Everything not curative for a problem that doesn't let you live without treatment is an aberration. Since organ donation is not saving people, but enabling to be dependent on donations every 10 years and immunosuppressants in between (except for cornea transplants), I don't want to enable it.

The much anticipated collapse will apply those sort of rules soon enough anyways.

... glasses would fall under that scope.

It's not helpful to still be thinking in such antiquated ways like evolution through the fittest survivors. Humans have not done that for quite a long time, in pretty much every facet of our society you can find that.

As I said, genetic modification and cyber augmentation will be how we evolve moving forward. Advances in medicine has (and will) make worrying about evolution a headscratcher.

> Since organ donation is not saving people,

[Citation Needed]. I would imagine there's many cases, such as accidents, where someone would need an organ and then be perfectly fine afterwards.

Its hubris to imagine that evolution stops. Mating opportunities are controlled by different things for humans vs fish for example. But don't imagine they aren't there, and guiding our species' development.

Homo Sapiens has evolved more in the last 50,000 years, than in the 1M before that. Because of civilization.

Random mutations are always going to exist. For the third time, future evolution is going to be directly caused -by us-, on shorter timescales. Because the alternative is letting humans die simply for the sake of evolution.