Today, Broadsheet posted a critique of a paper by Kristi  Scott, a scientist who suggests that plastic surgery allows us to "cheat our naturally predetermined appearances," thereby interfering with our ability to find a genetically desirable trait. Salon's Amanda Fortini does not speak highly of this paper, but she doesn't go nearly far enough in her criticism -- or emphasize enough how damaging Scott's thinking is to our health and happiness. 

First, Scott's paper imagines a world in which individuals are surviving using their physical attributes. While this will always be true to an extent -- we all need healthy hearts, a certain amount of muscle tissue, etc. -- physical dominance means practically nothing these days. Conversely, many desirable traits, fitness-wise, are not sexually desirable (or are less-so).

But what's worse is that as a species we are entirely unprepared for all real threats to us. Does Scott honestly think it matters if a few individuals make genetically "poor"  choices when it comes to choosing a mate? Or even if a lot of individuals do? Nevermind that, if anything, our success as a species, numbers-wise, is one of the main reasons we're threatened as a species -- the notion that we are radically evolving in any meaningful way at this point is ridiculous -- what environmental pressures are driving this evolution? If the ocean level rises by a few feet, I'd like to meet a woman with gills and fins, thank you, or a functional layer of blubber. 

I'd also like to address  her theory head-on -- that sexually desirable traits reflect genetically desirable qualities. First, many sexually desirable traits may be just that, and nothing more. Just because a person is good at attracting one night stands does not mean he or she has a whole lot else that's worthwhile to pass on. 

It gets worse though. Take my friend with the larger-than-average cock... with asthma and a long family history (himself included) of chronic depression. Or the not-so-bright woman with huge knockers. 

Which brings me to my next point -- one's ability to overcome the "gifts" God gave them may be the surest sign of fitness there is. Having the means and know-how to beautify one's self may mean just as much as being naturally beautiful, if not more. Or, the means to find a mate and be really ugly, or disabled. 

But the most troubling aspect of Scott's overly simplifeid claptrap about darwinian fitness is that it completely undermines our ability to make decisions independent of our genetic imperative, and simultaneously supposes that our genetic imperative is more important than whatever other goals we have. The fact is, the biggest genetic shift (that we know of) was caused by a completely random event -- a meteor. "Fitness" is a relative term -- it only applies to your current environment, which could radically change at any moment.

We don't know why we aspire to do what we do, and we don't know what will be important. Perhaps the children of smokers are best suited to survive increasing levels of air pollution. But it doesn't matter -- we don't aspire to be cockroaches, and everyone knows they're the fittest of all. Why don't we? Because we're people. This reductionist garbage has got to stop.