the strong surviving and weak perish, morals

[hacker85]

If the human race did something to seperate the weak from the strong I think it would create a society were a lot of problems would go away. To me morals are good but sometimes they hold us back form our true potential, so my question is, should the human race do this?

[Defience]

Who and what would determine strengths and weaknesses? Even if you're considered in the 'strong' group, there will always be someone considered stronger so would that make that person weak?

[Goatboy]

While I agree with your idea, it is sounding a bit Third Reich-y for my taste. The way I see it:

The human race really doesn't have natural predators anymore. We live in large, protected cities, so bears and the like are not much of a threat anymore. When we do face wild animals, we have guns to protect ourselves. We keep people alive decades past their time due to medical advances.

Because of this, we are free to reproduce instead of worrying about survival. We don't have to put as much time into gathering food, so our population grows as a result of all the fuxing. The simple truth is, people are supposed to die. At times, it seems as if Earth is a living organism, always fighting to stay in balance. We create vaccines; Earth creates better viruses. We overpopulate; hunger kills us off. Clearly, we're pissing something off.

Now I don't honestly think Earth is a sentient being, but the point still stands. The ecosystem is fairly fragile. It's trying to keep us in check, and we're fighting it every step of the way. We need to stop keeping comatose patients alive for months. We need to let people die when they are ready, instead of keeping our elderly in hospice care. We need to stop being so protective of people who are not contributing. There is a reason the slowest gazelle gets eaten.

I'm ranting, so my thoughts aren't as clear as I'd like them to be, but hopefully you got where I am coming from.

On a more cynical note, we should kill off the lowest 10% of the IQ every 10 years, which will raise the average IQ, lower the population, and promote educational competition.

[insomaniacal]

I definitely agree that people who never contribute should stop being pampered. People like that plague society far too often. What's worse, is that we're making it acceptable.

[DamegedSpy]

I feel that it is already happening.
Poor people have a hard time.
Rich people do whatever they want.

They even race for our pockets making movies and expensive stuff.

[Pieprophet]

Here is what i see as the major flaw in the "social Darwinism" approach to life, the arguments i have heard (at least the ones i feel are going somewhere useful with the idea) is that we have removed many of the factors that contributed to our natural selection. The argument is than made that we should step up and fill this gap. However, if we do that, if we decide what is a desirable trait, and prevent those without from reproducing, it is not natural anymore is it? Every advocate of "unnatural selection" is ultimately making the assumption that there are people capable of making that decision. I have a lot of trouble with this idea. There are less than half a dozen people in the entirety of human history that I MIGHT consider up to the task, and even that is really iffy. The traits we consider desirable often have nothing to do with their actual usefulness.

[Goatboy]

The traits we consider desirable often have nothing to do with their actual usefulness.

Case in point, look at beauty. I don't know about the rest of the guys here, but I like women with curves. Yet for some reason, the models that are viewed as the de facto standard for beauty are all skinny-ass ho's who wouldn't be able to give birth lest they snap in half from the weight. Fux that. I want a real woman.

[Pieprophet]

Case in point, look at beauty. I don't know about the rest of the guys here, but I like women with curves. Yet for some reason, the models that are viewed as the de facto standard for beauty are all skinny-ass ho's who wouldn't be able to give birth lest they snap in half from the weight. Fux that. I want a real woman.

Amen to that. There really isn't anything else to say... just, amen.

[Bren2010]

While I agree with your idea, it is sounding a bit Third Reich-y for my taste. The way I see it:

1.) The human race really doesn't have natural predators anymore. We live in large, protected cities, so bears and the like are not much of a threat anymore. When we do face wild animals, we have guns to protect ourselves. We keep people alive decades past their time due to medical advances.

Because of this, we are free to reproduce instead of worrying about survival. We don't have to put as much time into gathering food, so our population grows as a result of all the fuxing. The simple truth is, people are supposed to die. At times, it seems as if Earth is a living organism, always fighting to stay in balance. We create vaccines; Earth creates better viruses. We overpopulate; hunger kills us off. Clearly, we're pissing something off.

2.) Now I don't honestly think Earth is a sentient being, but the point still stands. The ecosystem is fairly fragile. It's trying to keep us in check, and we're fighting it every step of the way. We need to stop keeping comatose patients alive for months. We need to let people die when they are ready, instead of keeping our elderly in hospice care. We need to stop being so protective of people who are not contributing. There is a reason the slowest gazelle gets eaten.

I'm ranting, so my thoughts aren't as clear as I'd like them to be, but hopefully you got where I am coming from.

3.) On a more cynical note, we should kill off the lowest 10% of the IQ every 10 years, which will raise the average IQ, lower the population, and promote educational competition.

I'm going to say from the beginning that some of your statements deeply disturb me.

1.) I see your point about better viruses. I hardly ever get sick, and now I've been home sick for a week with some form of bronchitis not described in any medical textbook my doctor has ever read.

However, I don't think that we're pissing something off. The reason new viruses develop is because of their natural ability to adapt to anything and everything over time, and we're sitting here letting them. I'm not sure what time period, but at one time it was popular to take antibiotics to help people stay healthy. The opposite happened, and they became immune to penicillin when they got sick so doctors couldn't do anything for them.

Also, about people dieing of hunger. You have to think about the planet as having bandwidth. With all the "fuxing", as you said, we are creating more people than the Earth can support at once.

2.) You can say that now because you probably haven't had anyone in hospice or very sick, and if you have that's just heartless. For comatose patients there is a chance that they can come out of that state. However, I agree that if someone in hospice wishes to die, they should be allowed to. At that point it can be considered putting them out of their pain. Comatose patients don't experience any pain, it's just like taking a nap.

3.) You're just sick. Raise the average IQ? What about for the 11%? Soon they will become the 1%, then the 21% will become the 11% percent and so on. People would be studying so much they wouldn't have time to "fux". Besides, there is a reason there is smart and stupid people. The smart people trick the stupid people into doing what they want them to do. More like send the population into extinction, and create an educational brawl.

Btw, who will execute this plan? What if they get executed? It will end up just like slavery, several people dead and millions of dollars spent on wars for something that shouldn't have been done in the first place.

[Goatboy]

I'm going to say from the beginning that some of your statements deeply disturb me.

I generally assume this to be the case.

#1 - You pretty much just agreed with me.
#2 - Please see this post I wrote a while ago.
#3 - That was cynicism mixed with sarcasm.