Worse off as a species?

[Anarchemitis]

What seperates humans from other animals is self-awareness.
Sure, self-preservation, care, occasionally compassion are present in species, but no other God-created species can declare "I think, therefore I am".

 

[messy]

I think the people who made them necessary already died...and then the warnings were posted...

I want them to die again.

I know, buddy. I know. How about I lend you my reanimation ray? Will that make it better? We can go find their graves with some shotguns and other weapons later.

Now we'd probably agree on what makes someone a moron but there difference between killing someone of a certain intelligence and a certain race. Also what makes someone stupid at the moment is purely subjective you'd have to make it objective some such as an IQ test (which i floored because you dont need a high IQ to be a great painter etc.) So you'd really have no way of killing someone, also you talk about natural selection killing stupid people will not remove it from the gene pool when alot of your intelligence is based on your environment (well thats what i believe anyway and it has some evidence to back it up).

EDIT; spelling

I'd base my slections off of common sense, actually. And, as I noted, it would depend on the degree of stupidity displayed by the individual.

Well your definition of common sense (and please dont use a really obvious answer as an example of common sense like the robbers who sue people after being attacked by guard dogs and WINNING). I imagine you want to keep this fairly civilised society we like in, one of which is mainly ruled by some extent of democracy (American, the Uk, Europe etc) so to have people killed on your whim would make it more of a dictator ship where someones life could be removed if you had a bad day. And personally i'd like a world full of stupid people rather then one where one man/women/party held that much power. I suppose you could do it on a vote system (that would be fairer) like a version of Big Brother (kinda)

 

[SilentHunter7]

It's not the same, because it's not based on skin colour, religious beliefs, or anything else that doesn't matter.
It's completely acceptable to discriminate against stupid people.

Who's to decide on who's stupid? You?

I have a higher than average proficency with PCs and the Windows Operating System, and I'm at the top of my class. Does that mean I'm superior to the majority of the human race?

As a toddler, I once shocked myself when I stuck a metal ribbon into a 120 outlet near the Christmas tree. Does that make me stupid? Do I not have a right to live anymore?

Not one of us here has a right to judge anyone. The only one who can judge is an infallible god, and whether or not one even exists is debatable.

Yeah people do stupid things. Things that may frustrate and anger the rest of us, but that DOES NOT give any of us the right to say that they deserve to be purged from the planet, or that they aren't entitled to the same rights and freedoms we all enjoy. I don't care who he is, if any mortal man says that he can determine the worth of a human life, he's an asshole.

 

[ffxfriek]

Oh, natural selection, I'm so sorry they killed you.

ditto

 

[Neonbob]

Well your definition of common sense (and please dont use a really obvious answer as an example of common sense like the robbers who sue people after being attacked by guard dogs and WINNING). I imagine you want to keep this fairly civilised society we like in, one of which is mainly ruled by some extent of democracy (American, the Uk, Europe etc) so to have people killed on your whim would make it more of a dictator ship where someones life could be removed if you had a bad day. And personally i'd like a world full of stupid people rather then one where one man/women/party held that much power. I suppose you could do it on a vote system (that would be fairer) like a version of Big Brother (kinda)

My definition of common sense? Realizing that doing something is incredibly stupid, and then not doing it. Example: There was a kid in my 8th grade science class who felt that sticking a wire into an electrical outlet and then pouring water into it would be a good idea. Luckily for him, the outlet was already faulty, so he didn't die. In my world, an agency would bring him to me, and I'd get to dispatch him.
And, as much as I hate to admit it, democracy does seem to be an effective way to keep your subjects happy...so I'd have a little review board that I submit the event to, and with their consult(I still want final say), I'd make my decision on whether or not the person lived. And if I was killing stupid people every day, I don't think I could have a bad day.

 

[NeedAUserName]

To be honest, if survival of the fittest was introduced, I wouldn't be completely bothered, after all I am quite fit. Although a lot of people I know would die, and that would be a small inconvenience.

 

[messy]

Well your definition of common sense (and please dont use a really obvious answer as an example of common sense like the robbers who sue people after being attacked by guard dogs and WINNING). I imagine you want to keep this fairly civilised society we like in, one of which is mainly ruled by some extent of democracy (American, the Uk, Europe etc) so to have people killed on your whim would make it more of a dictator ship where someones life could be removed if you had a bad day. And personally i'd like a world full of stupid people rather then one where one man/women/party held that much power. I suppose you could do it on a vote system (that would be fairer) like a version of Big Brother (kinda)

My definition of common sense? Realizing that doing something is incredibly stupid, and then not doing it. Example: There was a kid in my 8th grade science class who felt that sticking a wire into an electrical outlet and then pouring water into it would be a good idea. Luckily for him, the outlet was already faulty, so he didn't die. In my world, an agency would bring him to me, and I'd get to dispatch him.
And, as much as I hate to admit it, democracy does seem to be an effective way to keep your subjects happy...so I'd have a little review board that I submit the event to, and with their consult(I still want final say), I'd make my decision on whether or not the person lived. And if I was killing stupid people every day, I don't think I could have a bad day.

that does seem more reasonable and i would feel more secure if you were never in a bad mood atleast the decision making would be more logical, you'd need proof of the event thought mainly the face that they realise that something is srupid initally. Which may require some 1984 levels of survallience (spelling?)

 

[D.C.]

Frankly, I'm glad that natural selection is gone...I'm a telemarketeer, do have any idea how easy it is to sell stuff to stupid people?

*Laughs evilly as his commission sales continue to grow.*

you sir are evil! pure EVIL!


where do i sign up to be a henchman?

 

[Pendragon9]

Screw survival of the fittest. We can go to space.

In your face, mother nature.

 

[Internet Kraken]

It's funny. You all think that we should force natural selection to occur, as you seem so confident that you would survive.

However, a change in the environment could always turn up that makes your genes inferior and makes other people stronger. Then what will you say?

 

[Neonbob]

that does seem more reasonable and i would feel more secure if you were never in a bad mood at least the decision making would be more logical, you'd need proof of the event thought mainly the face that they realize that something is stupid initially. Which may require some 1984 levels of surveillance (spelling?fixed[/I])

Meh. I don't have time to read everyone's mind. Just a select few. Anyway, if it is generally known to be a bad idea, and it's done anyway, I'm claiming that they knew it was a dumbass move.

 

[Internet Kraken]

It's funny. You all think that we should force natural selection to occur, as you seem so confident that you would survive.

However, a change in the environment could always turn up that makes your genes inferior and makes other people stronger. Then what will you say?

"It's time to die?"
Honestly, what else is there to say?

The rules would apply to everyone.

Still, it would be an endless cycle of killing that would not improve us as a species or a society. Plus it could result in the entire human species being destroyed if you only let people with a specific set of genes survive.

I know it's tempting to want to kill off all the idiots, but even if you did that nothing would change. There will always be idiots in society.

 

[Neonbob]

It's funny. You all think that we should force natural selection to occur, as you seem so confident that you would survive.

However, a change in the environment could always turn up that makes your genes inferior and makes other people stronger. Then what will you say?

"It's time to die?"
Honestly, what else is there to say?

The rules would apply to everyone.

You could say my line...but I do want some kind of royalty for it.

 

[Oldmanwillow]

I don't care who he is, if any mortal man says that he can determine the worth of a human life, he's an asshole.

I am an asshole.

I never denied that.

It's funny. You all think that we should force natural selection to occur, as you seem so confident that you would survive.

However, a change in the environment could always turn up that makes your genes inferior and makes other people stronger. Then what will you say?

"It's time to die?"

Honestly, what else is there to say?

The rules would apply to everyone.

Second. That fact that our society has a irrational fear of death bothers me. I will live till i used up all of my usefulness then i will accept death with no qualms.

 

[gamergal126]

If you have seen the movie Idiocracy then you would know...yes, yes we are

 

[Kogarian]

We, as a species, really can't evolve. Gene flow is so rampant, it's nearly impossible. Unless you're suggesting we stop all forms of movement (travel travel, migration, moving to other counties/states/provinces, vacationing, mility work, diplomatic talks, etc.) and stayed put for several million years?

And besides, rape was the by-product of evolution. A man can impregnant a woman without wasting energy on attracting the female or helping to raise the young. So should we just call off society and make one huge free-for-all? Personally, I don't beleive so. Besides, you're forgetting a good point: we still compete. High status males, athletes, and anyone else who holds lots of money (thus equaling resources) are more likely to reproduce.

But no, we aren't all created equal. But most people would turn that into a racist, sexist, or religious debate, as most humans aren't mature enough to speak of such things.

 

[Internet Kraken]

I don't care who he is, if any mortal man says that he can determine the worth of a human life, he's an asshole.

I am an asshole.

I never denied that.

It's funny. You all think that we should force natural selection to occur, as you seem so confident that you would survive.

However, a change in the environment could always turn up that makes your genes inferior and makes other people stronger. Then what will you say?

"It's time to die?"

Honestly, what else is there to say?

The rules would apply to everyone.

Second. That fact that our society has a irrational fear of death bothers me. I will live till i used up all of my usefulness then i will accept death with no qualms.

Then you should kill yourself now. What you are suggesting could destroy the entire human race.

Also I seriously doubt you would just accept death. You can act like you would, but I'm sure your tune would change if your life is actually in danger.

 

[Ken Korda]

Ok I haven't read the rest of the thread I just wanted to reply to the OP.

You are forgetting that humans are primates and primates live in gorups which defend and protect even the weaker members. This beahiour can be seen in many animal species from ants to dolphins.

I would suggest you read Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene'. Regardless what you think about Dawkins, this book has nothing to do with religion and deals with gentic selection and its effects on animal behaviour but written in a way that a layman such as myself can understand it.

Simply put Dawkins argues that animals will protect other members of their own species in direct, positive correlation with the likelihood of an individual possesing the same combinations of genes. Hence animals protect members of their family before more distant relatives but will protect more distant relatives above strangers; animals protect whoever is most likely to possess the same genes as themselves.

 

[GoldenRaz]

(I'm too lazy to find a fitting post to quote, so here goes nothing...)

A large fault in certain persons arguments is the thought that first, evolution will stop, and second, that it has a direction or target (ubermensch?). It does not, and I'll try to explain my reasons for saying so:

FIRST, evolution does not stop just because those with "bad" or "unfit" genepools survive. It just means that the mutations don't show themselves quite as much. For example, I've heard that about 5 (or was it 15?) percent of the human populace has four nipples: two "real" ones and two underdeveloped ones. Just because all the two-nipple people of the world haven't dropped as flies due to whatever those extra nipples helps the "freaks" with, doesn't mean the mutation doesn't exist, it just means that it will have a harder time becoming "common" in the human genepool.

SECOND, evolution does not have a target, it's actually just a series of mutations who create new species or at least traits in existing species. But then what is a mutation, you ask? It is actually when the DNA-replication during mitosis fails, due to either enzyme malfunctions or outside forces changing the result.
That's right, the whole pretense of evolution is failure, and for something that is supposed to be a random chain of mistakes to have a goal is quite contradicting IMO.

AND on topic, to answer the first question "is humanity worse as a species just because we don't let survival of the fittest take place?":
No, it just means that we humans are kinda breaking the law of evolution, thus becoming kind of a "cheaters of nature" where nature doesn't have the mods powerful enough to remove us (semi-bizarre analogy), if you catch my drift. If we would stop cheating at evolution, then that would practically mean we would have to remove all governments and go super-duper uncontrolled anarchy, where every man, woman and child is for themselves.

And cheating evolution seems like the better option for me, that's all.