxins is a generally good policy.
But, let's look from a plain view of the body: it's not me, therefore, it must go, therefore I will react. (the general body model for anything in it, for those of us non-doctors).
So, to stop reaction a person has to have the invasion under wraps fast, or the invaders not there, right?
Human immune systems could have gotten weaker, but the cold isn't deadly for much of the world, so I don't think that's it.
Are huge pollen blooms new to the world? Is it that pollinators have been so devastated, and they would have otherwise eaten most of the pollen, leaving small amounts for humans to breadth? Do people in healthy ecosystems have allergies? The whole scenario reminds me of Nausica (movie). Perhaps it's the vegetation trying to repopulate the world, and once at a certain vegetative capacity reproduction slows (since child survival is less) kind of like the way that certain pine trees will not grow until fire burns down the existing stand.
You noted: "Something so deadly the smell or particulate requires an epi-pen for survival? No genetic reproduction there."
And that's just it,....when epi-pens didn't exist, there was a certain amount of mortality associated with a severe allergic reaction. If situations change where these reactions are no longer detrimental to reproduction, then there will be no selective action removing that susceptibility from the gene pool.
"I'm not highly fond of the adaption method- I think that just makes your immune system readier, but still battling."
I'm not sure of the basis for the success of the adaptation method, but have heard from some for whom it worked. My on-again, off-again hay/pollen/dust allergies have declined over the years, but I think an early mild cat allergy has perhaps gotten worse. So in some cases they can be out-grown, but probably not in all.
“The most important decision we make is whether we believe we live in a friendly or hostile universe.”― Albert Einstein
Removal of natural selection is bound to have long-term effects on the population. Reproductive difficulties would seem to be an important example.
This lack of natural selection due to technology has certainly helped with survival of the stupid. Not long ago, people who made really poor decisions could be selected out because they where eaten by something, they froze to death or suffered some other trauma.
Now, vast numbers of ill-equipped people are able to live to a ripe old age.
If we are talking about genetic selection and the use of technology and working together as a society to save the lives of others, I think that's a natural adaption that has let humans thrive. We are not grains of wheat, we social, mobile creatures. Nature selected ants and honey bees to thrive with strangely shaped and not nearly as functional queen bees, so who knows what will work best for our future. I worry about our genetic quality sometimes, but far be it for me to judge nature's selection method. Humans are thriving. As for those genes proliferating the population, these technologies are too new to have had that much affect on the population. Therefore, I believe allergies to the degree we are experiencing must come from somewhere else. If a disease co-adapts with a population, they generally have immunity, but when a relative population from a different location arrives, they typically don't.
I therefore disagree with and think that your theories of survival are misguided.
Another thing to consider is the "hygiene hypothesis", which is gaining some scientific backing especially as regards parasitic worms in the gut. Essentially this means the default state for humans is that little kids play in the dirt and run wild around the landscape, exposing themselves to numerous microbial and other natural challenges, "exercising" the immune system so to speak. When kids are raised in overly clean surroundings the immune system sort of doesn't know what to do with itself and ends up attacking things that don't need attacking, like parts of the body itself, foods, pollens, etc.
I haven't heard it called that, but I agree that there's something to that oversanitization thing. You see it with plants all the time, therefore it is likely to apply to us too. I think of it more along the lines of when you sanitize, the ones most hit are the probiotics, just like when you pesticide your garden (theoretical you) the most to die are the beneficials. Doctors are now suggesting probiotics following antibiotics.
So, so far theories are:
-the globalization of humanity and plants
-underforesterization of most "civilized areas"
-lack of pollinators/eaters
You might need to thank/blame your neanderthal ancestors.
Recent DNA findings suggest that ancient human groups interbred and that the one of the benefits to modern humans is a stronger immune system helping us to fight off disease, but can also lead us to overreact to perceived(?) threats to health, in other words allergies.
Search neanderthal immune there are lots of news articles.
Doesn't explain the recent increase in allergies though, unless those of us with neanderthal genes are more successful at having children. Are big bones and a heavy brow ridge sexy?
Out in Arizona, those suffering with Asthma, moved out to that dry arid climate, to get away from trees and grass. Asthmatics married and produced asthmatic children. Others flocked out there, and brought their need for trees and lawns and the big cities are now just like any other place in the country, and some cities have a very high concentration of generational asthmatics. So we do somewhat produce our own problems....
this is supposed to be a surprise, but it smells like a tiny ad: