So far, Survival of the Sickest has been an entertaining and fascinating read. Personally I find this book to be more accessible than Why Zebras Don't Get Uclers, mainly because there are fewer references to medical jargon and long-winded explanations of bodily functions. That being said, I also find the book to be far less convincing than Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. While Zebras was admittedly a bit tedious for me to read, I felt myself nodding my head in agreement to many of the points raised. When reading Survival of the Sickest, the tone of the book and literary techniques used to prove ideas (such as the link between sunglasses and a decrease of melanin) reminded me of The Tipping Point or Freakonomics. Books like the The Tipping Point are very mind-opening and encourage the reader to view seemingly common things in a unique perspective, but they have also come into debate for being too superficial in reasoning or lacking a wider medical perspective.
Likewise, the arguments I have gleaned so far from Survival of the Sickest are undoubtedly interesting, but seem more like information that I would tell someone as a fun fact, and not necessarily something that I would be prepared to defend if prompted to. For example, while I find the evolutionary and historical links of iron levels, diabetes and the Ice Age to be particularly compelling, I am not convinced. With an unprecedented level of migration and interracial marriages occurring in the past thousands of years, it is difficult to concretely pinpoint the cause as being purely genetic or due to evolutionary reasons. Especially since we are learning abut the sociology of medicine, it seems important to also consider how other social factors, besides from race and gender, could have contributed to certain genes being perpetuated. All things considered, I still find this book to be completely fascinating and I am looking forward to reading the rest of the book and see whether some of my concerns are addressed further on.