Worse off as a species?
- Thread starter Oldmanwillow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I do not think the whole is greater then the sums of its parts. I believe that we are nothing more than the sum of are actions we have taken no more no less.darkorion69 said:
If it were an intellectual meritocracy enhanced with my actions determining my continued existence, I feel I would be safe. My girlfriends would not make the cut to be honest, they are not particularly helpful to society at large. But my son (10 years old btw)is kinda stupid really, so how long would he be allowed stupidity before we could write him off and I can kick him out in this system you propose?
Humans are entering a new stage of evolution, intelligent selection, where children will be grown to better than there ancestors. There will be no need for a cure to disease because our children's grand-children will be able to digest raw elements and have carbon tubes for bones. In this new world everyone will be superhuman who has enough money...
Probably not, since we human rely on more than physical strength and endurance in order to survive. A person may be weak or sickly, but he may be incredibly intelligent, and could quite possibly survive simply because he could think quicker or could figure out exactly what he or she needed to do in order to survive. Should some major catastrophe occur, the Human Race, with our vast amount of genetic diversity, as well as its ability to alter our own environment, we can be far more confident in our survival as a species than our feral brethren.
Humanity is doomed to utter destruction, due to their own utter FUCKING STUPIDITY! I'm just helping it go along faster... And so is George Carlin, when you think about it.
The OP is misusing the idea of survival of the fittest. A scientist that finds the cure for cancer and dies without children is not more fit than a bum who has one kid live to adulthood. It is the ability to pass on you genetic code that determines your fitness in the evolutionary sense.
Evolutionary competition does not inspire all beings to become better. It limits or prevents certain members of a species the opportunity of breeding. If giraffes have to compete for a limited food supply; those with shorter necks will have fewer choices and be more likely to starve. Those with the longest necks will have more food options thus making them less likely to starve and allow them to pass on the genes for longer necks.
It does not reward traits that we see as positive unless those traits also improve this ability. A teenage couple who were too dumb to use protection and got pregnant could be well suited to pass on their genetic code. Society frowns on it but survival of the fittest applies to behaviours that work.
Evolutionary competition does not inspire all beings to become better. It limits or prevents certain members of a species the opportunity of breeding. If giraffes have to compete for a limited food supply; those with shorter necks will have fewer choices and be more likely to starve. Those with the longest necks will have more food options thus making them less likely to starve and allow them to pass on the genes for longer necks.
It does not reward traits that we see as positive unless those traits also improve this ability. A teenage couple who were too dumb to use protection and got pregnant could be well suited to pass on their genetic code. Society frowns on it but survival of the fittest applies to behaviours that work.
My plan is to put everyone who thinks we should go back to natural selection out on an island filled with angry lions.
I'm a young 14 year old who doesn't want to do much, and still make a living. I want to be you.Wouldukindly said:
ya ever see Idiocracy? here's a link to the first page on Googles list for ithttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/Skeleon said:
watch that a few times and tell me we don't need good genes.
Passive eugenics: The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own.
I agree in removing breeding rights to people who have been shown to need those warning labels for common sense things.
Let me tell you a story. A few years back, in my home state of Washington, a group of families decided to sue a toy company. This company made toy construction materials that centered on magnetic ball-bearings to hold things togther. These toys were clearly marked as choking hazards and were not recommended for children under 8. These parents, many of whom lost a child due to swallowing these ball-bearings, sued anyways. Despite the fact that none of the kids that died were over the age of five, the parents sued because the company didn't post what would happen if TWO OR MORE of the bearings were swallowed and twisted the insides through magentic attraction.
I am glad they lost their children. I know, it's heartless. I don't care. If you cannot be bothered to pay attention to your child, then maybe your right to have one should be taken away from you until you know better. I am pretty damned sure that they pay more attention to what their kids play with now, I can guarantee.
I agree in removing breeding rights to people who have been shown to need those warning labels for common sense things.
Let me tell you a story. A few years back, in my home state of Washington, a group of families decided to sue a toy company. This company made toy construction materials that centered on magnetic ball-bearings to hold things togther. These toys were clearly marked as choking hazards and were not recommended for children under 8. These parents, many of whom lost a child due to swallowing these ball-bearings, sued anyways. Despite the fact that none of the kids that died were over the age of five, the parents sued because the company didn't post what would happen if TWO OR MORE of the bearings were swallowed and twisted the insides through magentic attraction.
I am glad they lost their children. I know, it's heartless. I don't care. If you cannot be bothered to pay attention to your child, then maybe your right to have one should be taken away from you until you know better. I am pretty damned sure that they pay more attention to what their kids play with now, I can guarantee.
OK this is a very precarious subject. As this is entirely dependant on how far you are willing to take this idea. Do you purge those who are disabled who otherwise in the natural world would have been killed and prevented from continuing their genes.
Obviously we don't have natural selection any more simply because those people who as I have said would normally die from various illness. How many people have been saved from death by an operation or intervention by drugs? Human beings are exempt from natural selection from due to these things. On your example of education that's what tests at the end of your studying are for. They separate the people who worked and who are more intelligent, from the people who didn't and aren't.
I do agree that people who are good should be allowed to succeed but not at the total disregard of our fellow man. This is what has generated the problems of the Credit Crunch, out of control capitalism, people with total disregard as to whatever their actions did to the rest of the world, only that they got the best out of the situation.
You can't expect anyone to be perfect as they will always have some fault,to use two famous examples; Einstein couldn't talk properly through some of his childhood(and was appalling at maths and Alexander the Great was epileptic with many other physical faults.
We have benefited from the loss of natural selection because unlike animals we have the ability to improve ourselves along the span of our lives. Evolution really only has short term effecst as it really only applies to genetic characteristics. The skills we value such as intelligence are incredibly difficult to control through natural selection. These are too affected by environmental influences such as upbringing. So rather than exterminating those who aren't as genetically gifted as others we should work on improving everyone else. That is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Obviously we don't have natural selection any more simply because those people who as I have said would normally die from various illness. How many people have been saved from death by an operation or intervention by drugs? Human beings are exempt from natural selection from due to these things. On your example of education that's what tests at the end of your studying are for. They separate the people who worked and who are more intelligent, from the people who didn't and aren't.
I do agree that people who are good should be allowed to succeed but not at the total disregard of our fellow man. This is what has generated the problems of the Credit Crunch, out of control capitalism, people with total disregard as to whatever their actions did to the rest of the world, only that they got the best out of the situation.
You can't expect anyone to be perfect as they will always have some fault,to use two famous examples; Einstein couldn't talk properly through some of his childhood(and was appalling at maths and Alexander the Great was epileptic with many other physical faults.
We have benefited from the loss of natural selection because unlike animals we have the ability to improve ourselves along the span of our lives. Evolution really only has short term effecst as it really only applies to genetic characteristics. The skills we value such as intelligence are incredibly difficult to control through natural selection. These are too affected by environmental influences such as upbringing. So rather than exterminating those who aren't as genetically gifted as others we should work on improving everyone else. That is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
I agree it is heartless, but careless of their parents, but this doesn't mean that the children should deserve to be killed. They could have improved on their parents. As the inability to recognise age warnings is not an inherent genetic factor.JaredXE said:
Also eugenics is a horrible thing and totally against the whole basis of most of our society, that each human being though not made equal has equal potential, bar certain impeding factors such as mental illness etc...
so the smart strong and successful should dedicate their lives to the betterment of those stupid weak and looser-ful? isn't that why so much of the world hates america?
"you suck! do it this way!"
"NO!" *boom*
"you suck! do it this way!"
"NO!" *boom*
Hmm, haven't seen it but, well, it's some comedy I never heard of.red the fister said:
Not enough to change my moral preferences, sorry.
Imho it's not so much genes but education/upbringing that shapes a human's mind (which is undoubtedly the most important thing nowadays).
People focus too much on genes as it is.
They're a very rough blue-print, guys, not a predestined railtrack.