-3

In the West and modern society, is plastic surgery objectively cheating genetic destiny?

Say a man is not too attractive -- average looking -- and does not manage many sexual partners, if any at all. Say this same man gets all of the bells and whistles and is now more attractive and thus benefits from more sexual partners and looks more physically attractive and thus reproduces more.

His underlying DNA will not change -- so if he was an average looking guy by DNA, he's still passing on his genes despite what restorative/augmentative human aesthetics has done.

In other words, a hot guy who was made hotter with cosmetic surgery will still pass on the same genes. His genes will not change through cosmetic work. Assuming he reproduces more, he is essentially breaking his genetic destiny if we assume he couldn't have reproduced as much should he have never gotten the surgery at all. Given such, hasn't he cheated evolution/genetics with modern technology? He made himself more attractive to attract more partners, but still passed on the same genes that wouldn't have been passed on in such high rates or even at any rate without.

It doesn't have to be a man but could be a woman as well -- I just used a guy as an example because it's easier for women to get sex than it is for men -- so looks would give a massive edge.

In short, is this morally wrong? Is he passing on bad genes? Isn't he lying? No woman may've slept with him before the work or maybe few. Is this not like a person wearing a mask and pretending to be someone else underneath that cannot be seen? How would this influence genetics/evolution?

There are so many advanced cosmetic procedures that you can turn almost any guy who's average looking in to a much more attractive man with face contouring, botox, bone moving, bimax/jaw surgery, osteotomies, blepharoplasty, hair implant, face reshaping, zygos and cheek implants/etc.

You can turn an average Joe in to a an average Channing possibly or a Jane into a Jolie.

closed as off-topic by virmaior, Mark Andrews, Tim B II, Swami Vishwananda, user2953 Feb 2 '18 at 12:20

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site." – virmaior, Mark Andrews, Tim B II, Swami Vishwananda, Community
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    -1 for "it's easier for women to get sex" which isn't really appropriate here, please edit. Also the last sentence can be removed. On the content: evolution works on longer term than this, see here. So evolution would compare people with a culture of cosmetic surgery vs. those who don't. Thus, there is no "cheating". Whether cosmetic surgery is "morally wrong" entirely depends on your moral framework, it cannot be answered universally. – user2953 Feb 1 '18 at 7:45
4

Cheating genetics? Yes, absolutely. In precisely the same way that wearing clothing cheats genetics.

Cheating evolution? Definitely not, at least not evolution by natural selection. That's exactly what's going on here. Our hero is adapting to his environment to ensure genetic success.

  • A really good point, like monkeys using tools to eat hard to reach insects. We don't think "hey that's cheating, they should have evolved an ant eater like mouth". – J. M. Becker Sep 16 at 14:23

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.