Worse off as a species?

[Synek]

Well then..
GO GENETIC ENGINEERING GO!

 

[Neonbob]

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

I'll make you King of Iceland.
(/punny joke)

Why would you do that to yourself? And I'll take it!

 

[CplDustov]

I feel issues are being mixed. People aren't equal because winners are better at X than the other person? Yet by equal in the Hitler, Gandhi it seems like you are talking about being a better person.

So your theory of an elitist school would probably allow people to be taught to their level but it also could breed the "I'm superior to you therefore I get to treat you a second class citizen" Which is a less extreme version of what Hitler did.

In which case it's not me that making the argument that Hitler is, what you call, equal to Ghandhi but yourself saying he was and that he was thinking along the right lines (though not necessarily in the practical aspects and that his was an ethological preference and the opinion you is intellectualist).

Surely what makes Hitler bad or wrong was his treatment of other humans even though he was better at convincing the system to follow him than the opposition was, given the circumstances (for the duration of his rule at least).

I personally would argue that both Hitler and Gandhi are equal, not that Hitler is better. The distinction that needs to be made is superior/better, worse/inferior (in terms of equality, in terms of aptitude and in terms of morality).

But a very interesting angle on this debate, thanks for posting this.

 

[Internet Kraken]

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.

Well, then humanity dies.
I don't have a big problem with that, either.

Well my other point still stands. If you kill off what is considered to be an idiot right now it would not eliminate idiocy forever. The standards of society would merely change. Society will develop a new image of what an idiot is, so idiots would still exist.

 

[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.

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.

How could what i suggesting destroy the human race. I stated by my original argument that if you cant survive you do not deserve to live. So that means I can't accept living just for the sake of living. I believe actions justify life. So when i get put in a situation where i can't complete actions that i consider the purpose of my existence then I cannot justify my next breath.

 

[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.

How could what i suggesting destroy the human race. I stated by my original argument that if you cant survive you do not deserve to live. So that means I can't accept living just for the sake of living. I believe actions justify life. So when i get put in a situation where i can't complete actions that i consider the purpose of my existence then I cannot justify my next breath.

What you're suggesting would heavily reduce genetic diversity. A species needs genetic diversity to survive.

There is no such thing as a perfect set of genes. What is genetically superior right now could be inferior due to changes in the environment. If we followed your advice and killed the people that are not genetically superior we would be left with a species with limited genetic diversity. If some disaster occurred that made these genes inferior, all these people would die. In a species with genetic variation, some members of the population could survive and reproduce. What you're suggesting would eliminate genetic diversity, preventing this from happening.

So humans could become extinct.

 

[Oldmanwillow]

Well my other point still stands. If you kill off what is considered to be an idiot right now it would not eliminate idiocy forever. The standards of society would merely change. Society will develop a new image of what an idiot is, so idiots would still exist.

I suppose I see your point.
If the standards rise, then people who would be considered intelligent right now may be considered stupid in the future.

But still, I don't see how that is really an issue.

second.

 

[Aloran]

Whilst I do agree that natural selection has all but died in our society in modern society. I believe that it has died due to the enhancement of the human race.
Because, as humans, we have the ability to reason and determine right from wrong, we have the ability to roughly determine what is right in the world, and what is wrong. This makes us compassionate to others.

Natural selection died because humanity reached the point at which the populace stopped solely caring for themselves. It is our own downfall.

HOWEVER, I agree that stupidity is a whole other issue

 

[darkorion69]

Human reason does set us in a different place than our fellow species. It presents us with knowledge of the consequences of our actions. Societal morality then attempts to define 'good/bad' in objective terms. Unfortunately, reality itself is largely subjective as humans are far more prone to favoring their emotions, opinions and beliefs over rational thoughts, facts and truths. Thus subjective morality rules our species and prevents escape from the biological imperatives of survival and evolution.

Modern humanity has ceased evolving biologically imho. Technological and sociological development have shifted us away from 'survival of the fittest'. Now it is survival of the most technologically, psychologically, and sociologically advanced societies. When we learn more about our tools, ourselves, and our fellow humans...we thrive and reproduce. If we choose our instincts, our emotions, or our religions instead...we are reversing this new evolutionary process.

Competition is not the only force that brings evolution, or as I prefer to call it species enlightenment. If a person tries to understand themselves and their fellow humans they will prosper far more today than if they go out challenging everyone to physical combat and taking mates by force to ensure only the strongest breed. Those that contend that competition brings out the best in people often ignore that it also brings out the worst in people. If you want to test what competition brings out in people, try playing online FPS and MMO games PvP style...seldom will you see the best in fellow players.

 

[darkorion69]

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.

Hitler thought that intellectuals should die because they disagreed with his eugenic theories. He classified them as 'stupid' so I guess if we followed your idea...you would be the first to be eliminated. No human has the foresight or wisdom to decide that someone should die based on intellectual acumen.

 

[Oldmanwillow]

Human reason does set us in a different place than our fellow species. It presents us with knowledge of the consequences of our actions. Societal morality then attempts to define 'good/bad' in objective terms. Unfortunately, reality itself is largely subjective as humans are far more prone to favoring their emotions, opinions and beliefs over rational thoughts, facts and truths. Thus subjective morality rules our species and prevents escape from the biological imperatives of survival and evolution.

Modern humanity has ceased evolving biologically imho. Technological and sociological development have shifted us away from 'survival of the fittest'. Now it is survival of the most technologically, psychologically, and sociologically advanced societies. When we learn more about our tools, ourselves, and our fellow humans...we thrive and reproduce. If we choose our instincts, our emotions, or our religions instead...we are reversing this new evolutionary process.

Competition is not the only force that brings evolution, or as I prefer to call it species enlightenment. If a person tries to understand themselves and their fellow humans they will prosper far more today than if they go out challenging everyone to physical combat and taking mates by force to ensure only the strongest breed. Those that contend that competition brings out the best in people often ignore that it also brings out the worst in people. If you want to test what competition brings out in people, try playing online FPS and MMO games PvP style...seldom will you see the best in fellow players.

Very good post.

First off i would agree that most of human society does make there decisions off of emotions, opinions and beliefs. Thats a huge problem with our society and it needs to get correct or human beings will never be able to improve past the current state that we are in.

Competition brings out the best and the worst in people agreed. I would still rather risk dealing with worst in people all the time, to have a chance to see humanity become some for more than it is today.

When I am talking about better genes i do not just mean physical attributes, I also include what you call species enlightenment, our intellectual abilities are superior qualities. We are in a age of reason and intellect over physical abilities and as a species we need to recognize it and foster more and more intellectuals.

 

[darkorion69]

Who ever said that having a good job had any correlation to breeding? Male genitals+female genitals and keeping a woman from escaping for nine months doesn't require a job. Just requires a cave and living off the land, ethics aside.

 

[Oldmanwillow]

Who ever said that having a good job had any correlation to breeding? Male genitals+female genitals and keeping a woman from escaping for nine months doesn't require a job. Just requires a cave and living off the land, ethics aside.

It should be. If you cannot afford to have children because you have a bad job because you didn't compete during the phase of life that competition was available. then you shouldn't have children because it would be living out side of your means.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Well my other point still stands. If you kill off what is considered to be an idiot right now it would not eliminate idiocy forever. The standards of society would merely change. Society will develop a new image of what an idiot is, so idiots would still exist.

I suppose I see your point.
If the standards rise, then people who would be considered intelligent right now may be considered stupid in the future.

But still, I don't see how that is really an issue.

second.

So you don't see how an endless cycle of slaughter is a problem?

 

[darkorion69]

For myself I am a bit of an intellectual elitist, and quite happily unemployed. I am a philosopher and a lover primarily. I have never been a strong wage earner, money and success just never got my juices flowing I think. My two girlfriends willingly support me and my son (my ex-wife has my daughter) compassionately because they love me. To return their kindness I offer my life experience, advice, and financial management skills to my happy little triad so that we all prosper. I think the whole is greater than the sum of our parts, don't you?

 

[Oldmanwillow]

I feel issues are being mixed. People aren't equal because winners are better at X than the other person? Yet by equal in the Hitler, Gandhi it seems like you are talking about being a better person.

So your theory of an elitist school would probably allow people to be taught to their level but it also could breed the "I'm superior to you therefore I get to treat you a second class citizen" Which is a less extreme version of what Hitler did.

In which case it's not me that making the argument that Hitler is, what you call, equal to Ghandhi but yourself saying he was and that he was thinking along the right lines (though not necessarily in the practical aspects and that his was an ethological preference and the opinion you is intellectualist).

Surely what makes Hitler bad or wrong was his treatment of other humans even though he was better at convincing the system to follow him than the opposition was, given the circumstances (for the duration of his rule at least).

I personally would argue that both Hitler and Gandhi are equal, not that Hitler is better. The distinction that needs to be made is superior/better, worse/inferior (in terms of equality, in terms of aptitude and in terms of morality).

But a very interesting angle on this debate, thanks for posting this.

No my argument for why people are unequal is bases off "people are no more then the sum of all of there actions during there life" Since some people are better at competition they will have achieved more through there life so is superior then people who has achieved less. This argument also needs the greater good in mind when judgeing actions. So if a person hasn't done much to increase the greater good and is compared to a person that spent his whole life trying to achieve the greater good. The second person has lived a better life.

I do not say that we should treat people who aren't as smart as second class citizens they should just be left to there own devises. So if a person didn't take learning in school seriously we should send that child to a trade school so at least they have a skill for they won't go hungry and die. Naturally they wont make as much money as a person who did well so they wont have the means to enjoy themselves.

When i was talking about Hitler and Gandhi i was saying there actions in life were unequal so they are unequal.

 

[LazerLuger]

Stopped evolving? just wait until we start giving birth to those with the X-gene, and the mutants take over!

allowing the dumb to survive does make me wonder whether or not we'll have an "Idiocracy" situation in the future.